Understanding Obama's Recent Right Turn
OK, we all knew, deep down, that our wondrous golden boy of change would one day reveal his feet of clay. What most of us did not anticipate was just how easily they would fit into jackboots.
There has emerged a conventional wisdom among progressives that is not entirely wrong about why Obama has so readily embraced police state surveillance, and why he felt compelled to express his solidarity with Scalia, et al, on the death penalty. As the thinking goes, these moves are simply the expectable, if disheartening, political positioning typical of Democratic presidential candidates, once they enter the general election campaign.
He surely did not want to rebut Republican ads like this:
Low, rumbling, ominous music gradually increases in volume as a solemn voice that oozes manly gravitas announces, "Barack Obama voted against a bill to that would help our intelligence agencies detect terrorist plots against our nation before they can be carried out. Why does he want to protect the privacy of Al-Qaeda's phone calls more than he wants to protect Americans from Al-Qaeda? [Cut to an image of a World Trade Tower falling.] Barack Obama doesn't want the death penalty applied to criminals who sexually assault and brutalize little children. Why does he care more about child rapists [cut to image of a swarthy unshaven convict doing the perp walk] than he does about their victims? [Cut to an image of doe-eyed little blond girl with tears rolling down her apple cheeks, as she lies in an oversized hospital bed holding tightly to her teddy bear.] Barack Obama and his friends at the ACLU care about terrorists and rapists. Vote for John McCain. He cares about us." [As reassuring music swells, cut to an image of a younger looking, photo-shopped McCain in his crisp Naval officer's uniform. One arm is around a child, the other rising in a determined salute to the flag.]
It is certainly reasonable for Democratic candidates to fear they might face attack ads such as this, and we might have seen something like this one air had Obama opposed the new FISA bill. Facing the possibility of this kind of right wing assault, it is not surprising to see so many erstwhile liberal politicians preemptively surrender their principles. That Obama, too, would adopt this strategy has been particularly demoralizing for his progressive supporters. After all, he has a mostly excellent and morally consistent voting record. But more importantly, he has very vocally eschewed the Machiavellian political calculations that we have come to expect from other members of his party. To see Barack Obama behave like any other invertebrate Democrat is an especially painful blow.
However, this conventional wisdom on his political cowardice doesn't plumb the problem deeply enough. Obama's resort to the triangulation of the old politics is an admission of a much more serious limitation. It tells us that he does not believe in his own ability to reframe certain key issues in a way that makes a progressive stance the one that is obviously the most moral. It shows that he does not feel up to the task of rendering some liberal principles intellectually clear and emotionally compelling.
His limited ability to exercise moral leadership leaves him with no choice other than to accept Republican frames on issues. So, on the FISA bill, for example, loss of privacy and immunity for criminal telecom companies become a trivial price to pay for protection from unfathomable and pervasive Evil.
But this raises the question of what a progressive reframe on an issue like this might look like. Here is one idea. But I'd love for commenters to offer theirs. Someone from Obama's staff is probably monitoring the Huffington Post in order to take the temperature of the progressive blogosphere, which has grown increasingly feverish over the Democratic candidate's recent unprincipled retreats. If they are reading this, perhaps together we may be able to revivify the Obama campaign's moribund moral imagination.
The 30-second ad opens on a scene in a middle class suburban kitchen. A mother is speaking on the phone. Her voice is muffled and is drowned out by an intermittent electronic beep, along with the sounds of someone frenetically striking a computer keyboard. The screen quickly splits in half to reveal the woman's nine-year-old daughter speaking by cell phone to inform her mother that she is ready to be picked up from the school bus stop. The screen is then split in thirds to reveal a man wearing headphones sitting in front of a computer typing notes, obviously monitoring the mother-daughter conversation. Behind him is a massive warehouse filled with computers and scurrying NSA technicians. This image then takes up the entire screen. The voiceover says, "Republicans, like George Bush and John McCain, have taken away our freedoms, invaded our private lives, and made us less safe." We then quickly see a succession of images -- a scene from Iraq that features a burning American tank, a scene of grenade launchers being placed into a packing crate, a scene of an unguarded American port where uninspected shipping containers are being off loaded, and finally a scene of a car with blacked out windows slowing down in front of an unsecured nuclear power plant. A window rolls down. A hand holding a camera reaches out to snap photos. Then the car speeds away. The voice over then concludes, "Protecting America means preserving our rights [cut to an image of the Constitution in which the camera scrolls down the Bill of Rights section], along with defeating terrorists." The last image is a scene of Barack Obama standing up and pointing toward a large map of some unidentifiable part of the world. Below him is a large conference table of twenty or so advisors who are listening with rapt attention.
In spite of his limitations, there is too much at stake to not work hard to make sure Barack Obama moves into the White House. And, once there, we must hold his clay feet to the fire.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Actually the correct messaging is really simple. It's this: If Barack Obama can't or won't defend the Constitution because it doesn't seem politically expedient to do so, why should we trust him on anything else or believe his message of being a candidate of change?
Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece on this same subject claiming Progressives can win by standing true to their beliefs and he backed this up with examples of recent elections where this was the case. Even George Bush was able to convince enough voters in 2004 that at least they knew where he stood. It's when candidates start triangulating all over the place and voters don't know where they stand that signals to voters you are weak and it costs you an election. Strong people don't have to pander for votes. Instead they project an air of confidence in what they believe in that becomes contagious to anyone viewing or hearing them.
The only reason Obama's shifts may not create more fallout for Obama is because McCain is also doing the same or worse to make himself acceptable to conservatives and the religious right. A lot of smart people feel McCain would be doing much better if he hadn't been flip-flopping all over the place and acted more like the "maverick" of old...okay "really old."
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
It is not hard to understand, except for an ideologue. The american people have had a chance to vote for the left for the last 40 years or more and have not. Less ideology, more pragmatic solutions to problems. The disaster that is Bushism is testament to the horror of putting "principle" over practical solutions. We do not need any more ideological litmus tests. Both parties require that their nominee's pander to the true believers. But the majority of the people want moderate, bipartisan solutions. Unless they are scared into voting for the fringe. Lets not make this election an election between Fear of Obama versus Disgust at the Republicans. If Mr Obama can convince the majority of the country that he is willing to seek consensus and adopt moderate workable solutions to the mess Bush got us into then the vote will be FOR Obama, not Against McCain.
I agree with you completely. That's exactly why I supportted Hillary Rodaham Clinton. Obama is taking the positions he attacked Hillary for taking. Obamaists have been played for the fools they are.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say, but the alliance between the Left and Right in bring down Hillary's campaign is not so strange. The Left and Right have much more in common then they would like to admit. Both want to rule by ideology and remake the country in their twisted image. Both use the same tactics. But in fairness to Obama I think the hysteria is on the part of his "followers", not on him. They project on him what they want to see. I remember how Reagan infuriated the Right (which they have conviently forgotten) by moving to the center and not giving them all they wanted in 1980. Endless analysis ensued on his "betrayal" of conservative "principles". Hopefully if Mr Obama is elected he also will selectively 'betray" certain principles of the Left and govern from the center.
I completely agree with the author of the post and it is too bad Obama
does not feel capable of offering a strong protection of our rights under
the Constitution.
I'll tell you this, though. How much guts does it take to see that retroactive
immunity is wrong? Especially when one of the small telecoms (Quest)
didn't answer when this administration came a callin?
I am a leftie, but not a supporter of Obama. And, I find Obama supporters
not a little hypocritical when they turn themselves into pretzels (much like
the Supreme Court in Gore v Florida) to rationalize Obama's end justifies
the means Machiavellian actions. Especially when these were the
voices ratcheted at their highest pitch to condemn Hillary when she
executed any triangulation.
Humble pie, anyone?
...How much guts does it take to see that retroactive
immunity is wrong?....
No guts at all. Just an over-riding desire to satisfy his own political success--at the expense of the Constitution.
But, hey, according to the Obamabots, it's no big deal, right? It's not about change; it's about _winning_.
And tasty Kool-Aid and snacks.
I never really understood the visceral dislike of Hillary by so many leftie bloggers, but having read this post, I now know --
We build up our champions to destroy them. Just like Republicans, we eat our young.
"jackboots".... "police state surveillance"..... "political cowardice"..... "unprincipled retreats"...... "moribund moral imagination"......
Gimme a break! If you actually backed up your feelings with some real facts, rather than just your projections of political gamesmanship or things that might happen but never have, you might have something to say. Otherwise, really, Stephen, this kind of hysteria is best addressed with a klonopin or a xanax, maybe two.
i didn't used to be cynical. now i think the only way to beat the neocons and right-wing fear-mongers is to BE SMARTER THAN THEY ARE at their own game. they will do or say whatever lie or distortion to sway a largely ignorant citizenry. this is a chess match. it doesn't matter what a candidate says or promises during an election except that which gets him/her elected. george w. lied continuously during his campaigns, and guess what? it worked.
let's not be naive. we have to fight these people. watch duke's Coach K on the sidelines when his team is up 40 points . . . he's telling his team to "kill them kill them kill them kill them! put them AWAY! don't let up for a single second!"
that's what obama has to do now. he CAN'T count on voters "doing the right thing." he CAN count on them to "play it safe," to soothe their fears, to do whatever they ignorantly think of as their best interests - "screw everybody else" and their progressive ideas about altruism and integrity. voters have proven several times in my lifetime that they just can't tell what's best for them or for the country.
obama has the progressives' vote. who else are they going to vote for, seriously? now he need to make certain that he gets those "undecided" simpletons who still can't tell he's obviously the best choice. that's why he must play the center now until he's elected.
"Let's not be naive" You sound like the poster child! I will also quote from your profile "trust him". You then say it doesn't matter what he says or does to get elected. And you call the "undecided" simpletons. If he will lie to the undecided he will lie to you. Just think of this, GWB got elected by the same simpletons.
He is a scholar of the Constitution and a former law professor teaching constitutional law.
Why has he not made the point that congress does not have the power to write any law that is contrary to provisions of the Constitution. Illegal wiretapping is called that for a reason.
The Constitution forbids it...period. If Congress is passing laws to by-pass, those are unconstitutional laws and those who vote for them have violated their oath of office by so voting.
I long ago gave up on Bush respecting the Constitution...
Well, if you want to be quite technical about, Congress has every power necessary to write a law that is totally contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
And the Court has every power necessary to overturn a law that they determine is unconstitutional. But law is not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.
ZING...
Nice post....
Michale.....
I'm not sure it's as bad as it seems. Some of these moves, I expected. Some, he signaled during the primaries. He's clear that he doesn't "love" the new FISA bill and will still work to fix it (last I heard). And, criminal prosecution is still an option. And he's always held the 2nd amendment to be an individual right. On the death penalty, I think this may be his honest opinion.
What concerns me most is his acceptance of Republican frames. He is challenging the frame of patriotism. Gotta give him that. By his definition, even I'm a patriot and I don't "love" this country in any sense. I just happened to have been born here as were my parents and grandparents and so forth and so on down to an African woman who was named Mariah after surviving the Middle Passage.
Challenging patriotism in this political climate is a big deal. He's no MLK (the actual MLK not the Santa Clause MlK), but he's still much better on race than anyone else except for Cynthia McKinney (G). That's a big deal. And, I'm not sure this is the political environment to challenge every single ignorant Republican frame. Plus, the election is just 5 months away, we don't have that kinda time, folks!
That said, his acceptance of conservative frames does concern me. And no, I never thought he was any kind of Messiah.
What Right turn? I said it before and I'll say it again. I did NOT vote for Dennis Kucinich. I voted for a centrist with brains and judgment (and lack of ego) to be able to back down when there is very little harm and much good compromise in doing so. People, this is the most you can hope for. One step at a time. This is America, remember? Checks and balances? Multiple parties? Differing points of view???
Centrists no longer believe in the COnstitution?
First of all, when was the last liberal president, because the conservatives keep beating the liberals we put up. They are afraid of being called cowards by their wine and cheese buddies so they fold like a house of cards and don't move to the center. Did anyone from the liberal progressive movement ever ask Obama how he felt on these issues. Just because a conservative rag calls him the most liberal senator doesn't actually make him the most liberal senator. He isn't Feingold or Wellstone or Kennedy, and none of those people could get elected. The ability to influence the president is the change he brings. By getting lobbyists out of the way Obama is able to actually hear the voices of the people. All this hysteria is silly, Real Politik people. Get used to it.
J
ps - the people picking the justices, staffing the various departments like Education, State, DOJ, Health, Interior, Defense, etc are all going to be people we trust. All going to be people we know. Wouid the Progressive movement accept Biden as State, Clarke as Defense, Edwards as DOJ, Rendell as Interior.... or do you want another Rummy and Wolfie, and Dick running things. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 'liberals' keep losing only because they betray their liberal base and move to the right. Today the country has moved left and we don't want to find both candidates to the right of where the majority now is.
EXACTLY
"The 'liberals' keep losing only because they betray their liberal base and move to the right. "
If all your candidates betray their liberal base and move to the right, perhaps that should tell you that maybe, JUST MAYBE, that it's the base that is the problem and not the candidates..
Something to think about, eh??
And I say that as a person who is, with a few exceptions (4 to be exact) probably the most liberal one here...
Michale.....
Democrats don't loose elections because they're left of center.
They loose when they don't seem to have any convictions at all.
no. they lose because they're outsmarted.
Exactly
please give him a break...HE HAS NO CHOICE then go to the CENTER, That's the only way, he will WIN...
He is fighting an e..v..i..l.. machine
TRUST HIM.....
So it's evil if Hillary does it but he has no choice? Stop drinking the kool-aid my friend- Jim Jones....
No.
I don't trust sock puppets.
Very interesting blog to put it kindly. You expected SOMETHING ELSE from a Chicago MACHINE politician? Move toward the CENTER? TRUST HIM. Give him a BREAK. WHERE have I heard ALL this before. Wait!! I know. It was from BushCo and friends.
Sorry!!! I didn't buy it then and I not buying it now.
Not what you had in mind from the "Messiah?" Hummm,
Sorry 'bout that you know.
Abandoning the Bill of Rights is not "centrist". Sorry, that one does not fly.
HE HAS NO CHOICE!
To WIN he has to go to the center or the extreme right will take over AGAIN!!!!!
TRUST HIM !!!!
So you are advocating he misrepresent himself and what he stands for? Pure expediency? The ends justifies the means?
But then what are his core beliefs? We sure do not know, as he has been very careful to only give us a glimps.
Please explain why a progressive, espousing a progressive agenda is unelectable?
you're not digging deep enough to find out answers to your own questions. this is why you only have a "glimpse."
read one of his books. seriously, do the work. this is important. why would you trust someone else to tell you his "core beliefs?" get them from him.
as to explaining why a progressive espousing a progressive agenda is unelectable . . . i wish i knew the answer to that one, too . . . but the truth is, it IS unelectable in today's world. if you don't see that you haven't been paying attention.
The point is he doesn't have to do that. He needs to rise above it. Isn't that the reason why he's the nominee? Isn't that what you wanted? NOW you're willing to compromise? What's the point of having the slogan "CHANGE"??? Do we alter it to "CHANGE.....WELL......SOON...YEAH...SOON..CHANGE....AFTER....THE ELECTION....UM....YES WE CAN!...AFTER THE ELECTION!" That would be some banner....
I no longer trust him. Upholding the Constitution is NOT a leftist position
Part of the problem is we're not doing our jobs. I've heard a whole lot of clamor from fiscal conservatives and the religious right saying that McCain isn't conservative enough, but I've never heard anyone say Obama (or Kerry or Gore before him) isn't liberal enough. Are we that desperate to get a Democrat elected President that we'll just give him a free pass every time he moves to the right?
We need a smart centrist. That is who I voted for. He could move all the way to the right of our Democratic platform and we would still be better off than the left side of the Republican platform.
Exactly! Sure, we are supposed trust Obama the same way we trusted Bill Clinton when he pandered for the gay vote on the promise he’d issue an executive order to end gay discrimination in the military. Instead he rolled over for fundamentalists (just as Obama has done) and turned around and wrote homophobic policy into law by signing Don’t ask. Don’t Tell. Next he signed the unconstitutional DOMA and next we saw him coming our of church waving a Bible. Now Senator Obama wants to issue gays a receipt for deceit by enacting gay Jim Crow Civil Union laws as his ‘separate but [not] equal’ seat in the back of the bus.
Obama is a classic Dixiecrat horse-trading on ‘fundamental’ civil rights. Of course not one journalist has had the audacity to ask this so-called civil rights lawyer (this might be a good place to vomit) on what LEGAL basis he can justify using religion to violate the 1st amendment for the nefarious purpose of denying ‘fundamental’ rights protected by ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection’ as guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Hey folks that’s not one Constitutional violation but TWO! ("Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo," by John P. Mortimer, Bay Area Reporter 11/16/2006 at http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73 .)
I have a horrible feeling (and I hope I'm wrong), that these latest moves are from the DNC (or Rahm or Carville or someone from Hillary's camp) -- the whole "triangulation" thing -- it all just feels way too familiar, in that oh-no, sickening sort of way. Dare I say it? Obama is going to splinter his base further with this strategy. Why this turn to the center? Who are these mythical people who want more spying on Americans and less accountability for telecom corporations? Come on! The whole thing smells.
Really? Your answer is the blame it on the Clintons? What a tired old excuse to avoid having to paint Obama with anything even resembling responsibility for his own actions.
I'll give my summary in Jeopardy format-
A: A crock
Q: What is this comment blaming everything on the Clinton?
You are correct.
It's dismaying to hear you talk of how the right is getting such a strong payback after it has invested billions in the corrupt MSM.
You paint a real good picture of how they will use fear in their ads targetting Obama. Even making it more clear how Obama and his staff may be quite intimidated.
Its time to stop being intimidated.
It's time to stop forgetting how furious Americans are at this administration, rightwingers,, and all they have been doing to this nation; realizing that underestimating this is what REALLY brought Hillary down.
It's also time to stop underestimating the intelligence of the mass public now that we have the internet as a principal means to get the news. Simply look at the difference between the '04 elections, and the '06 electinos. In '06 we finally had the internet in almost every home in America. in '04 TV news, CNN, FOX, et al., which the right OWNS was the principal venue. Do we forget that easily? No one in their wildest dreams had any idea we would win the house AND THE SENATE on regular TV news.
And its time for Obama to stop underestimating raw emotions that Americans cling, thats right, CLING to, and understand... Obama's talent isn't just speeches, but MAKING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND. If he makes himself available as much as possible, and explain his moves, comes right back fighting EVERYTIME, which he has always done so well. for that, we will always support him.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
