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.

Comments

[Michale32086]

CONT

It's a long arduous process that simply cannot be stopped and started to make sure every "i" is crossed or every "t" is dotted..

FISA is cumbersome and outdated and does NOT work well for CT operations. In my humble opinion, FISA should be relegated back to what it was intended for (espionage acquisitions) and a new system designed specifically for CT operations­..

Unfortuanatly, with there being such a political civil war going on here, that is not feasible..

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@LyricalLexicon

>So the best way to protect this country is to shred
>the protections that are provided in the constitution?

Could you please point out the sections that "shred the protections" of the US Constitution. I have read the measures frontwards and backwards and I cannot find anything that does what you claim. I HAVE found MANY sections that STRENGTHEN the protections of the 4th Amendment. I have even posted some of them.

THINK for yourself. Read them and you will come to the same conclusion that I have..

>I doubt that Bin Laden and his lieutenants
>are discussing battle strategy through electronic
>communication so how this FISA bill will save us
>from Al Qaeda I don't know.

Have you ever worked CT ops?? Ever worked on intelligence?? I have..

No one is expecting that we're going to intercept a call from Bin Laden saying, "I am at the Ritz Carlton in New York City." That's not how it works..

How it DOES work is that Bin Laden tells his senior staff something. That staff tells the LTs and the LTs tell the underlings and the underlings tell all the grunts over whatever communications are available. And THAT is the intel that FISA targets for acquisitions. Because once that intel is received, it's possible to trace the chain backwards.

CONT

[RnR]

Your "advice" assumes the rather naive assumption that interceptions of communications will be pristine and unadulterated - in other words - not only not intercepted and "reviewed" by any 3rd party nations, but not willingly turned over to any 3rd party nations for "further action" as it were.

Prove it.

We are to accept that our benevolent daddy government is only looking for bad guys. We live here. With the advent of fascism (that's a situation where corporations do things like, well, write legislation in concert with those purporting to be our *representatives* and not our *overseers*) things have a tendency to become rather vague.

I don't like vague. I don't like back doors in software let alone legislation. There are plenty of people in our government whom I would bet money could not pass a psychological evaluation. Yeah, we'll trust you and them.

[Michale32086]

I am talking about the communications directly acquired under FISA by US authorities. Ergo, I am not sure where you are coming from when you bring in "3rd Party nations"..

As for the "plenty of people" part... What about the people you voted for?? What about the PARTY you voted for?? What about the Dem Pres nominee you support??

Obama and the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate are all on board with these new FISA measures.

Doesn't that tell you something?? Doesn't it indicate that maybe, JUST MAYBE, you might be wrong??

If you cannot even CONCEDE of the possibility that you might be wrong, then that is not principles talking.

That is ego..

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

Regardless of what I said above, I am not asking you to "TRUST" me, Obama OR the majority of the Democratic Party..

I am simply asking you to READ the measures for yourself and form your OWN conclusions.

I am asking you not to regurgitate the propaganda of others and to actually THINK for yourself.

What could possibly be more logical and rational than that??

Let's face it.. You only "trust" those that castigate the new measures because you WANT to believe it's true..

Think for yourself.. That's all I am asking.. Is that so tough??

Michale...­...

[Sarahjan]

anney

I am sorry to lecture to you and this is wrong of me doing, but there is such a thing as need to have effective power to act. Obama is not the President of the United States. His moves at this stage are tactical at best. Obama is a great student of politics; He knows what he is doing. Trust me, he does.

[anney]

Sarahjan

Obama is the leader of the Democratic party now, as the expected nominee. He has a great deal of political power. But for the time being, the ONLY matter he can act on is the FISA bill. If he fails on that and votes for it, if he does not make a passionate appeal to all legislators to vote down this bill with its telecom immunity AND its decrease in judicial oversight, the Democratic party has been failed by him, as well as those of us who worked so hard to boost him toward the nomination. It doesn't matter if the bill passes or not. If he does not stand up strongly for what's right, why should anyone vote for him in the GE? He may be thinking he can get more votes by moving to the right, though he didn't need them -- he was ahead of McCain in the polls before making this move. He'd better hope he gets more votes than the number he loses because of this very unwise move.

And no, I don't trust anyone's assurances once they've betrayed the trust others have given them. Their actions become the focus then and there's no return to trust without integrity in their actions. There's still time -- the vote comes up after the July 4 recess.

[Liberoservative]

Once again...
You have not read the bill... else you would not be complainin­g.... come back when you have some real facts...

[Prism]

To quote another slick old-school pol: Trust but verify!

[Michale32086]

@racom

>Sounds like you have mistaken this issue with
>religion. Trust in God but expect your candidates
>to speak truthfully to you if they expect you to
>support them.

Actually, I am as agnostic as they come.

To me, religion is a crutch for people who can't handle reality..

Just my opinion, mind you. No offense to any religious people out there.

And yes, I trust Obama. He has not given me any reason NOT to trust him. Granted, his reversal on the Public Financing Issue was a bitter pill to swallow. But I see the logic in his position and, though I believe it is a little self-serving, I don't fault him too much for it.

If you don't trust the people you voted in to office, why for the god's sake did you vote for them???

Michale...­.

[FirstShirt]

"To me, religion is a crutch for people who can't handle reality.."

Unlike those who believe that the beauty of man came from some goo that accidentally formed eons ago. Yep, I buy that.

[Michale32086]

I apologize if my statement offended you, FirstShirt­.. I realize I could have been more politically correct in how I phrased things..

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@
@Liberoservative

>Thanks Michale..
>Glad to know that I am not alone on the FISA issue...
>I "did" take time to read all 114 pages of the bill and
>I agree with you 100%

You're quite welcome...

In all my postings on this matter over the last week or so, I have only run into TWO posters who actually read the measures..­. You and one other..

Which is pretty sad because there are thousands of posts on the subject from people who DIDN'T read them, yet feel qualified to comment on the measures.. That group is nearly divided in half.

Half of them were simply TOLD what to think by people or groups with a political agenda. The other half simply follows the lead of the first half..

No wonder the Democratic Party has trouble winning elections.­.

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@RnR

>If Pelosi and Hoyer were so confident nothing
>violated the 4th amendment, why wasn't the
>ACLU or any other citizen protection agency
>attorney allowed into their closed door
>negotiations with the telecoms? "

Probably because there were discussions regarding CT operations, methods and personnel.­. Do you really think that kind of info is going to be allowed to get out into the wild??

Who's side are you on??

>I'm going to hand Pelosi and Hoyer *my*
>rights and *trust* them - not likely."

And yet, the Left voted them into office. Voted them for CONTROL of Congress.

Why would the Left vote them into office if they didn't TRUST them??

Why did you??

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@LyricalLexicon,

>What makes you so sure the government
>will abide by this?

If your argument is that Bush won't obey the law, then it doesn't really matter WHAT laws are passed, right??

If Bush is going to do what he wants anyways, then whatever Congress passes is moot...

>What recourse do we have as citizens if we find
>out that the government has violated this law?

Recourse?? That's coming up in about 5 months..

But just remember this. The majority of Democrats in the House and Senate are on board with this measure. The Democratic Nominee for President is on board with this measure.

Shouldn't that tell you something???

Michale...­..

[LyricalLexicon]

Nope, it tells me that they the telecom people have some serious dirt on them or they know something that we don't and won't tell us which doesn't make me feel any better

[Michale32086]

@racom

>What you have proven is a king size ego.

Yea, so??

>I ask again, still no answer, what is your
>legal experience? Tell us all what are your
>credentials"

I can read....

Have YOU read the new House FISA measures??

Show me where it says that the 4th Amendment can and will be violated. You can't...

But I can (and HAVE) shown you were there are increased 4th Amendment Protection­s..

See, that is the problem with most on the Hysterical Left. They are sheep who are TOLD what to think by politically pandering politicians and lobbyists and groups with agenda. They swallow all the fear-mongering possible and never once try and think for themselves.

READ the measures..­. POINT to the Constitutional conflicts. Quit being a sheep who is told what to think...

As to my "credentia­ls"...Almo­st a quarter century as an LEO and an FSO. Service in two branches of the US Armed forces and an MI EllTee during Desert Storm. A military and intelligence liason with a dozen different countries spanning the globe. I have been in the field. I have walked the walk..

But all that is simply sauce for the goose...

My BIGGEST credential is that I can A> read and B> think for myself.

Something that many MANY on the Left are simply incapable of...

Michale...­..

[Sarahjan]

I am happy about them but I do understand why Obama has to move to the center.


If Obama takes Jim Webb, then the Demos will gain the white working class, GOP will become a fringe party, and the demos will occupy a big center and there will be a new left party in due time. logic suggests this trend.

Obama is staking the center and the demos will be the new traditional partygoverging from the centre. In order to do that, he needs to decouple the white working class from the GOP. Obama his move on Guns and FISA aim at reassuring this information low group. He needs to take Jim Webb next.

[anney]

Obama didn't move to the center. He moved to the far right.

A centrist position is a pledge to undo the illegal damage Bush has done to America and restore us to a Constitutional government.

No telecom immunity, no surveillance of Americans without oversight and specific warrants, no renditions, no "floating prisons" where foreigners are held and tortured without legal recourse, no illegal invasions and occupations of sovereign countries, no more ridiculous "terrorist watchlists" for travelers, no signing statements and secret executive orders, no unitary executive privileges for anyone in the administration -- THAT's the centrist position.

Beyond these things, a centrist position focuses on how government can benefit all Americans on the domestic scene without ruining our treasury, a focus on environmental issues and education, no more tax breaks for the wealthy or corporate welfare, social programs that work to educate us and provide for the common good so that America is a vital world leader again, not a country despised by others because of its brutality and militarism.

These destructive principles have become marked during the Bush administration. A simple stroke of the pen could end some of them, and the rest could be addressed by a committed president and Congress.

Four years to administratively and legislatively undo the damage, and the next four years to move ahead with a new vision, sharply informed by our knowledge of the dangers to the US in the form of a corrupt GW Bush government as well as Congressional and citizen

[anney]

Four years to administratively and legislatively undo the damage, and the next four years to move ahead with a new vision, sharply informed by our knowledge of the dangers to the US in the form of a corrupt GW Bush government as well as Congressional and citizen apathy.

[WIpatriot]

You know, after the last year and a half, I would like ZERO presedential commercials for 4 months.

There's nothing new to learn about them, and I'm not voting for McCain even if hell freezes over, so everybody just save your money.

[allwrite]

"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."

I believe this is true. I can't find the words to express how disappointing it is.

[racetoinfinity]

Yes, it is disappointing.

[Daisy1111]

Question on the last line of the above article.

How do you hold his feet to the fire after he's elected president?

I see a lot of articles make this point.

"We're disappointed in him but once he's in the Oval Office we'll hold his feet to the fire."

How does that work?

How do you "make" him transform back into a progressive?

Threaten his second term? Well, that won't work.

He's already figured out he can win by shifting to the center.

Face it -- he's a centrist who led you to believe he was a progressive.

[membender]

I am very disappointed and disillusioned, Obama campaign. Nader asked a good question today on This Week: If he (Nader) represents where you stand on almost all the issues, why vote for the least worst of the two official parties, which are both corporately controlled, far right of center and enable each other? I'm in a fairly safe state, so I may vote for Nader once in my life after all!

Mr. Obama and staff: I have given you money and talked you up, but that has been discontinued until I see good reason that you really are not going to become corrupted by the very city and dynamics that you condemned. Rather than inspired, I find myself dispirited of late.

[axt113]

Obama is merely banking on the stupidity of the average american voter, and no one every went broke banking on that.

He knows most voters are too stupid to understand why he wouldn't vote for FISA

[omahkohkiaayo]

How about this for framing? Flash to a rape victim going through agony in a hospital? Then a deep somber voice asks: What if she were told that her rape was sex? That is no different than calling a crime (Iraq) a "mistake". And would you tell the rapist to have a managed withdrawal?

On Fisa, show a Qwest logo and say this company bothered to read the Constitution and said no to illegal surveillance without warrants; what does it do to the rule of law and the Constitution itself if the companies that said yes to illegal requests, are allowed immunity? And if Qwest knew what the Constiution allowed, shouldn't a candidate for the presidency also know and stand up for it?

[axt113]

The average blue collar worker who may have never finished high school, might not understand the issue and might be swayed if the GOP says that Obama is making us more vulnerable to a terror attack, especially if one happened like the GOP is planning on. In a society where almost half the public believes in creationism I just don't see Obama making much traction on this issue if he opposed FISA.

[Barbyrah]

Thanks for the insightful article. "Light bulb" time...
I really thought the sudden (and unexpected) "shift"...­was due to arrogance (we know what we're doing; don't get in the way), and cold-hearted calculation. (A NY TImes article described, for example, David. P's "Persuasion Army" stuff, complete with a state-by-state tactical "war board" of sorts. Ugh.)
But ya know what: I think you're right. Down deep, they're lacking confidence in taking this "No more politics as usual" commitment all the way to November and instead started running scared. Letting McCain and the Repubs frame everything, and as a result, responding the same way Kerry did, Gore did, etc. (I don't care if you've got volunteers going door to door or not - if you don't change the frame, it doesn't matter...)
And how do you change that frame? Well, he already did it once: The Race Speech. And how did he do it? By talking honestly. No zig-zagging. No backtracking. No covering. No pandering. None. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
People not only "got it." They approved of it (as his poll numbers soon after showed).
Bottom line: At its very core, this election ain't about gas prices. Truly. What's running underneath everything­...is a yearning to finally, FINALLY be able to trust our president. Be able to admire our president.
And that's about character. And principles.
You can't fake it. And you can't slogan your way to it. Yet when it's there...
...wow.
There's your landslide.

[Cilantro33309]

He Barack!!! She has something for you!! This one's a doosie...

And you'd better take it.