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
Obama is showing me that he's just another spineless Democrat. I was quite excited about his candidacy but his cowardice regarding FISA has pretty much eliminated my enthusiasm for him.
What a disappointment.
Deja Vu all over again for you democrats.
Here's what I don't understand - Bush has the lowest approval ratings of any president in the history of the world, ever - or close. It's not just because of the economy and the war, it's bigger then that. The collective self-esteem of the country is at an all time low and it should be. We've acted shamefully and humiliated ourselves on a global scale. To further insult us , our democratically controlled Senate failed us by doing things like confirming the nomination of an Attorney General who, under oath, claimed he didn't know the definition of water-boarding and therefore couldn't be sure it was torture. We've tolerated disgraceful people like David Addington playing word games with the definition of torture. Americans are ashamed of this.
Why doesn't Obama drill this home again and again and again. Why doesn't he make republican synonimous with disgrace and shame? How hard would that be? Americans don't like that we've lost our moral authority.
One reason I was excited about BO was because he had demonstrated the ability to destroy the Republican frames and re-frame important issues - just as he did a few months ago when he said this:
"I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. "
That's the Barrack Obama that I thought I voted for in the Texas Primary. That quote above was a winner - both politically and policy-wise. Now Senator Obama changes his position..
Republicans will still attack him on national security. Now, though, they can also call him a flip-flopper and suggest he lacks character (no real core convictions), and maybe they'd be....... right. Read Obama's statement above again - look at where he stands now - and tell me you can believe anything he says.
I'm so bummed.
I wish Obama would have faith that most American's understand that freedom and liberty sometimes come at a price. I want him to have the guts to say that compromising our principle in dangerous times makes us all less free. Can we find a Democratic that has the guts to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do? If that doesn’t happen now, it’s never going to happen. We've been allowing this administration to do things like play word games with the definition of torture. Now would be the time to stand up for the principles of this county. I want to see Obama list the injustices perpetrated by this Administration and explain why these acts are "UNAMERICA
Thanks to all the "progressives" out there for reminding me why I still consider myself independent. And if you want to know why you lose every election, this is it right here. Look no further.
You all sound surprised by Obama? If you're surprised, you spent absolutely no time reading his books.
This exposes the extreme hypocrisy of the left. People the left claim to be for the free expression of ideas, yada yada yada. But in reality, you're expected to walk in lock step with each other. The moment someone like Obama - who you've agreed with for 95% of the time, and still do agree with 95% percent of his positions - expresses a different opinion your willing to stop working to get him elected over a couple issues.
And that's why the left always loses, and the right always wins. This is the Answer to Arianna's question about why the right still dominates the agenda. Because "progressives" are so willing to eat their own.
I suggest you get a dictionary and lookup the word "hypocrisy". Hypocrisy is what Senator Obama is guilty of - saying one thing, then doing another (There's still time to get it right, Obama.)
The "left" (funny, I thought I was in the middle) is only trying to hold the politicians accountabl
Protecting and defending The Constitution is not about "walking in lockstep" - it just happens to be the oath that BO took when sworn into office - something a lot of us take seriously.
Well said, selling out civil liberties for political gain is unacceptable and Obama has to hear that!
and you are accessing this site through harmonic convergence? or perhaps through one of the many telecom companies who were in compliance with the bush administration for the past years on surveillance? my guess it's one of those companies - and you're sending them a check every single month. there seems to be a number of people who are deeply, deeply concerned about their constitutional rights - as long as if doesn't interfere with their ability to access high speed internet or their cell phones. You won't have to look far to find that hypocrisy.
Don't put words in my mouth. And don't tell me what percent of the time i agree with obama. I will vote for Obama if he shows guts in protecting the Constituion and denouncing the fascist right. The American people expect backbone in a leader. If he doesn't have enough guts to defend the Constitution, then screw him and screw all the gutless 'independents' too. We'll never again say yes to gutlessness. You follow?
`
how 'bout this ad:
as President of the United States
I will not ask or order any person or corporation
to violate the US Constitution;
and if you ever catch me doing so
you won't have to impeach me, bc
I will immediately resign my office.
Sincerely
BHO
`
Thanks for the post.
"It shows that he does not feel up to the task of rendering some liberal principles intellectually clear and emotionally compelling
Here are some ideas I've had -
Standing up for the Constitution and our right to privacy are not "liberal" principles, they are American principles, it is simply the right thing to do.
Show the clip of Rice quoting the memo that said Bin Laden determined to attack inside America months prior to 9/11, then I would show the clip of Bush saying he didn't care where Bin laden was right after 9/11 and then remind everyone Bush had the intelligence without the expansion of FISA and the Patriot Act - they just didn't know what to do with the intelligence they were given.
I would remind America our expanded FISA and other spy on American's programs were in place but did not provide the government with accurate information about WMD in Iraq. Again the GOP doesn't know what to do with the intelligence it was given. It seems more spying on Americans does not mean better intelligence is obtained.
Just my two cents -
You will never convince me that he's supporting this FISA bill, is opposed to the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine in broadcasting and supports corn ethanol over sugar ethanol because he thinks these positions are politically necessary to win the G.E.
Never.
they might be politically necessary to please G.E., though.
I don't think Obama's support for the death penalty against child rapists is political.
He has two young daughters. That's really all it takes to support it.
I guess if they were boys he would feel different about expanding the death penalty.
I have two daughters about the age of Obama's.
That's what I am basing my opinion on.
You can be sure that the Obama people are watching the blogosphere. And if liberals don't give him trouble now--or worse, attack those who do--they'll be sending the message that Obama can screw them over just as Bill Clinton did. That's how the game is played.
You are right that they are watching the blogosphere and I want them to know I'm an independent who is ready to vote for Cynthia McKinney. Obama almost had me but it looks as if the DLC has kidnapped his campaign and I have no problem leaving him. I've written to his website and to the DNC also to voice my opinion. I know my that my little voice doesn't count for much but joined with others maybe it will make a difference
so, you'd rather elect a hawk, a man who ensures that we continue on down the road of demise? Health care? Corporate control? Endless wars? The choice is clear. Give this Democrat a chance even if he doesn't seem to be just exactly what you want. The alternative is just way too scary.
I hope they're watching, they can go here:
http://www
and joyously read Glen Greenwalds' debunking of the "move to the center or in this case hard right in order to win". They've been doing it and losing forever. What's the definition of insanity - doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
My suspicion is they're moving hard right because that is exactly where they intend to stay.
Ok then... "Obama people" Your boy needs to find himself another issue to get "centered" on. .Allowing the U.S. government to secretly record our communications without reason or warrant is unacceptable.
Obama 08... i guess
History teaches us that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (1989)
It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - 2004
There is no conflict between liberty and safety. We will have both or neither.
Ramsey Clark (1927--)
or as Benjamin Franklin said...
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
A variant by Franklin: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." (Poor Richard's Almanack, 1738)
Thank you for writing this article. I have been deeply upset by Obama's FISA vote, and searched high and low for a forum to express it.
Democracyn
I went to look for quotes about liberty and found a few, but the most important thing to consider was said most recently here on huffpo, that the IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY is becoming dangerous, because it sets precedents for power in the branches of government, but not for the people.
We have to keep our freedoms and liberties as fought for in the first revolution. We must have powers of privacy, we must keep the government out of our lives. We will die if we let a violence-prone government intent on stealing the world's resources with newly developed warmachines, turn us into slaves and subjects of that machine.
The buck must stop now. Quit passing the buck, Senator Obama. You cannot be president if you don't deserve it by showing the courage of the giants of democracy whose shoulders you stand on.
You must have courage to die for the constitution, and the bill of rights, or you shouldn't swear to uphold it in the oval office. What is the power of the constitutional government mean, if we destroy the fiber of moral courage that so many have fought to preserve. No man, no voting public can make you become a weakling, to become a president. Youre actions reveal your character.
Show us you are brave enough to admit you are wrong about FISA, and will stand with us against a repressive government, Senator Obama. Then and only then can you can be a president and not a weak emperor trying to subject people.
Do people seriously think Obama has a chance if he stayed on the far left? More Obama bashing keep it up and you wont have to worry about getting someone in the center into the White house you'll get a Neocon instead perhaps that make some of you happy. I know people want to forget this but Obama is AA with a funny sounding last name he doesnt automatically get the benefit of the doubt so anything that create distrust is likely going to stop people from voting for him.
Progressives are showing me why shedding ideology was the best t hing I've ever done but if they let McCain get in then it is my hope that he makes the next 4 years a living hell for them. I know I personally wont forget and if they are suffering I'll be enjoying it.
After the Nader crap of 2000 I've personally HAD IT with them.
Carol
Check the national polls, this country is fed up with the wrong course and ready for a democrat to move it to a sound and reasonable direction. Simply put, the FISA bill is the wrong direction and O should be able to argue that. We are tired of having our constitution and civil liberties trashed by the radicals crying 'red alert' 'plastic sheets and duct tape' 'terror attack' and all the ridiculous fear tactics. The FISA bill is wrong, we are not threatened with its defeat. Do some reading and don't listen to the lying fear administration.
Excuse me. Opposing the FISA bill, as it is today written, can hardly be called "far left". You can't be serious?
What do you consider the destruction of the 4th Amendment - just politics as usual? These people work FOR US. They are not put into office in order to trick or cheat us out of our rights. They are there to do what WE tell them to do. He got the nomination pretending to be something he is not anymore.
Nader is a scapegoat.
Nader is a hater.
Amen. I've held this in for so long - but it is unreal to watch it happen again. Michael Moore and the "progressives" helped elect Bush in 2000 - which led directly to the Iraq War, to Gitmo, to FISA, to Abu Ghraib and endless deaths and atrocities. And now the same people, who seem to live on Planet Berkeley are ready to do it all over again. They are too wealthy to worry about the things the rest of America cares about - health care, food, caring for your parents, caring for our children, bringing and end to this dreadful war - all forgotten in some self-righteous vigilante tirade. Yes. I understand the constitution. Yes, I understand civil liberties. No. I am not happy with the position and I would like far more information. But this response is not only ignores any other issue - it is abject hypocrisy - because these are also the people who live and die by cell phone and internet - and financially support the corporations they claim to despise. I can't say it better than you did. After Nader and 2000, I have had ENOUGH.
I'll bet those progressives are responsible for your kids having warts too!!!
You're delusional. Bush was re-elected by pure gutlessness on the part of the dems. screw you, fool. We're through voting for gutless cowards. I don't even want you on my team. You'd fold under pressure. You make a better repub.
The "far left"... Defending the Constitution. You're a pathetic coward jack. I don't even WANT you on my side.
Obama is a man of his own word. Just because we like him to be President does not mean that he should always "kiss our ass," just so that we'd support him.
He himself said that he is an IMPERFECT messenger. He would certainly make mistakes along the way. Many progressives may view that his stance on gun control, FISA, and the death penalty are wrong, but there are also many people out there (the centrists) who view his decisions as great decisions as well.
Now if we end up arguing about who is right or wrong, and yet still insist on what we passionately believe, this debate would last forever, at the risk of getting nothing accomplished.
An issue would always be viewed differently by different people, since all of us belong to different backgrounds. This is something that Obama recognizes, that whenever he makes decisions about an issue, not everyone necessarily would agree with him.
It is easy to oversimplify his reasons for going to the center by saying that he just wants to win. Period. But we are forgetting something essential: How does he view relationships between people? How does he view solving problems between people with disparate and passionate views? He was a community organizer who got things done. Did he attain them by insisting all the time that his views were right? If we only give ourselves pause and reflect on these questions, we would not judge him as harshly as we do now.
Why shouldn't we judge him - I don't think we're judging him harshly. He's oh so cavalier about handing over our 4th amendment RIGHTS. I don't particularly appreciate a 3rd party giving something that belongs to *ME* away. I think it's called theft.
think about the alternative: an extended 'war" in Iraq, a war in Iran, more corporate control of our government, no remedy for health care in our country, terrible policies regarding oil solutions with an environmentally disastrous and not helpful solution of off-shore drilling. You may not like what Obama is tiranulating now, but he is this country's only hope of resurrecting itself. Think ahead.
"he's oh so cavalier about handing over our 4th amendment rights" excuse me, but you missed some facts. first of all - have you read the bill? second, did obama vote on this on his own? third, where did FISA come from to being with? from the bush administration. how did we get the bush administration? because a sizable number of left-leaning voters were too pure to vote for gore, so they either did not vote or sat at home. and now we watch the whole story play out again - except this honest john mccain is so far to the right that he scares pat buchanan.
He and his wife are both lawyers. If they can't understand what the issues are they had better get a lot better advisors than that hack, lee hamilton!!!
Then why didn't he say that? Why didn't he EXPLAIN his flip flop on FISA if these are indeed his reasons for doing so? Instead, his "explanation" was a short, terse Republican talking point (the terrorist thing). And that was it. Case closed.
And...ya know, he could have also taken the opportunity to EDUCATE people about exactly what had gone on with these telecoms, including what they did, the extent they did it, etc. Could have told the American people exactly how many "terrorist dens" had been discovered with this onslaught of illegal wiretapping. (Uhh...non
P.S. "Working with others" doesn't always mean capitulation. Sometimes it means sharing facts and informing others of those facts so that they get a broader picture, or better yet, can see how their values, or what they hold dear...is directly related to a stand they may have been opposing but find, on getting further informed, that they really don't oppose it at all.
P.P.S. This isn't just about FISA, btw. How about that speech in front of AIPAC?? What a geat opportunity for him to have demonstrated real leadership and take the higher road. (For example, the Feb. 8, 2008 poll that reported 64% of Israelis want their government to TALK/NEGOTIATE WITH HAMAS. Totally ignored by him, and by all other American politicians. And we don't have to even guess why... Which is, of course, the reason nothing ever changes there, either.)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
