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

[Ged2012]

Stephen, the last thing we need in a President is someone who is on the extreme left or right. Obama would become President not only of Democrats, but Republicans and Independents as well. If he were to promote nothing else than progressive ideas, he'd end up as stubborn as George Bush who tends to never compromise with Democrats. And this is a worse prospect to have, resulting in many deadlocks and extreme partisanship at the expense of not getting anything done in Washington.

He has said so many times that the change he wanted is learning to work across the aisle, which obviously involves making compromises. It is surprising that many get "shocked" simply because Obama does not agree with us all the time.

Your concept that progressive ideals are the "most moral," is like saying that anybody else who do not share your ideas are wrong or immoral. And you know that when everyone insists that what he thinks is right, without exerting any effort in understanding the wisdom behind other people's opinions, NOTHING gets solved.

[shep1900]

What could be more centrist and traditional than the _Constitution_? Leftists may be the ones yapping about it, but could there be anything more important to the country as a whole?

[Ged2012]

That's the point. The Constitution always adheres to the COMMON GOOD. You're right, it is centrist. But the thing is, its centrist nature makes it susceptible to different interpretations by the Supreme Court, and the amendments to it, which were influenced in part by the the SC Justices' decisions, has made it more challenging to apply. The Constitution continues to be interpreted in many ways as there are nine unique Justices, who in most cases base their decision on whether they lean toward Democratic or Republican ideals. That's why bashing Obama that he is wrong in supporting the SC decision on lifting the gun ban is pure idealism. We need to read through the law on gun control in DC. It is basic in Constitutional law that individual rights can be regulated by the State. It is our individual right to preserve our life, but not at the expense of destroying another person's life--and here the State steps in. The question is, does the law on gun control in the District of Columbia provide sufficient safeguards for gun ownership, registration, and its ultimate use? If there are, then the law is a valid exercise of police power and promotes the common good--the preservation and protection of life--without, however, making people travel around trigger-happy. That's why Obama supported the law.

[Bretto]

GET REAL!!!

Obama may be somewhat concerned about his ability to frame progressive standpoints as the moral choice.

However he certainly realises that the intelligence of millions of American voters is not high enough to discern Republican propaganda from the truth. And then there are the millions of Americans who think the moral choice is bigotry, war, rasicm, and misogony (howdy to the relgious right).

It would be electoral suicide to stick with a progressive platform.

[BigBen]

yah they are the bitter people,If it would be suicide to stick with a progressive platform why did he run on it when opposing Hillary.Have you forgotten the CHANGE signs ?Now it is back to the future.

[JBoy]

I guess "CHANGE" meant run as a Progressive, then "change" to being Centrist.

[racom]

Please, logical questions are confusing.

[Bretto]

Because the contest against Hillary wasn't for the POTUS. It was between two Democrats candidates vying for the votes of (predominantly) Democrat voters. To win the presidency, he needs the swing voters and some Republicans. By definition if someone (even sometimes) votes Republican, they are more than likely to be somewhat conservative. And these conservative voters will be the prime target for GOP scare campaign.

Obama could move way to the right, and still be so far to the left of McCain to own both the centre and the left.

Would I prefer Obama run his campaign as a progressive - yes.
Would he win - no.

It's better to be in power and actually run the country, rather than take the moral high ground and be out of power forever.

Some people on this site need to view the world as it is, not as they wish it were.

[texanna]

Well, excuse me, but if he can't reframe the political discussion into that new conversation; if he can't change things from the old politics to the new; if reaching across the aisle means succumbing to him then what the hell is he doing being our candidate?! So far, I am not impressed.

[CarlDavidson]

I think the conclusion of this is right--we get what we want, some of it anyway, the hard old-fashioned way, organizing our own clout at the base and building upward.

But I wouldn't say Obama or the campaign is 'unprincipled.'

Obama is what he is. Obama is a 'high road' industrial policy capitalist and multipolar globalist--just read his Cooper Union speech a while back. Clinton is a garden-variety corporate liberal capitalist, which got her on the board of Walmart for years. And McCain is a US hegemonist and an unreconstructed neoliberal capitalist--'state all evil, market all good'--that kind that says 'We're in business to make money, not steel, so we'll gut these plants and speculate in oil futures, and the workers and towns be damned.'

We need not be surprised, and in fact it's one of the reasons we set up 'Progressives for Obama' in the first place, knowing this would happen. When your task is to win a majority of Democratic votes and defeat other Democrats in a primary, you put your policy package together in one way. When your task is to win a solid majority of all voters--progressive and center--to isolate and defeat the right, you put it together another way. It's called politics. What we want to urge, I think, are value-centered politics, where you have a core that keeps you anchored, and avoid any 180 degree turns from one audience to another.

[racom]

Not sure but I think you just described repuglicans!!!!

[Jennysaypa]

My fellow Americans,

I have voted against the current FISA update proposal in its entirety and I encourage other Senators to do so as well.

Why?. Despite the billions the United States has put into signals intelligence (sigint), it has not delivered non-state actors like Osama bin Laden. These enemies continue to be a thorn in the side of America.

I do value Sigint, mind you, but the real strength of this country is its people. Innovative Americans who love and believe in their country, make the best spies and intelligence operatives in the world, and can easily meet terrorists from organizations like al-Qaeda blow for blow. What they require is financial support, good training and guidance, and immunity from prosecution except when they willfully disobey the law for selfish gain.

And they need a strong ideology.

Because when a government intrudes too far into the lives of its people, not only do the people as a whole suffer, but the individuals who step up to the plate and risk their lives and the security of their families, to fight terrorism or advance the foreign policy goals of this country, suffer too.

What that means is that the day may come when they do not step up. And they won't put their lives on the line for this country.

God Bless America.

Good Night.

[justobserve]

Obama needs to explain more clearly his stand on FISA,..., or his support will be lowered. He can't affort to let people misinterprete his stands on important issues. If he has reasons to vote against what he had promised before, or if the Bills have safeguards to protect people then he should say it out loud.

[myklwain]

Pretty clear. He's standing with the Bush administration on this one.

[Mogamboguru]

Senator Obama, you are selling your soul for bad advise.

Come back to your roots, which nourished you, which fed you, which let you grow and made you strong.

Denying us liberals now means severing your own roots without having any replacement but synthetic surrogates.

It was OUR enthusiasm, which brought you, where you are now. And whatever deals you had to cut with the Democrat's superdelegates, to overcome Hillary Clinton: THIS is too high a prize to pay.

[era996]

really/
what did you think you stupid sheep. He threw under the bus his grandmather and his pastor, and you think he gives a rats ass about some stupid volunteers who voted for him.
Its about Obama and winning, no matter what it takes
Remember, the one who knows him best said it" he is a politician and does what politicians do"

[LyricalLexicon]

If this is some strategy for winning the election by Obama, what makes this any different then the triangulation that Hillary Clinton engaged in?

[shep1900]

Nothing whatsoever. She was just more skillful at doing it. Not _much_ more, mind you--but, somewhat more skillful.

[blueshield]

I believe this type of thinking is naive and damaging. Golden boy, indeed. Sounds like somebody was so deep in wishful thinking they were voting for the poster, not the candidate.

O.bama, like any leader, must exercise judgment in an imperfect world, surrounded by competing interests, and compromises. He must also pick his battles, and know that some will be lost.

This is skill and maturity in the real world - as everyone who's ever held a job and had to compete knows perfectly well. "Feet of clay"? Gimme a break. The man is proving he has a head on his shoulders. And by the way, self-styled progressives don't own him, he's under no obligation to toe some invisible line of principle. He's out trying to move America forward, away from the edge of the abyss. Hope and change.

I'm sorry some folks got their idealism bruised. if you can do a better job, go do it. Otherwise, get back behind the bus and push. The country doesn't need more cheerleaders, or second-guessing dilettantes along for the ride - we need people who can get things done when the road's blocked, knee deep in mud, and a flood's on the way. I find O.bama out in front, integrity intact, trying to make your world a better place.

[BigBen]

Yes and when necessary he will walk on water for his trusted followers.

[Barbyrah]

Hmm...you must have an "interesting" way of defining integrity....!

[kimk3]

I was very disturbed to learn that Obama recorded a radio ad in support of Congressman John Barrow in his primary campaign against State Senator Regina Thomas. Not only is John Barrow one of the most right-wing Blue Dogs and consistent supporters of the Bush agenda, but Regina Thomas is a strong progressive candidate who represents the demography of the district and is supported by progressive organizations across the district and the nation.

I am particularly puzzled that he would do this since it's a primary election and it might have been best, regardless of the contest, to allow local constituents to make the initial decision themselves.

This is clearly the Rahm Emanuel agenda. I'm feeling like we've been had. I have given money to Thomas' campaign.

[wayoutleft]

this is one of of the most telling signals that obama may be the real right wing candidate and mccain may be just a decoy whose role is to make obama look centrist. the right may actually be pushing obama- not mccain.

[RENREVARD]

When so many people in this country do not approve of Bush and the Republican why are earth are the Democratic even playing there stupid little fear games and playing them by there rules?

[several]

The only place that Obama has taken a right-turn toward centrist triangulation is in the MSM and blogosphere media narrative swirling around him. Nothing he's done in the past few weeks is a change in policies he's stated previously, months ago.

What has changed is that with the drama and intensity of the primaries behind us there is a natural lull between the primaries and the conventions. But the MSM and blogosphere have become addicted to the drama so they're making mountains out of molehills to try to keep the drama and intensity levels up, and with it their advertising revenues.

If you doubt me (and you probably do because you're a HuffPo reader, as guilty of overdramatic hype as any source) go do a little research. Go to the Obama HQ blog, the BarackObamadotcom channel on YouTube and/or the ObamaforAmerica videos on ustream.tv. Read and/or listen to what Obama has actually said about the issues on which he's being accused of moving toward the center or right.

The closest thing to a valid argument to be made regarding a change in positions is on the FISA compromise, but even in supporting the compromise he stated that he'd work as senator and when president to revoke the telecom immunity. Supporting incremental progress toward goals is not the same as turning your back on those goals.

Put on your critical thinking caps people. "Silly season" is in full swing.

[blueshield]

Well said, several, and on the money. Glad to see some are paying attention to facts, not headlines.

[wayoutleft]

in other words, obama's current positions are all ok because research reveals he held them all along? so then his left-progressive supporters are even bigger saps because they never understood his positions from the start? if he didn't believe in talking to our adversaries from the start, why did he advocate that in the early debate and back down as soon as hillary challenged him? why not just say he wouldn't meet with anybody in iran or cuba from the start?
this is a bit like the interesting thesis by a lawyer on this blog that the fisa switch is ok because the 4th amendment is already so compromised that being spied on is just like being stopped and searched on the highway. so why not just skip it. it's weird. you can prove that, instead of flip-flopping, he's been CONSISTENTLY wrong. i'm so relieved.

[nomobull]

huh

[several]

hey, you read the first paragraph of my comment before replying. way to go!

now try reading the rest of it and putting the first paragraph in context.

[Barbyrah]

With all due respect...your words are well written, and your logic sophisticated. What kinda gives it away...
Immunity cannot, by law, be "revoked." Once it's granted, it's a done deal. Period. And that fact has been all over blogdom for at least a week.
Flip flops besides the FISA thing:
1. Israle/Middle East: So now Jerusalem wil be undivided, entirely delivered to the Jewish state, eh?(AIPAC speech)
2. So now he'll have all sorts of preconditions that are required before speaking "with those we disagree with," yes?
3. Of course, so now he'll recruit all sorts of beltway insiders - J. Johnson/Bilderberg Group, for example, in addition to lots of former Clinton folk, lots of former politicians, etc. so he can demonstrate...uh, right...
4. And granted, small potatoes, but considering all the other stuff: flags everywhere. EVERYWHERE. And not just a few, mind you. AND...never explained. The flag pin, never explained. (It's not that he might not have his reasons. Just tell us. But otherwise...it looks so disingenuous. The pander factor - obvious.)
Reminder: This is the guy who said: No more politics as usual. That's what he RAN ON. That was HIS THEME. Not Hillary's. Not McCain's. HE OWNS IT. Or should I say owned it. Because all of this...is very much politics as usual. (And we're only in the first month after the primaries...)
Wow.

[several]

"Immunity cannot, by law, be "revoked." Once it's granted, it's a done deal. Period. And that fact has been all over blogdom for at least a week."

Having something written "all over blogdom" does not make it fact. ("I read it on the internets, it must be true!") Can you cite he law you're referring to and provide a link to the text of the law?

1a-On the phrase "Flip/Flop": I don't see having the wisdom to change one's mind when you learn more about a subject as flip-flopping. I see it as the opposite of "Stay the course." (Unless you go back and forth with the wind like McCain.)

1b-I think he learned from the reaction to his statement on Jerusalem and so changed his stance. If he reverses again, then I'd call it a flip-flop.

2-Nothing new there. He's never said talks would be unconditional. His opponents have claimed he put it that way. He didn't.

3-He made a mistake by not properly vetting a man who performed the same role in 2004 and in 1984. When he realized the mistake he fired him. (Your other generalizations in point 3 are to vague to be arguments.)

4-He has worn flag pins on and off throughout his political career. It is still on and off. It is a non-issue.

Your point on "Politics as usual" is Circumstantial Ad Hominem and I'm at the 250 limit.

[LyricalLexicon]

So lets see here, when Hillary Clinton engaged in "triangulation" with her votes in the Senate people were ready to crucify her and called her every name in the book. When Obama engages in "triangulation" not only is that term not applied to what he is doing, it's considered smart politics on Obama's part to play it down the middle to win. Obama could have taken a stand on the FISA issue and still looked good afterwards. He had the oratory skills and the constitutional law professor credentials to pull it off. I think this vote on FISA will give McCain more ammunition to use against him. People know the republicans use the "soft on terror" label on democrats all the time but being labeled a "flip-flopper" will be harder for Obama to overcome.

[strifeknot]

His feet need to be held to the fire NOW. Waiting until after the election is too late. Either he's an agent of change or he isn't.

This centrist, capitulating, "pragamatic" path will continue after he's taken the oath of office, and we will still have lost. We don't need another triangulating, neoliberal like Clinton in office. That old school of lesser-of-two-evils politics needs to die, and there's no incentive for Obama to kill it if we don't demand it of him today.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Well said, Stephen, I also feel he's too worried about progressive 'appearances', but is still OUR country's ONLY choice this year to definitely defeat more of the Mc-same-ol'-same-ol'. And, I"ve thought often the last two weeks about an FDR that reportedly liked to appear moderate and centrist when first running for office, and yet became a VERY different type of Democrat, that did many unexpected things, once elected.

That being said, I've plenty of fiery rhetoric that will heat up some feet next year - just as well as it will this. So for at least another year, I choose to believe 'WE CAN' still make OUR country and the world much better ...than it is now.