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 and his advisors may think now that they have won the Democratic nomination - that they are the default inheritors of the Progressive vote and so they can go after the swing voters by showing strength in areas Obama has been characterized as being weak - such as homeland security. Although Ovama and Co. may think that prostituting one's integrity and ethics is a viable way of achieving the end goal of clinching the Presidency, they risk not only disenfranchising those who actually thought he represented "change you can believe in" - but also turning off new voters in participating in shaping America's future as they will be hit with the "learned helplessness" syndrome that has hit a large portion of the American citizenry. The only way to teach Obama and his crew a lesson in living upto one's promise now - before it is too late and we end up with another neocon gov't in power - is to get their attention and let them know this is not the way to bring about the change we need.
Obama's mother's original Social Security Number Application
www.webofdeception.com
Realistically, the Repug ad would be far more effective than the imagined progressive ad. It would be no contest. Fear for physical safety is more powerful than fear of the loss of liberties. What have the past 7 years taught us if not that?
What the past seven years has taught us is the truth inherent in these words spoken by that notorious Nazi reichmarshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials in 1945:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same way in any country".
Democrats can't win if they continually reinforce the Republican frame of reference. Left to themselves, Republicans would destroy their credibility - it's been the Democrats who have been keeping them viable by validating their hysteria and covering for them when they lie. Obama should simply say he has since carefully read the bill and found it has no value with respect to national security (which is true) and therefore will vote against it.
You nailed it perfectly. The Republicans would hang themselves if the Democrats would just let them.
you almost had me. then i remembered that articles such as this could be written by a dlc triangulator. most of this conventional wisdom is what killed the clinton legacy.
to seem or to be. we have had enough of candidates who SEEM thank you very much. its time for a candidate to actually BE a leader.
its the same thinking that keeps our congress from getting anything done.
please explain to me the difference between going along with the republicans because you agree with them or going along with the republicans because you are afraid they will twist your words in an attack ad?
there is no difference because
a) the republicans get what they want in either scenario
b) the republicans will run those ads ANYWAY.
did we not just see mccain brag about helping a bill he designed and then voted AGAINST?
the slippery slope obama risks going down is listening to this SAME OLD CRAP logic which put us where we are right now.
at some point, somebody is going to have to do what's RIGHT.
Yeah, when he's President. But until he's President he has got to do what is necessary within the bounds of reasonableness. Give him a break people.
Reasonable? Trashing the Constitution is reasonable?
I was under the impression that Barack was running well-ahead of McCain before he started pandering as all the others have done. If I wanted more "faith-based initiatives", I'd have voted for Rev. Wright in the primary.
Once a candidate does this, he may gain some evangelical votes but may well lose his original base.
Enough of this holy-roller nonsense; let's get back to reality!
If Bush is such an unpopular president, then why are all the others trying to be him? (financing another war, in Iran this time, approving wiretaps etc.) Have Obama and McCain both lost their minds?
reasonable as you say it = triangulation = we have to be gop lite to win = dlc failed outlook = losing elections.
reasonable yes. as defined by LOGIC and not by the failed aipac/nafta/corporate/jesus crispy/karl rove worshiping fools who helped get bush elected as surely as any gop operative.
"at some point, somebody is going to have to do what's RIGHT."
And the longer you wait and the more you do the pragmatic thing the harder it gets.
5 more
5 stars.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
