Is Obama Really Moving To The Middle?

I would question that he is moving. He was always in the middle. More on that later.

The issue that matters now is whether his perceived move is undercutting his brand and actually making it harder for him to win. One thing is for sure. Obama and his top advisors made a calculated decision. First backing out of the public financing (I didn't hear much complaining from progressives on that one), then the FISA compromise -- on through death penalty, late-term abortion, reaching out to the faith-based -- and finally talk of "refining" Iraq policy.

That is a whole lot of adjusting in a very short time. They obviously decided to do this, and to do it all at once. They're not dopes. Why the rollout?

My guess is that they want to give true believers who provided his campaign with so much money and energy time to adjust. People should have seen this all along but, in their fervor, somehow they missed it. There is nothing radical or new about the substance of Obama's politics. He's a pragmatic centrist and he always has been -- even as president of Harvard Law Review, there he was, smack in the middle, holding the factions together. The best profile of Obama I ever read came out in May of '07 in the New Yorker. It was called The Conciliator.

Barack told us all the truth about himself. He said he's always been a Rorschach test, a figure upon whom people project what they want to see. He came right out and said that. And what has happened is that some activists with the policy inclinations of, say, Dennis Kucinich (that would be me) let what really is radical and new about Barack convince them that policy was part of Obama package (that would not be me).

What's radical and new about Obama is his person -- his youth, first of all, and the way he embodies postmodern fusion and inclusion in his very being. Also radical and new is the way he sees things, precisely because he has lived at the margins of various worlds all his life. He is uniquely detached and, at the same time, deeply empathic, able to understand all sorts of different people in all sorts of circumstances. In terms of character, there's never been a president remotely like him, except, yes -- Lincoln. Obama's already signaled his respect for a book called Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Check it out if you don't already know that Lincoln spent his entire political career in the middle, holding factions together.

What disillusioned Obama supporters must come to terms with is this: Barack has always been serious, however unrealistically, about bringing Americans together -- evangelicals, bowlers, red states, whoever. That isn't just rhetoric. That is his real ambition, his transcendental ambition, and he is going to persevere along that path. He really is post-partisan.

That's a new politics, isn't it? Many of us, including me, aren't going to like a lot of what that will entail. It doesn't confirm what we already know and assure us that we've been right all along. But that's what "new" actually implies, isn't it?

Comments

[texanna]

I'm still struggling with his new interpretation of my 4th amendment right to privacy. In his world, it really doesn't exist because if the government can't tap all of my telecommunications without warrant then we have to be afraid. You know, for a short time while I was in school something called "new math" was a fad of the educational system. Needless to say, it was short lived, because there really isn't a new math, there is just math. I am reminded of that educational fad when I think of this new Constitution that Sen. Obama is trying to peddle. As to the other stuff he's wriggled and squiggled about over the last couple of weeks, well, I'm too old to have been all caught up in the primary swoon that it seemed like everyone was in. No, I pretty much thought he was not going to be the man of my dreams; so I'm not disappointed about his actually proving my suspicions correct. Odd, though, it seems that he's adopted pretty much all of the positions that Sen. Clinton ran on but was so regularly and roundly criticized for by the Obama supporters.

[jsarets]

This piece is right on the mark. There's a difference between politics and policy. Obama promised a new kind of politics, not necessarily a new kind of policy.

There has been very little evolution in policy proposals from either side of the aisle in decades, mostly because very little policy has been accomplished in a very long time. The only major changes in government have been the dismantling of policy, even during the Clinton administration.

A large part of the reason why policy is stuck in a rut is that politics has become WWI-style trench warfare where each side expends the vast majority of its resources on defending its political turf. If we can break the partisan deadlock, then we have a good shot at enacting the policies that moderates in both parties have been talking about since -- in the case of universal healthcare, environmental protection, talking to our enemies, etc. -- the Nixon administration.

The policy has been there for an inordinate amount of time. It's old and perhaps boring after being political vaporware for so many election cycles. But without a sea-change in the tone of Washington politics, the policy will remain Duke Nukem Forever.

[ProudLiberalDan]

"Obama promised a new kind of politics, not necessarily a new kind of policy. "

That's really unfortunately, because more than anything we need a new kind of policy.

[rationalthought1]

This post gets it right (or should I say correct - don't want to upset anyone) . Everyone can't get everything they want in a united country. Its going to take some compromising from everyone, to some degree or another. The question is, do you trust Obama's intentions and skill. I do. I've also read "Dreams From My Father" which no phony could have written. Also, I've been paying attention to what he's been saying all along.

[AbbieXHoffman]

NO it's NOT NEW--all this reaching across the aisle was done under Clinton.

The problem with him running down the middle, is that the middle is not where you START when negotiating, the middle is where you END up You start from a place of conviction (we hope to have a dem president that starts more left then BO) then you negotiate from there moving more center on certain issues as needed. If you start in the middle, you end up moving too far right to live up to your claim as a uniter.

I always knew BO was a centrists which is one reason I supported HRC and why I always looked at BO as more of a brilliant diplomat or mediator. Do we want a mediator as president? Woudn't he be a great motivational speaker or a head of diplomacy. I want someone with CONVICTIONS in the Whitehose based on issues, not someone who's conviction IS mediation.

I will still vote for him, but I am concerend that it may result in a more conservative govt than I like. At the very least, I'd rather listen to his lyrical speeches for 8 yrs instead of McCain.

[CanadianAmerican]

Thank you for this post. I agree entirely. It is unbecoming (and unsurprising) for The Left to be so self righteous.

[appetite88]

Yea, how dare the Left not go along with everything he says and does simply because he's cool.

[LevRoark]

I have a sort of Devil's Advocate question: is the telecom immunity issue moot?

Do the Congressional Democrats realize that even if telecom immunity were stripped from the FISA Amendments bill that no lawsuits against the telecom companies would be successful? Just imagine being a juror where AT&T is being sued for violating their customers' privacy. Their defense might be that the FBI and NSA barged in and compelled them to give up customer information and permit tapping. They would say that after 9/11, they were frightened to defy apparently illegal orders from the government. Even if you found that AT&T was liable for violating customer privacy, it would be hard to imagine that the damage award would be much at all.

So, does it make sense to go to the mat for a Constitutional ideal when there is probably not any practical benefit for it (significant damage awards) and the "soft on terror" label being a potential risk?

For the record, I wish the Senate Democrats would hold strong and stop the whole bill, but I will grudgingly understand if some of the practical politicians in the Senate decide it is better to "take a dive" this time around.

[appetite88]

Haven't they taken a dive on pretty much everything in the past 2 years? The reason the telecom issue is so important is because it's the only way we will find out what really happened.

[Countdown09]

The only thing I've found surprising is it appears many of his supporters seem to have confused Obama with Dennis Kucinich. Well I'm not learning anything I didn't already know about Sen. Obama, which is the reason I supported him in the first place. I'm a democrat but I don't expect to see the changes needed in this country until our political leaders realize they have to govern for all the people in this country not just the far right and not just the far left. I believe most people in this country are in the middle when it comes to most issues. And Obama has said more than once that there is more that units us than divides us I believe that is true. I believed him when he said he would be the President for all the United States, there is not a red America a blue America but the United States of American. In many ways he's already shown just how different a politician he is by how he's run and managed his campaign.

[dtd]

For God's sake, the very speech that introduced Barack Obama to the world was a centrist speech. His subsequent best selling book made it crystal clear that he was not a political idealogue and that he believed the country was being ill served by the far Left and Right.

So why in the hell are Liberal white folks feigning surprise and outrage?! Moreover, does Kos and his kind think they can derail Senator Obama and the Democratic Party will survive? African Americans have been the most reliable voting bloc for the Democratic Party the last 40 years. That wil certainly end if Senator Obama is sabotaged by a bunch of spoiled and self-serving white Liberals. They should be reminded that this country is still majority white, BUT it is well on its way to becoming a majority minority nation, and while most minorities consider themselves Democrats, they do not subsribe to progressive view points. In fact, most Latinos and African Americans, the two largest minority groups are quite socially conservative. They don't like abortion in practice; they support the death penalty; they believe in gun ownership; and they where Jesus Christ on their sleeve. Senator Obama knows this and is showing a level of respect for these communities that white Liberals never have. And if they continue to do take both groups for granted, it will be at the peril of this Party long-term.

[appetite88]

There's a difference between leadership and appeasement. The middle of two opposing view points is not always correct. I think you can paint a picture of someone who comes in the middle as either above the bickering or cowardly. Obama is treading a thin line. White liberals haven't done anywhere near the level of damage to the foundations of this country that the Bush administration has done. With people making major profits on an unfounded and horribly executed war, you can bet that there's no middle ground that everyone can agree on. It sounds like this post is advocating liking Obama for being popular. I'd rather like him for being right, and go on doing my civic duty of speaking the words I believe and voting the way I want to.

[JMBrodie]

I respect what you said, but I think you missed the point.

People really are more than just political ideologies. There are nuances. The world is more complex and there are more than two sides.

I just finished reading Audacity of Hope. Some of it I agreed with. Some of it made me cringe. But on the whole what I saw was a person willing to talk with others about issues, even those with whom he may agree. And he is willing to challenge those he supports if he has questions about a point or two. I do think that many of us looked at him as the Black guy and placed our expectations in that basket -- both good and bad.

I like the guy because he thinks. I like Bill and Hillary for the same reason. They, as he, understand that absolutism does not work. We have seen what that looks like under GWB.

Having a thinker in the White House, to me, is a good thing.

[areaman03]

Sir, I thank you for your posting here.

This is exactly the way that I look at Obama, and I have always said to my friends, peers, family, co-workers--anyone who I have happened to engage in a political discussion with--that the most important issue today is not the war, the economy, health care, China, terrorism, infrastructure, gun rights, immigration, energy or abortion. The most pressing, dire, absolutely essential issue on which we MUST make progress is the very TONE of politics. We cannot solve ANY of those issues I just listed above WITHOUT making serious changes in the ways we talk about them, because right now, we CAN'T talk about them without somehow believing that someone who disagrees with us is completely stupid and/or completely evil for believing something different than we do. This gets us absolutely nowhere, and under Bush's neglect and very exploitation of this problem, it has grown toxic. Jerking the wheel as far back to the progressive left as the neo-cons have ripped us to the right WILL NOT solve this problem!!!!!!

We may not live to see the days we believe are possible, but we make them MORE possible by being realistic and reaching out to those who disagree with us to find common ground on which to forge a path ahead. This is the only way to save our country and perhaps even our own humanity.

[shep1900]

......righ­t now, we CAN'T talk about them without somehow believing that someone who disagrees with us is completely stupid and/or completely evil for believing something different than we do.....

I agree, and would say that the HuffPost message boards are Exhibit A, when it comes to that.
Exhibits B, C, and D, for that matter, too.

[holeybuybull]

Barack Obama's stated views and positions were always centrist, which is why I can't support him. In 20th century terms he would be a moderate Republican, at best. His economic adviser is a graduate of the Chicago School of Economics (Milton Friedman apostle). The only progressive candidate vying for the nomination was Kucinich, and to a lesser extent Edwards. This country needs a radical shift to the left to compensate for the last 28 years of corporatism. Obama will not provide this. As the Dixie Chicks said "I'm not ready to play nice" !

[Playinjured]

"Then don't play at all", as my mother used to say. "If you can't play nice then don't play at all." Words of wisdom.

[F150]

Let's face it, the Obamaniacs will vote for him even if he endorses waterboarding! Coming soon I'm sure. What this complete change in every one of his positions shows is his utter contempt for moderates. He thinks they're sooooo stupid they'll accept his new and improved phony lip service. He gets more like Bill Clinton everyday.

[Playinjured]

To me, you sound like a republican looking to incite division in the Dem party. Instead of attacking Obama and his supporters on Dem blogs, would'nt you be better served on a republican blog looking to boost your party's morale? Let's face it, it's going to be a long year for you guys.

[appetite88]

Well, I've given $500 to Obama already and I think F150 isn't far off. If he wants to be a centrist, fine. But the fact of the matter is that he's being a chameleon.

[Countdown09]

From your post F150 it's clear you never supported him and never will regardless, so no surprise you know nothing about his positions.

[allonfla]

Nothing he has said lately surprises me either because I have actually been paying attention to his campaign. I read everything that he says and watch and/or read his speeches and I do not see all these flip flops. Especially with the faith-based initiative where I heard Obama say MONTHS ago that he favored this plan. And also with abortion- he is like me - he is pro-choice but prefers that women should not have to go there. Nobody wants to make that decision, especially in their late term.

If you are really interested in making the right decision in November then you will do your research on your own. IF you have time to spout off on this site then you can do the research. I don't trust any MSM, Op-Ed pieces and other biased commentaries even if it is in favor of Obama.

[Melkor]

Wow, so many people's heads are soft like swiss cheese. How is spying on Americans and shielding telecom companies complicit in that spying considered "The centre"? For people who spend so much time complaining over the mainstream media a lot of the people on this blog sure have accepted their narrative. It is the Bush administration that has been "radical" to the extreme. Warrantless spying on people isn't "the centre" or even "the right", its authoritarian. And pandering to that isn't some sort savvy political compromise it is a capitulation of our rights in a free society.

[Countdown09]

FISA is one issue, many people don't chose a candidate on one issue, or at least that's true for me.

[StellaBlue]

This is not about one issue. This is about respecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I'm tired of our elected officials acting like it's really the Bill of Privileges, and Obama has broken my heart with his politically expedient change of mind.

[myrddin]

People hear what they want to hear. As for myself who has followed Obama's campaign from the beginning, I don't see the flip-flopping that everyone gripes about. The MSM should have done their homework before taking the McCain campaign's statements about an Obama flip-flop as fact. Obama has been steady in his positions which are not far left. That is what the Republicans want America to believe. It's how they win elections. Paint the democrat as far-left no matter what their positions are. Paint them as elitist no matter what their background is. Paint them as flip-flopper even if your own candidate flip-flops like a fish out of water.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Horsehockey.

This is what a naive "post-partisan" Obama Presidency will look like.

After the election in the spirit of "post-partisanship" conservatives will be invited to the table. These same conservatives who (1) misled the nation into war under false pretenses against the wrong country and incompetently conducted that war; (2) gave tax cuts to the wealthy during war time that they did not need; (3) dismantle and privatize Social Security; (4) sought to enshrine discrimination against a whole class of Americans into the Constitution with an anti-gay amendment; (5) stopped Congressional business so the religious right could inflict their religious dogmas on poor Terry Schaivo, will be shocked and amazed at their unexpected good fortune. Instead of having to rebuild themselves, they will be given a seat at the table which they will then use to sabotage any progressive change. Then after nothing changes, they will coast to a banner Republican year in 2010, the likes of which haven't been seen since 1994. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from progressives who were fooled by this nonsense. How could it have all gone wrong? Easily, is was a naive and ridiculous plan to start with.

Running to the center is one thing. However, FDR knew that progressive change would only happen if Conservatives were steamrolled while they were down so that they were on the backfoot for a generation.

[holeybuybull]

Bravo PLD ! Well said.

[theMightyT]

If you really belive what you posted here, i suggest you do some more research on obama's policies and on the concept of what a team of rivals means.

Sounds like you got a touch of the crazies tho, so you probably won't.

[appetite88]

No, it sounds like you can't argue point for point.

[PATina]

And that's what I'm afraid of. It's amazing that so many on the HuffPost boards rant and rave about the spinelss dems... but somehow they believe that when Obama takes office... they will all of a sudden get a backbone. This just gives them 'permission' to be lackeys to the Republicans in the name of post-partisanship.

[Herrington]

Our politics have so hardened along party lines that compromise appears to be pefidy, or worse, weakness. And why not, it has been so long since anything of substance has been done in America, other than what the right wing majority and later filibustering bare minority wanted, that no solution other than drawing and quartering the oposition seems sufficient.

But you cannot undo the wrongs of thrity years in one election precisely because half the public is still not convinced anything is wrong. Or, at least, magically, they do not think that problems have been caused by what they have been doing for thirty years.

Emotions are high enough for another Civil War. If there were some geographic demarcation for semtiment, there might be one. And since not everyone is on the same side, compromise is the order of the day, like or not, consolidation of power, time and prudence are the viable course.