Point, by Peter:
“To take a stand, to be passionate--ira et studium--is the politician's element, and above all the element of the political leader…Only he has the calling for politics who is sure that he shall not crumble when the world from his point of view is too stupid or too base for what he wants to offer. Only he who in the face of all this can say 'In spite of all!' has the calling for politics.”
- Max Weber “Politics as a Vocation”
I am still an Obama supporter…but I am now officially worried.
Not too long ago, I whole-heartedly believed that Obama was the one to turn this country around. I was confident that he was a politician who would refuse to “play the game,” who would not “triangulate,” who would not cave to special interests. And for a while, he lived up to those expectations. He talked straight about the stupidity of the gas tax holiday; he stood up to the warmongers and said “Yes, I will negotiate with Ahmadinejad”; he raised piles of money from average Joes making him less susceptible to the influence of special interest money; he embraced campaign finance reform. The electorate then gave him the incentive to continue down this path when they voted for him over Clinton, the say-anything-to-win candidate who voted for the war in Iraq in order to appear tough, and sponsored a bill making flag-burning illegal in order to appear patriotic. She was the pander candidate; he was the independent thinker.
So what, I ask, is happening to Obama and his spine?
The first clue that Obama might not have what it takes to “change politics in Washington” (as they say) came when he talked of “renegotiating NAFTA” while one of his aids, behind closed doors, told the Canadians not to worry because it was only campaign posturing. Then came his embarrassing speech in front of AIPAC in which he endorsed the saber-rattling tactics towards Iran championed by the neocons in the Bush administration when he said: “ ... There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran... [M]y goal will be to eliminate this threat.” Eliminate? Sounds like Bush-speak to me. Such inflammatory rhetoric is a shocking about-face when compared to his earlier talk of a less belligerent American foreign policy. And now we have a whole host of further caves—all within the span of just a few weeks. They include: 1.) questioning the Supreme Court’s anti-death penalty ruling; 2.) supporting the Supreme Court’s anti-gun control ruling; 3.) voting for the bill that gives telecommunications companies immunity when they help the government spy on Americans; and, last but not least, 4.) backing out of public campaign financing, the centerpiece of the campaign finance bill he previously endorsed.
What, I wonder, will be left of the Obama I dreamed of voting for when November 2nd finally rolls around? With all due respect to Vince Lombardi…in politics, winning isn’t everything. If Obama wants to earn my vote, he must show that he has the guts to stand up for his principles.
Counterpoint, by Dan:
Peter, thank you for your thoughts on this. I’m sure you are giving voice to what a lot of Obama’s progressive supporters feel. But not this progressive supporter. The fact is, Peter, Obama does not have to show that he has the guts to stand up for his principles to earn your vote, and you know it, and he knows it, you both know that you both know it. There’s a limit to this way of thinking, but as you acknowledge, he hasn’t come particularly close to reaching it yet.
What I’m looking for in a Democratic President is the ability to inspire millions of Americans to believe that government isn’t a bad thing, to convincingly communicate the core political ideas of the left, and to thereby promote a shift in the ideological posture of the government, and of the people towards the government. That’s what will get the ball rolling. Just because it feels good to make progress on that front does not mean that it is anything other than a strategic objective, and that it shouldn’t be thought about as a strategic enterprise.
The decision to decline public financing is one of which I particularly approve. I don’t think there’s any valid ethical argument that he should take public financing. No, that’s not quite right – if he said he was going to when he thought he was poor, and now that’s he rich he’s changed his mind, then yes, that raises a valid ethical problem with the decision. Still, candidates for office are most definitely allowed to say they’re going to do something and then do the other thing. What we hope for in those circumstances is that they explain themselves. Obama’s explanation was disingenuous, it’s true – I would have rather he used his awesome rhetorical skill to say what he means to America, which is something that he has done with more candor and forthrightness than any other national politician I’ve ever seen, and which was, in the instance of Iran last summer, when he stuck to his guns about being open to talking with Ahmadinejad, the reason I first decided to vote for him. In this case, that might have taken the form of a more eloquent version of “well, I’m not going to try to win the presidency with $80M when I could try to win it with $300M.”
Being a good politician means being able to convince people that you are right when you don’t agree – that’s political leadership – but it also means having a good sense of when you are able to do that and when you aren’t. I’m sorry, but it means picking your battles. Sometimes I wish politicians who I support would fight fights that they choose not to fight, but the public financing issue isn’t one of them. I’m not even sure what the argument is that has Obama competing according to rules that he wishes governed the process, as opposed to those that actually do. His job is to win the presidency without breaking the rules – both the letter and spirit, sure.
Winning isn’t everything, but losing ends up being the only thing.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Dan, good points. A few words of rebuttal.
Obama may still have my vote, but he will not receive the money I had planned on donating just last week. And if he continues to pander and cave, I will not vote for him. For real. If I’m going to talk tough about standing up for principles, at some point I have to stand up for my own.
All of the qualities you say you are looking for in a candidate, as well as your hoped-for response to flip-flopping, seem to involve talking or thinking (“inspire millions…to believe”; “convincingly communicate…ideals”; “promote a shift in idealogical posture”; “explain themselves”). What about DOING? If all of his policies are watered-down, poll-tested, centrist boilerplate, how can he effectively implement the non-mainstream policies necessary to turn this country around? You are right to say that good politicians have the ability to “convince people you are right.” I propose Obama leverage his rhetorical skill to convince, promote, and explain a principled agenda, rather than use it to slither out of flip-flops and deftly tack to the center.
I’m not saying Obama has to refuse to compromise any of his principles always and forever. Sure, pick your battles. But what battles is he choosing to fight?
“Change” has been and remains something of a cipher, and I think the Rorschach test analogy that has been bandied about is apt. As for me, I thought Obama’s proposed “change” is the elevation of content over expedience. Not as an absolute, mind you – for example, I am ok with his position on gay marriage, which I regard as an inevitability and a rallying point for the bad guys. But campaign finance reform, thoroughgoing campaign finance reform, is NOT an inevitability, and for those of us who think genuine public financing is the most solid bedrock for subsequent and direly needed reforms, it hurt to see Obama putting a nail, whether final or not, in its coffin.
Some of the best things in history have come from people walking away from easy options. I thought that Obama was going to try to do that; that’s what I thought motivated his Ahmedinejad comments, that’s what I thought motivated his race speech. If I thought that the corralling and deploying of political advantage was the most important thing for a candidate/president to do, then I would have voted for Clinton.
Luvh, after meeting certain thresholds, I do think that the corralling and deploying of political advantage is the most important thing for a candidate/president to do. Politics is how we govern. I know what you mean when you say that Clinton would be your candidate if that was what you were shooting for, but a more expansive definition of playing politics – a non-pejorative one, for starters – is in fact why I prefer Obama.
Obama is not putting a nail in the campaign finance coffin at all – he’s showing how shoddy the workmanship is on this coffin, and how poor a job it will do of holding the decomposing remains of our democracy for all eternity. That was a confusing little language dance: what I mean is that no campaign finance system that depends on players choosing a disadvantageous posture is viable. Deal with the existence of Buckley.
Here's what I don't get.
Obama's view on handguns is the same as in his book. His view on welfare reform (good but flawed) hasn't changed. His view on NAFTA (use the threat of unilateral cancellation 'as a hammer' to get pro-labor changes made) has been toned down but is still the same. He agreed to support a filibuster of the Telecommunications bill. There was no filibuster to support.
People are upset about "triangulation", but he's always said he was the candidate who would work with Republicans in Congress. What did you think that meant, mind control? When he said that he'd bomb in Pakistan's lawless region even if Musharrif didn't give him permission, did you think this guy was a peacenik?
The truth is, while he focuses on some things more than others now, he really hasn't changed. It was all there. It's just that somehow, during the Primary, a lot of Obamabots or whatever you want to call them listened to his rhetoric but never actually listened to his positions. Now that they're hearing his positions these people are upset that he won't tilt at windmills for them.
This whole "flip-flopping" idea is a sham. He's done exactly what he promised to do. It's just taken this long for some people to listen. Me, I was listening the whole time, so I'm still willing to vote and donate.
mchuntington, I think that's an excellent comment. I'm not sure I'm 100% in agreement, but I mostly am, and I think it's pretty much the other major category of response to what Peter and Luvh are saying.
It has also galvanized me, Peter, to point out that Obama never said he would negotiate with Ahmadinejad, as you said in your original post. He said he's be open to it. That's an important difference that the Clinton camp tried to make disappear.
It is really sad to hear Katrina on CNN tonight defending "faith-based" initiatives...c'mon, people, separation of church and state?? You sound like Democratic equivalents of the neo-cons!!
Hey mchuntington: well said.
As you say, Barack's positions haven't really changed. It's discouraging that so many people assume that his positions have changed when they don't match Democratic party orthodoxy. He's more progressive than the average Democrat on some issues (Iraq withdrawal, 100% auction of carbon credits), more "conservative" on others (doesn't oppose the death penalty in all cases). The reason we should trust him is his consistency (where were most Dems on Iraq in 2002?); that's the irony of this current manufactured controversy.
Barack's an independent thinker, and that's a huge reason why I'll continue to spend time and money working to help ensure that's he's our next President.
Where were the Dems on Iraq in 2002, indeed. But let's not give Obama too much credit. He had the luxury of not having to vote on war authorization. I highly doubt Obama would have been standing shoulder to shoulder with Senator Byrd, who let's remember was the ONLY Senator to speak forcefully against the war. It's not easy to stick your neck out as Byrd did; we need more leaders who are willing to do so. Obama no longer seems to be that type of leader.
And as for Iraq today, if violence stays at its current level, George Packer (in the most recent New Yorker) speculates that it is only a matter of time before Obama waters down his withdrawal timetable.
I think it's worth distinguishing concern over public financing from concern over so-called triangulation -- the arguments are different. Frankly, with regard to the non-campaign finance areas, I am excited by his willingness to look for policies, and even aims, outside Democratic orthodoxy.
With regard to campaign finance-- Dan, I agree with one of your points, and I would never advocate a financing system that relies upon candidates self-policing themselves into a suboptimal outcome. But shifting the paradigm (to a public/more public system) requires good faith (e.g. only Nixon could go to China), and good faith is conferred by the declining of an advantage. I understand public financing is a moon-shot, but if anyone could have done it, it is/was Obama. I'm so sad I don't even know what tense to use.
Hey Peter,
If Barack recants his promise to remove all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, I would be very disappointed. I don't think he will, because that WOULD be a major "flip-flop" on the predominant issue facing our country right now.
But why do you highly doubt that Barack would have strongly opposed the war in the Senate? Of course, we don't KNOW what he would have done, but we do have relevant evidence: his October 2002 speech against the war.
In the speech Barack called the Iraq War a "dumb war" that would divert our attention from capturing Osama Bin Laden and make us less safe. Recall that he was in the midst of a primary campaign to be the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senator from Illinois; public opinion overwhelmingly favored the war at that time. Therefore, Barack's sound judgment on the war represented a political risk; the 23 U.S. senators who voted against the war took a similar risk.
So what's the contravening evidence that Barack would have caved if he were in the U.S. Senate? All we know is that Barack was right, and in 2002 we certainly needed more members of Congress who saw what he did.
You're right that Robert Byrd deserves special commendation for his prescient warnings against the rush to war. Other senators did try to warn the public about the deceptions of the Bush cabal, including Ted Kennedy, but the media essentially didn't cover that story.
I doubt George Packer's intuition on what Barack will do vis a vis withdrawal. Packer supported the Iraq War, and not even because he was fooled by the bogus WMD-Al Qaeda claims: he just thought we had a chance to transform Iraq into a democracy, and that that chance was worth the risk of losing countless American and Iraqi lives.
Joe
I have been concerned about some of the doublespeak lately, but maybe I'm not disillusioned because I didn't start out as an Obama fanatic. After Edwards dropped out, I liked a lot of what I saw in him, and Hillary was getting a bit nasty for me, but I was clear I was going to vote for either. And I never voted for president until 2004 as my own private protest against the system. The fact is that Bush convinced me that who is in the White House does matter. If Kerry was president, Roberts and Alito would not be on the Court. If McCain becomes president I don't want to be here as the idea of justice gets perverted even more.
I still think there is something special about the guy, and the symbolism of having a black president will go far to undo some of the damage done to our reputation. Most of what we need now is undoing rather than doing. And Michelle is dynamite.
I think Dan could make a stronger argument. But basically I'm not troubled by any of this
EXCEPT
the issue of telecom immunity. Obama is the leader of the party. He could, better than anyone else, make a clear case for the excellent compromise amendment. That amendment would simply replace the telecoms themselves as defendants with the federal government.
There is no excuse for ANYTHING that gives retroactive immunity to such powerful players in our government, when the law they broke was so clear and they had billions of dollars worth of lawyers there to explain that for them.
I also think that Qwest should be given a medal.
Jim von der Heydt
Joe,
You are right to commend Obama for his position on Iraq in 2002. His speech in October of that year was truly exceptional. It is well worth re-reading. It demonstrates the strong language, fiery spirit, and clear anti-“dumb” war message conspicuously absent from his recent pronouncements regarding Iran. Much of what Obama said in 2002 about Iraq needs to be said in 2008 about Iran. Instead, in his recent speech in front of AIPAC, Obama positioned himself squarely in the ratchet-up-the-pressure on Iran camp. He even declared that the “Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization”—a clear flip-flop if there ever was one. Recall that he firmly criticized Hillary Clinton for voting for the Quds designation, adding in a statement (because he was not present to cast a vote) that "he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran." That time, apparently, has arrived…now that he has secured the Democratic nomination.
Giving a rousing speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago as an Illinois State Senator, as Obama did, is one thing. Standing in the Senate chamber and denouncing an ill-conceived war in the strongest of terms, as Byrd did, is quite another. And standing in front of the world as a nominee for the President of the United States and engaging in saber-rattling tactics that can only help push us closer towards yet another dumb war is just plain shameful.
The expiration date on Obama’s 2002 speech is long past. It’s time to hold his feet to the fire and demand he rise to the occasion once more.
I completely appreciate all of the comments on this page and enjoy getting educated perspectives on the Obama Campaign. That being said, I just want to say one thing. Please say these things to Obama, and don't let them discourage you from the process or from Obama as the best choice.
I would have to agree with Mchuntingdon and add that we are now in a battle against John McCain, not Obama. McCain has always been the real flip-flopper and we need to use this blog to educate everyone on this fact. Obama's "flip-flopping" is an argument that is being strongly encouraged by the corporate media to put doubt in as many minds as possible about our democratic candidate. (Look for a book called "It's our media, not there's")
Let's instead give Obama the benefit of the doubt and get him into office. We have funded his campaign, therefore making it the closest thing we can get to public financing. This is a fact. I truly believe that we will therefore be able to use our voices to tell him if we think he is headed in the wrong direction.
I believe that Obama is a human being and is fallible, but he is trying to accomplish something great. He has always said that this is not just about him. We need to start taking an active role in our government.
We don't have the comfort of fighting amongst ourselves. We have to stay together and not start splitting hairs. Otherwise we may very well lose this election and have 4 years of John McCain. I don't want to sound condescending and I hope that many of you are already involved, but let's put our energy towards registering voters and getting the word out. Thanks for the opportunity.
I used my last trip to Missouri to steer hell-bent McCain voters into the saner waters of lake Obama. However, the picture I painted of Obama then, doesn't fit the current model.
So if we lose this thing by six or seven, it's because I didn't have the talent to defend some of the recent Obama positions when confronted by those I converted.
To political analysts and vote tally-ers these may seem like smart moves... they may be smart moves... but I just lost the few votes I got him. There goes my campaign carreer.
Peter's original post encapsulates my worries about Obama pretty much completely. I've actually been skeptical of him and his supporters (no offense guys) from the very beginning because so much of it seemed like form rather than substance. However, I've gotten on board, and this is an op-ed that I particularly liked on this flip-flopping bit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?scp=6&sq=obama%20stupidity&st=cse
Okay, now I am hoping someone will explain where Obama has shown a lack of substance? It is like when I hear people in the media say "we still don't know who Obama is." What does that mean? Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton because he put together the most well run, organized, water-tight campaign that we have seen in a long time. Aren't these exactly the skills we need in a chief executive. Good budgeter, good leader, knows how to surround himself with good people among other things(amazing orator, "inspires millions").
We are all so excited to be able to feel a part of this election and its outcome, but stop and think why we have this ability. What is so different this time? We have someone who is worth voting for. Look at what the Republicans are trying to do to Obama and remember why our support is so important no matter what!!
Post a Comment