As Barack Obama continues to plan his move to the center, the criticism coming from the Left is growing louder. And a simple question remains: this is an election that can be won at the Left and the dramatic shifts in partisan identification over the past four years mean that unifying the Democratic base should be enough for Obama to gain a majority. The risk of moving to the center and of muddying some of the differences with your opponents thus seems even more unnecessary than it was in 2000 and 2004 — not to mention electorally risky.
I have already reviewed some instances in which Obama has moved rightward over the past two weeks, though I have pointed out that he had long articulated some of the positions that are being included in this list in some media outlets (especially the death penalty for child rapists). Obama’s decision to support the FISA bill expanding surveillance powers was his first move that prompted protests, with a group of supporters seeking to convince Obama to reverse his stance now the largest group on his interactive website.
The noise became too important for Obama to ignore, so that his campaign released a statement last night in which the Senator explained his position to those supporters who profess themselves to be disappointed:
I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I’ve said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility. (…) Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise.
As I explained two weeks ago, the bill expands the president’s authority in a way Democrats were whole-heartedly protesting two years ago when the New York Times revealed President Bush’s wiretapping program. That Obama now is framing the debate as the need to prevent the loss of “important surveillance tools” is thus a sad echo of the systematic Republican warnings that national security will be weakened whenever one dares contest the ever-expanding presidential authority. However, Obama’s statement contained many props to organizing power and grassroots movements, in passages that are sure to remind Obama’s liberals supporters of why they liked him in the first place:
For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples’ attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. (…)
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I’m not exempt from that. I’m certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country.
Confirming that Obama will not agree with his base on every issue came a wave of other developments, starting with Obama’s positive statements about the DC v. Heller decision, his denunciation of the 1960’s counterculture, his attack on MoveOn.org and his advocacy for keeping up Bush’s faith-based initiative programs. Yesterday, two new stories added themselves to the list: abortion and (to some degree) Iraq.
First, Obama told a Christian magazine, Relevant, that he opposed mental health considerations as a justification for late-term abortions. This puts him at odds with many pro-choice activists, though Obama won the praise of some conservatives. A blogger at RedState congratulated him for “rejecting at least some of the extremism of NARAL, Emily’s List, and other radical abortion organizations… He has recognized that certain extremist groups with their extraordinarily liberal positions do not deserve to be part of the national conversation, and for that Obama deserves to be praised.”
On Iraq, some have interpreted Obama’s statement that he would “continue to refine” his position on Iraq as a willingness to admit that he was not committed to his current withdrawal plans. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, expressed relief that Obama is willing to “shift” his position to a more “pragmatist” course of action. The media has covered Obama’s statement similarly. But this seems to me an attempt to read way too much in Obama’s statement. Marc Ambinder points out that this is at most a shift of emphasis, and Obama held a press conference designed to reiterate his previous positions on Iraq and deny that he was scaling back his withdrawal plans.
This teaches us something truly fascinating: However much Obama is fine with the impression that he is moving rightward on civil liberties, abortion and gun rights, he did not waste a second dismissing suggestions that he had done so on Iraq. What this tells us is that the Obama campaign believes Iraq remains the key issue of the campaign and one on which they want to draw as clear a contrast as possible with John McCain. Perhaps they feel that seeming to move towards the center on Iraq would be too much for some activists to stomach?
While Obama would need to go significantly further to endanger his hold on his party’s liberal base, when would the candidate reach the point at which his positioning game will weaken the enthusiasm many Democrats feel for his candidacy? Today, the New York Times published a scathing editorial — “New and Not Improved” — hitting Obama for his latest positioning:
Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever. (…)
The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations. (…)
On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control. (…)
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
Sure, the NYT does not necessarily reflect the mood of the country — nor of liberal activists. And as Obama himself reminded his supporters at the end of that letter about FISA, the differences with John McCain are too great for liberals to overlook (”Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change.”) But this does not mean that Democratic nominees muddying differences does not come at a cost, as it haunted Al Gore and John Kerry’s ability to keep the base enthused.
The danger of a centrist drift is as much exemplified by Hillary Clinton’s entering general election mode last fall and voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment as by Al Gore’s fate in 2000, when the Democratic nominee failed to mobilize his base and allowed Ralph Nader to siphon votes away. And Democrats moving to the right has never prevented Republicans from attacking their opponents in nasty fear-mongering campaigns. Remember the 2002 midterms, just weeks after Democrats had capitulated on Iraq and on countless other issues, the GOP did not hesitate to nonetheless portray Democrats as weak on terror (see Cleland, Max). As Democrats had subscribed to the Republican’s frame on terror issues, they had little possibility of counter-attack and it is no surprise that the GOP’s tactics were successful. The same was true in 2004.
This year, Nader will be on the ballot in many more states than he was in 2004 and he could once again serve as a rallying-point for disaffected leftist. Keep in mind that some of Nader’s strongest states in 2000 are among those Obama is intent on contesting this year, most notably Alaska (10%) and Montana (6%). Nader’s strength in Oregon (5%) could also be dangerous if the independent candidate can keep it up this year.
