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.
I found these moves to the center a bit problematic. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Obama may be trying to bring some of the Hillary supporters, that caused him to lose most of the last primaries on board. But he risks losing his core “change” supporters that will bolt; not likly to Nader or even McCain; but to not voting at all if they feel he is just another politician. Bill Clinton may have been right,when he said that backing Obama was like rolling the dice.
Sad to watch Obama trying to get to the right of McSame for people that will never vote for him anyway, and in the process has shown himself to be just another gutless two-faced phony politican.(so much for the “new politics”) At least with McSame you know you’re getting a right-winger. Obama has lost my vote.
A couple of random observations:
- This seems to be Obama’s night in the barrel with the media. That said, he still shows a certain naivete (for lack of a better word) about public statements. He’s in a campaign, not a post-graduate seminar on governmental policy. While he’s not John Kerry (thank goodness), he has the law professor/appellate lawyer predilection for explaining his position in great detail. What works in a Sixth Circuit courtroom doesn’t necessarily work in politics. This emphasis on detail and nuance leaves him exposed to the kind of micro-analysis he’s getting right now. IMO, as a matter of substance, there’s nothing wrong with saying that he would refine his position on Iraq as facts develop and he receives additional input from commanders in the field. As a political matter, voters often make decisions based on their over-all sense of where the candidate is going and his or her thematic consistency, this can be very dangerous. Iraq was a centerpiece of his early campaign. He may have a significant challenge if voters conclude that he’s wandering away from that.
- The danger in becoming a movement candidate is that the movement will devour you as soon as it concludes that you’ve ‘betrayed’ them. I’m seeing some of that in my state from the Dem Left - great consternation over FISA, the 2d Amendment decision, etc. What’s tricky for Obama is that he really never was a movement candidate but he wound up pitching to the Left as part of the ‘change’ meme. His whole career has focused on pragmatic resolution and incremental progress. Even on Iraq, his theme was ‘I’m not against all wars, I’m against stupid wars’. The Left over-looked that in their desire to punish HRC for her early vote and subsequent refusal to engage on the issue. Obama’s FISA vote is a classic example. He was vigorous in attacking the immunity provisions and took an appropriate political stance early on in threatening a filibuster. When it came down to gut-checks, he decided it was critical to eliminate the constitutionally-offensive provisions and cut a deal, saying he’d take on immunity in a separate battle. That’s a very practical decision and makes eminent good sense when you don’t have the votes for the whole package but it’s highly offensive for people who prefer to wave the bloody battle-flag from the ramparts in a losing cause. And as its been for many other senators-qua-candidates, these tactical legislative moves reinforce doubts about what he really stands for, particularly since he doesn’t have an extensive Senatorial record to look to.
Based more on impression than detailed analysis, it seems to me that candidates who campaign on and maintain a consistent broad theme generally do better in presidential elections than those who become ensnared in detailed policy debates.
this is silly. obama has run as a different kind of candidate - one open to good ideas, and good people, whatever their background. he has also run as one who will speak the truth - even if it’s complicated or makes someone unhappy.
now the NYT acts like this is a betrayal when he says something they don’t want to hear (supports this version of FISA) or doesn’t support gun control wholeheartedly or isn’t against the death penalty.
it is absolutely right for them to express their dissappontment if he disagrees with them, but to pretend that he’s going against his own ideals is their own fantasy.
gun control, the death penalty, and FISA were never central points of his campaign and certainly don’t conform to his vision of a transcendant campaign not tied to the usual left wing talking points. it’s obviously not something that either the left wing (who wants a rigid champion) or the right wing (who wants an easy target) wants, but it is the right thing for obama to do.
st paul,
I agree with you when it comes to death penalty, since Obama had always held that position. But it seems difficult to argue that his stance on FISA, on Heller, on NAFTA and on MoveOn were not moves to the center since he has spoken about those issues before — and done so very differently.
The issue here is not that Obama is embracing positions that the Left does not agree with but that he is taking positions that are further to the right than those he had embraced over the past 18 months. That seems hard to deny.
Taniel@7:42 is right. I for one have no problem with a “non rigid”(i.e. Bush) canidate. But when someone breaks promises, embraces right wing ideas, (i.e.faith-based initiative,etc) and in general turns 180 degrees to appeal to “the center” they don’t strike me as a “new way of doing politics”