Obama Moves to the Populist
We've been seeing in the blogs and otherwise a lot of beating up on Obama for "moving to the center", which is odd statement about a candidate who in the last few weeks has:
- Come out against the California gay marriage amendment
- Promoted details of a tax plan which would taxes for the working poor and middle class by thousands of dollars each, while massively increasing taxes on the wealthy
- Condemned bad trade deals, enough to raise the ire of the news pages of the Wall Street Journal (which under Murdoch are morphing into as rightwing as the old editorial pages) which characterized his stance as "likely to rile allies."
- And just yesterday called for overhaul of the 2005 bankruptcy bill and denounced McCain for his support of the bill and the banking industry "at the expense of hardworking Americans.''
The case against Obama seems to boil down to a few nuanced sentences on whether he might have any flexibility in adjusting timelines for withdrawal from Iraq, whether he thought the words "right to bear arms" could have some constitutional relationship with owning guns, whether he thought it was a good idea to funding religious organizations in helping fight poverty, and whether he thought raping children might reasonably warrant the death penalty. Oh yeah, and FISA (more on that below).
What all these issues share is that in practice, almost none of them would effect the day-to-day lives of Americans. The Supreme Court ruling on guns was incredibly narrow in specific application, the Iraq withdrawal comments were incredibly small nuances, his promotion of funding religious groups is a good thing, and it's a cost-free political position to oppose raping of children once the Supreme Court has banned the death penalty (and might even have merits on principle). But gay marriage, which does matter to a lot of peoples' lives was the place where he stood up and fought, which is exactly what a populist should do.
Maybe that's the difference between a liberal and a progressive populist. The liberal takes positions that pisses off people even when it doesn't matter practically in peoples lives.
As for FISA, while in principle I think legally restricting government spying is a good thing, in practice I'm skeptical it makes much difference. As someone who has had a foot in the harder "left", the one that gets spied on, the old FISA rules didn't stop government infiltrators or all sorts of violations of privacy. When I was at the National Lawyers Guild, a computer with the whole membership database mysteriously "was stolen" with no locks broken and nothing else of value taken-- something most in the organization shrugged as par for the course of likely government infiltration from people with decades of experience. So I see FISA as a nice issue to huff and puff about, but it's a pretty minor issue compared to just ending the war, shutting down torture, and stopping the destruction of charity organizations in the name of the war on terror (the latter getting little attention on the left).
I'm actually under no illusion that Obama is some kind of savior and his overall economic tendencies won't steer that far left of DLCish moderation, but I am sure going to applaud him for his demands for labor and environmental standards in trade and his really serious tax equity proposals. Along with his promises of health care, family leave, clean energy jobs and a host of his other proposals, he is painting a commitment to pretty radical changes from current policy.
But what's a bit exasperating is that Obama is campaigning now on these major
progressive populist themes and many critics seem obsessed with what
are pretty minor diversionary issues. Obama is tacking populist, while his left critics are obsessed with an issue like FISA that 90% of the public still couldn't tell you what it means if asked. Sure, it makes sense to criticize Obama to keep him honest, but it seems out of proportion to highlighting the key populist issues where he is reaching out to working families
that's because the msm wants to give no play to populism. it's too redolent of class war.
so they focus on twisting his words and ginning up fake controversies.
i completely agree with your underlying point, that FISA aside, i am perfectly happy with the policy suggestions coming out of the obama camp.
he is the most populist nominee we have had in a very long time and it is important to keep that in mind.
July 9, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 18, 2011 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everything you've wrote here Nathan...except for FISA.
My contention with that is while government has spied on its own people for a long time it has never technically been legal. It is likely that a bill will pass today that will allow the government to spy on its citizens for the first time ever. To me, and I have a feeling many other Americans, this is a big deal. And sadly I think it is a missed opportunity for more positive populist campaign rhetoric. All it would have taken is;
"I oppose the FISA Bill because I don't think the American government should be able to spy on its own people without cause. I fully support the government being able to have every tool, within the law, at their dosposal to keep us safe. That is why when I am elected I would like to see legislation passed that will allow me to keep Americans safe while protecting their 4th amendment rights".
Alas it would've only happened in my perfect world I guess...
The rest of Obama's positions are much better than his views on the 4th amendment. He does have a populist streak that could take him far...and of course I mean the correct type of populism that lifts people and doesn't play to the fear and hatreds they might have. The American people would like to see the government do things to help them out in these difficult economic times. Like protecting them from predatory lending practices, foreclosures, health care, etc.
July 9, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and have strong feelings about his about-face on FISA. Nobody has credibly demonstrated what was wrong with the previous provisions, and this new iteration of the law, in effect, allows the government, through an appeals process, to simply ignore whatever the Court determines -- for as long as it likes. This provision renders the entire safeguard moot. The thing that really drives me nuts, though, is that this is an argument that he could've won easily. I'm not talking about the Senate vote, obviously. I'm talking about the inevitable caterwauling from the McCain camp about giving in to the terrorists. For the life of me, I don't understand why he felt the need to switch his position.
But, to Nathan's point, yes, it's funny how these more populist measures have been virtually ignored -- and I'm as guilty as anyone for simply glossing over them. I guess I take them for granted. And while Obama's health care plan falls short of the uber-populism of Clinton's, it's jaw-droppingly progressive when compared to McCain's.
July 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please note I'm not even trying to defend Obama's vote on FISA. Maybe it's because I never drank the kool-aid to begin with that I'm not going to go all fluttery with outrage every time he makes some compromise for political purposes.
The reality is that you judge a candidate on his overall policies and whether he is, on balance, better than his or her opponent. And by any measure, Obama is not only running on a platform far more progressive than McCain's, he's running on one far more progressive and populist than any recent Democratic politician. Which itself is only a relative good, but it's a good unto itself.
So I'll celebrate the serious robin hood taxes built into his campaign, his promotion of labor standards in trade deals, his attack on the bankruptcy bill, and the host of other good issues. And yes, let's all attack Obama for a bad vote on FISA and educate the public to put pressure on him in any similar future issues. But keep it all in proportion to the rest of what he's running on.
July 9, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3
December 20, 2010 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is tacking populist, while his left critics are obsessed with an issue like FISA that 90% of the public still couldn't tell you what it means if asked. "
I'm sure that if you asked a sample of the public what the Establishment Clause is, most of them wouldn't know. Does that mean it would be OK for Obama to do away with it?
July 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's two parts to FISA: 1) the policy matter and 2) Obama's credibility.
The way I see it, this is what Obama did:
1. Politician supported X when the nomination was in doubt.
2. Politician won nomination.
3. Politician took the opposite stance.
So beyond the substance of FISA, here is my question about Obama: When he tells me that he is going to do X, Y, and Z if he is elected, will he actually do X, Y, and Z, or will his positions mysteriously change once he has won.
I don't think this is a minor issue at all. I vote for politicians because I want them to actually enact change, not just promise to change, and Obama's credibility has taken a big hit from me. I will still vote for him, but I am not giving him any more money. I will reserve that for politicians who remain steadfast in their beliefs, not change them as the political tides turn.
July 9, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the public could care less about FISA, who are the Dems caving to? And why do they want FISA so badly, if it won't do anything?
It's very clear that Bush and the Telecoms are putting major efforts in keeping this alive, and that the heat is unbearable, so I doubt very seriously this bill is as tertiary as you make it.
That's sort of where I come down on Diebold. It's kind of unclear what's going on, but Republicans want it, and Dems don't, which means for some reason Republicans and Democrats think touch screen voting is going to benefit the GOP. Why? Because the GOP benefits when voting is easier?
July 9, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan, the only thing you've "proved" is that Obama's Kool-Aid is tasty.
Obama still opposes gay marriages, and still says gay marriage issues should be left to the states. That's a HUGE fucking pander.
Condemned bad trade deals? Let's not forget Austen Goolsbee's under the table talk to Canada during the primary season.
The bankruptcy bill? As long as Goldman Sachs is BO's top campaign contributor, color me skeptical.
Plus, Hillary voted NO on FISA renewal today, while BO voted YES.
Some populism, eh?
July 9, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, speaking of “populism,” the Green Party convention starts tomorrow. And, no, Ralph Nader is NOT a Green Party presidential candidate.
July 9, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of “populism” again, where were Dodd and Feingold with their FISA filibuster threats? AWOL.
The Senate GOP threatens a filibuster once a week and Dems cave. Certain Dems talk about an actual filibuster, then cave.
July 9, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Klosterheim, Obama has reversed himself on exactly ONE issue since winning the nomination, and that was on FISA (or on his decision to vote for the FISA Amendment even if it included immunity for the telecoms).
On ONE issue.
And on FISA, while I was also disappointed with his decision on this one issue, I also understand it.
This bill was going to pass no matter what position he took and no matter how much political capital he spent on it. Obama is, if nothing else, pragmatic and he likely realized (once it became clear that sufficient number of Dems in the House and Senate were determined to capitulate on the issue), that it would be much wiser to spend his limited political capital on: first, bringing the Party together after the difficult primary, second, introducing himself to the American people on his terms and third, defending his progressive/populist positions from an opposition campaign that cares little for the truth and a media that cares little about calling them (or their candidate) on it.
Remember, Obama did not like this bill. He voted for the three amendments that would have improved it significantly. He voted for the final bill because he believe it was the best compromise that could be reached based on the Representatives and Senators that currently make up our House of Representatives and Senate.
If you want to take out your anger, take it out on those Democrats in the Senate today who actually voted against the Amendment that would have removed immunity from this bill. They are the enemies of our Constitution, of what is just and right- not Obama. Obama is simply one Senator who is the Democratic NOMINEE for President. And unless he makes what he believes are the right decisions, as difficult as they may be or as much as it may disappoint some, he will never have the opportunity to push through the policies that Nathan discussed above.
July 9, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have seen no mention of yesterday's bankruptcy speech in the main stream media. I guess since banks and credit card companies spend billions advertising on TV anything that threatens their bottom line is not going to be covered.
Watch Obama's speech if you get a chance. It is a classic.
Obama opposed the 2005 bankruptcy travesty and he meant it. I suspect his opposition has something to do with being a community organizer.
That law is really making life hard for a lot of hardworking but suddenly out of work Americans in need of a second chance.
July 9, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
A guy who puts Verizon and AT&T before ever single American out there AND even his oath of office is NEVER going to put American citizens first. NOT EVER.
Sorry bub.
July 9, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
while his left critics are obsessed with an issue like FISA
Well gee, how do you go up from eviscerating your oath of office, I mean, because at least Bush broke his oath of office in secret.
How does Obama go up from having NO integrity at all.
Obama migh lose this election and isn't the left you have to worry about. Republican may love Obama, I'm sure they do, but conservative voters! The hate Obama right now as much as they hate Bush. THAT is the Voters Obama just lost today.
July 9, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm dismayed by the FISA thing, but in truth I don't really care about making the telecoms pay millions of dollars in damages. The culprits are the individuals in government, and the real issue is assuring accountability. Civil suits by telco customers was one avenue for seeking accountability, but not the only one, and not the best one. If an Obama administration (or a Democratic Congress with a cooperative executive) investigates the abuses, that will do the job.
July 9, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I see FISA as a nice issue to huff and puff about? Oh Jeebus, Yeah, it's merely our Fourth Amendment - nothing to fret over, after all it only been part of the US Constitution for some 235 years now.
Oh *uck!
If Obama can't stand up to this a big lie like this "compromise" this bill wasn't - can he really stand up to anything? Can he really change - I mean for the better, because Obama can certainly ruin things.
Newman this is how you lose election's pal. You might want to quit while your ahead, or behind or whatever you are but it's down hill from here.
July 9, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
NAFTA
July 9, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Madison believed that we should have separation of church and state throughout the land, federal and local. There was a fascinating moment during the congressional debate over what became the First Amendment. How could the beloved First Amendment be harmful to religion? Huntington feared that it would overturn or interfere with Connecticut’s approach, which was to have state-supported religion.
Chat | Chat
March 2, 2011 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you good until this issue thanks admin.
Chat | chat
March 3, 2011 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v, ietd iscsi
April 7, 2011 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
May 1, 2011 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
May 1, 2011 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of virtualization high availability
May 4, 2011 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink