« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Another take on Obama's rightward tilt
While monitoring the fascinating discussion about whether Obama's palpable rightward list represents duplicitous ideological betrayal or pragmatic political calculation, it occurs to me that many here at TPM seem to be overlooking an important aspect of the current situation.
Regardless of where you fall on the issue, it seems to taken as a given that Obama's putative pandering/strategizing is aimed squarely at the American electorate - that he believes that he needs to tack right in order to better appeal to the Appalachian Bubbas or the Reagan Democrats or the Independents or some other low information voter.
Well, this just seems wrong to me. Given the campaign that he has run so far, given the truly astonishing weaknesses of his opponent, given his actual legislative record - I actually rather suspect that Obama believes (as I do) that the mood of the country as a whole reflects a real rejection of with the Right Wing memes and frames that he seems to be of late lending some legitimacy. That certainly was the gambit that he played in the Primary, and, lest we forget, he won, against some pretty formidable opponents and spectacular odds. I just don't see him waking up one day and saying to himself "Golly, maybe I really have been giving short shrift to this whole "Terrorists are gonna GIT YA" mindset that Republicans seem to love so much".
In fact it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that Obama really thinks that his centrist gambit actually diminishes his electoral prospects in the general. And I'm quite certain that he really does understand the risk that he is taking by appearing to undercut the message that he sold to his most energized supporters; those who have been animated by the message of transformational change and the end of Politics As Usual.
So why the shift, then?
Seems to me that perhaps it's better understood within the context of the power structure of the Democratic Party itself. Don't forget, this is "Unity Month" for the Democrats, where we are supposed to heal the wounds left by the bitter Primary season, link arms and sing "We are the World", then buy the world a Coke and teach it Harmony. And, joking aside, it's important to keep in mind why Unity Month is necessary in the first place - what happened in the Primary was nothing less than a bitter struggle for the control and direction of the Democratic Party itself. It was very much a manifestation of an existential struggle between the Old Guard (the Clintons, DLC, Reid, Pelosi, Blue Dogs) vs. the New Turks (Obama, Dean, Dodd, Feingold, etc.) - and the Old Guard never goes quietly. Some of Obama's campaign rhetoric was undoubtedly just as appalling to the leadership wing of the Democratic Party as it was to the movement Conservatives - these guys are frankly terrified of the Republicans at this point (understandable, since they've lost their lunch money on the playground nearly every day for 8 freaking years), but they still pretty much buy into the Republican frames - and they don't really buy into the whole notion of "transformational change" anyway (previously, I've likened it to a form of Stockholm Syndrome, where you end up identifying with your oppressor, and even loving them a little bit). When Obama was drawing distinctions between himself and Sen. Clinton, he was also aiming squarely at many of the Dems in Congress.
In short, I certainly think that Obama, of late, has been triangulating (or, if you prefer, pandering). But I don't think that he's pandering to Bubba in West Virginia, or your grandmother in Boca Raton. Rather, I think that he's pandering to the power structure of the Democratic Party. They lost in the primary, but it was close enough that they retained their power, and they are gonna make damn sure that they aren't put out to pasture just yet. Obama abso-freaking-lutely needs these people, not be to elected necessarily, but to govern once he's in office.
So this is the real tension - he needs the old school Democratic party power players in order to govern effectively, but he also needs the voice of the flock, the re-enfranchised and (especially) the newly enfranchised who, in the Obama world-view, really provide the power to keep the engine running, and actually get things done. His real task is to avoid pissing off either side to the point where they won't be willing to sing out of the same hymnal come inauguration day. Quite a balancing act, but I remain faithful that he's up to the challenge. He's given me no real reason to doubt him yet.
Most importantly - if this is correct, then it suggests a course of action for us, the actual constituents. While it's OK to express disappointment about Obama's seeming backslide towards the center, and while it is always appropriate to hold him or any politician accountable (please keep this in mind, ye internet scolds who bristle at any criticism of Our Leader) - if we really want to lift up the Obama candidacy and give it wings, we need to put pressure on the Democratic leadership. Make Hoyer, Rockefeller, et. al. pay for their FISA treason - after all, it was they who put our guy in such an untenable position in the first place. Shout down any Democrat who looks fondly to the Clinton years as the pinnacle of progressive/liberal governance (sorry, he did some good things, and maybe he had no real choices, but he was absolutely complicit in turning the word "liberal" into a profanity). Tie the Blue Dogs to a stout tree with a short leash. Recognize triangulation as a tactic to be used sparingly, not as some sort of world-view or cool super-weapon that gives you magical powers (abuse it, and it merely keeps you weak). Allow yourself to be taken in, just a little, by the Obama message of Hope and Change. Don't fear the Republicans, or the low information voters - you really are better than them, and stronger too if you allow yourself to be.
Look beyond the election, to the administration - tell your leaders in Congress that you will hold them accountable if they exhibit the same milquetoast weeny limp-wristed ineffective tactics that have, sadly, characterized the Party for far too long.
That's what Obama wants us to do. Vote him in, and then make him govern.








Comments (7)
I think there's much in his record, and in The Audacity of Hope, to suggest that Obama's embrace of the centrist Dem power structure is a lot less reluctant and tactical than you appear to suppose. (Not that that makes much practical difference; keeping up the pressure is the key in any case.)
June 27, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might very well be right (I admit, I haven't read Audacity yet - I just finished Dreams.
I guess, though, I was referring more specifically to the Rahm-ish fondness for trying to undercut the Republican's advantage by acquiescing to their memes and their policies. You know, the whole "if I give the Big Bullies my lunch money, and shout about the injustice of it all, then maybe they'll stop beating me up and all the other kids won't think that I'm such a weenie" mindset that seems to so predominant in Democratic thought on the Hill.
I think that Obama gets that the bullies won't ever stop taking their lunch money, and even if they did, the other kids will see it for the cowardly capitulation that it really is. But, now that he's vanquished Clinton (who, for all of her putative"toughness", pretty much embodies the old-school mindset), he needs to tread very carefully in how he calls them out on it.
Ultimately, if he can adhere to enough of his principles, a decisive win in the General should provide ample ammo for Obama to finally be able to show what real strength in leadership actually looks like. I really think that the American populace is craving this kind of true strength, whether they know it or not. We want (really, need) Churchill, not Chamberlain.
June 27, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This statement makes no sense to me at all. You've already said he's triangulating, you've already said he's moving rightward. Whatever the reason for his shift in position, how, in doing that, is he any different from those you term "The Old Guard"?
What principles is he adhering to? He's already flipped on a number of issues that are of primary importance to me: FISA, capital punishment, gun control. So what kind of "ammo" does it give him to "show what real strength in leadership actually looks like" if he has compromised what he originally said his positions were for political advantage? What kind of mandate will he really have?
June 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you to some extent. I've been taking my wrath out on my own triangulating Senator but I think you have to really make them pay. You can't whine and vote for them anyway at least when you hit upon a core value. Obviously, you can't do that over every issue but you must with core values and when they go right for 30 years you've finally reached a point where its the fundamentals that you are losing with every vote to appease them one more time.
I'll vote for my congressman and some local folks but I'm not voting for the blue dog agenda so if Obama is going to run on that he might as well be a Republican because until we defeat the blue dogs we are Republicans. Or do you really believe the blue dogs are going to let us end the war in Iraq or enact universal health care?
June 27, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Or do you really believe the blue dogs are going to let us end the war in Iraq or enact universal health care? "
Only the president can really end the war. The Congress could only cut off funds but that's pretty unpalatable (imagine when soldiers' deaths start being blamed on lack of funds). Our only hope is the WH.
BTW, the people who hate the blue dogs have don't know much about their constituents. Like Murtha in PA -- if Kos thinks another Donna Edwards type could win in Murtha's district, he's smoking something. You are lucky to have anyone as "liberal" as Murtha. No joke.
June 27, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you err in framing everything in the Left vs. Right framework. Obama has repeatedly and in great detail said he is tired with cant, dogma, ideology. He's trying different approaches and trying to broaden the debate on issues, with a fresh approach. Of course this makes the ideologues unhappy. They're much more comfortable repeating the same tired fights.
I don't think Obama defines this as a rightward tilt, io fact. He has also said he doesn't believe in quixotic ideological battles -- a sure loser but to prove a point or stand on principle.
And last but not least, please don't use the word triangulate. That was one of Clinton's actual strategies. Obama is a repeat of Clinton about as much as Clinton was just another Carter. Apples and oranges, and doesn't illuminate anything.
June 27, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has thought from the beginning that he can move the Democratic Party and the country to the right if he frames it as change.
Clinton has a record on these issues and simply could not have made the same move without being nailed as a wholesale flip flopper.
Obama is flip flopping on a number of issues: the constitutionality of the DC gun ban -- blamed it on a staffer's answer to a questionaire until his own handwriting was revealed, latched on to escape clause language until Political nailed him to his own statement that DC ban was unconstitutional and FISA for example but he doesn't have a long enough record for it to constrain him much.
He will do and say anything to get elected and since he is aiming -- of necessity -- at the independents he does believe that his current stands will get him the votes he needs since he sorely offended some 17% of the Democratic voters -- see Pollster.
June 27, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment