A few weeks ago after Barack Obama officially clinched the Democratic nomination, John Dickerson asked on Slate how, as the nominee, Obama would replace the Clintonian “triangulation” he ran against. 

Since Dickerson asked the question, Obama has (1) given a hawkish speech before AIPAC, (2) announced his support for the FISA “compromise” that looks awfully similar to previous versions he had opposed, and (3) expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court decision rejecting the death penalty in cases of child rape.    

Obama’s moves have sparked a lively discussion on these boards as his supporters try to reconcile these moves with their expectations of the candidate shaped during the nominating contest.  Is Obama turning right or is this where he stood all along?  Has he taken these positions out of conviction or expedience?  Is he a progressive or centrist?  Reformer or ‘typical pol’?

I believe there is an element of truth in all of these.  But the answer to Dickerson’s question seems pretty clear.  At least for now, triangulation is alive and well.  The promised transformation will have to wait.    

Ah, triangulation.  During the primary season, the term was tossed around haphazardly as an insult, shorthand for appeasement, spinelessness, selling out, the absence of principles, a stand-in for “everything we hate about the Clintons.”  As a candidate for the nomination, Obama criticized triangulation.  "We've had enough of ... triangulation and poll-driven politics," he said on one occasion. "That's not what we need right now.”    

Lost amid the invective was the origin and meaning of the term.  Triangulation is a strategic choice, not a political philosophy.  The term was coined by the justly reviled Dick Morris during the 1996 election.  After the Republican takeover of the House and Senate in the midterm elections, Clinton “triangulated” as a matter of survival, pre-empting wedge issues the Republicans had used to bludgeon the Democrats and addressing them through more progressive policies.  Morris described it as using your tools to fix their car, the most notable example being the issue of welfare reform, long a wedge issue exploited by Republicans.  Clinton took the issue from Republicans while promoting higher funding for child care and stronger financial support for working families.  An imperfect solution, to be sure, but far better than the alternatives.  Most important, Clinton was able to appropriate the terrain that Republicans had successfully controlled to that point. 

Despite his anti-triangulation rhetoric, his promises to transform politics as we know it, Obama’s campaign has adopted this tactic from the start.  On health care, Obama attacked the Clinton and Edwards plans from the right arguing against coverage mandates that “force every American to buy health care,” a talking point that could easily have come from a Republican playbook.  On Social Security, Obama repeated the mantra of the privatizers that the system is in “crisis” and urgent solutions are required.  Rather than laying the blame for many of the nation’s problems at the feet of the last eight years of Republican rule, Obama blamed the corrupt system, casting blame on both parties. 

Seen in this light, Obama’s recent positions should come as no surprise.  Lest anyone get any ideas about Obama’s sympathies, Obama’s speech to AIPAC placed him squarely within the mainstream of foreign policy thought.  Faced with an imperfect FISA “compromise,” Obama made a smart political choice, emphasizing that the need to provide tools for fighting terrorism over holding the telecoms accountable and the constitutional concerns with the bill, depriving the Republicans of an issue on which to hammer him this Fall.  Obama’s statement on the Supreme Court decision reminded voters of his crime fighting bona fides. 

Yes, Obama ran as a different kind of Democrat, one who would transcend partisanship and politics as usual, who would face hard truths honestly, who would assemble a new, bipartisan coalition. 

It’s easier to promise to end partisanship than to actually do so, however.  Governing an enormous and fractious country is rough business.  It requires compromises and choices among less than ideal alternatives.  I realize we are at an early stage, yet despite the soaring rhetoric, I fail to see how Obama’s politics rise above the triangulation he so forcefully denounced.  Maybe that’s not such a bad thing, but those who believed Obama would somehow rise above the fray are either naïve in the extreme or deluded.