by Damozel | Paul Krugman made the same point months ago as Greenwald does in this piece arguing that Obama's run rightward to meet McCain the so-called 'center' is in fact not the winning strategy his advisers must think. Why is there an assumption that Americans want some sort of compromise between Bush and the principles expressed by the Democratic candidates?
With the Republicans still mechanically spouting policies consistent with Bush-era neoconservatism, what's needed to achieve balance again isn't compromise action, but corrective action. What most Democrats I know want is a different choice. Sadly, Obama lately seems intent on ensuring that there is no distinction between his policies and McCain's:
As a result of Obama's reversal on FISA, his very noticeable change in approach regarding Israel, his conspicuous embrace of the Scalia/Thomas view in recent Supreme Court cases, and a general shift in tone, a very strong media narrative is arising that Obama is abandoning his core beliefs for political gain. That narrative -- that he's afraid to stand by his own beliefs -- appears far more likely to result in a perception that Obama is "Weak" than a refusal to embrace Bush/Cheney national security positions. (Salon)
Krugman wrote in Slate on December 26, 2007:
[I]t's true that even now, polls suggest that Americans are about twice as likely to identify themselves as conservatives as they are to identify themselves as liberals.
But if you look at peoples' views on actual issues, as opposed to labels, the electorate's growing liberalism is unmistakable. Don't take my word for it; look at the massive report Pew released earlier this year on trends in "political attitudes and core values." Pew found "increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies." Meanwhile, nothing's the matter with Kansas: People are ever less inclined to support conservative views on moral values—and have become dramatically more liberal on racial issues....
The question, however, is whether Democrats will take advantage of America's new liberalism. To do that, they have to be ready to forcefully make the case that progressive goals are right and conservatives are wrong. They also need to be ready to fight some very nasty political battles....
That middle ground doesn't exist—and if Democrats try to find it, they'll squander a huge opportunity. Right now, the stars are aligned for a major change in America's direction. If the Democrats play nice, that opportunity may soon be gone. (Slate; emphasis added)
Interestingly, Krugman anticipated that the advantage of Obama's inspiring rhetoric --- what Greenwald has called 'the intensity of his appeal' --- depended on a possible misunderstanding of his notion of change:
A year ago, Michael Tomasky wrote a perceptive piece titled "Obama the anti-Bush," in which he described Barack Obama's appeal: After the bitter partisanship of the Bush years, Tomasky argued, voters are attracted to "someone who speaks of his frustration with our polarized politics and his fervent desire to transcend the red-blue divide." People in the news media, in particular, long for an end to the polarization and partisanship of the Bush years—a fact that probably explains the highly favorable coverage Obama has received....
[A]ny attempt to change America's direction, to implement a real progressive agenda, will necessarily be highly polarizing...So, here's my worry: Democrats, with the encouragement of people in the news media who seek bipartisanship for its own sake, may fall into the trap of trying to be anti-Bushes—of trying to transcend partisanship, seeking some middle ground between the parties.(Slate)
Krugman was one of the few people who bothered to try to look past the inspirational rhetoric and understand what Obama really meant. He is also one of the few to have recognized months ago that of the three Democratic contenders, Obama might well be the least progressive on domestic issues.
Every policy isn't equally adapted for the times. And the bill presented to us as a 'compromise' on FISA demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that there just is no middle ground on the most pressing issues.
So it's time to jettison the cliche that the way for a Democrat to win an election is to shift centerwards. Greenwald is speaking specifically of the issue of 'national security' --- which the Dems seem to wish to coopt 'as is' rather than reframe and reclaim. But his point applies to all the policies that drove Bush's failed neocon revolution.
[W]hat...is the basis for the almost-unanimously held Beltway conventional view that Democrats generally, and Barack Obama particularly, will be politically endangered unless they adopt the Bush/Cheney approach... which -- for some reason -- is called "moving to the Center"? There doesn't appear to be any basis for that view. It's just an unexamined relic from past times, the immovable, uncritical assumption of Beltway strategists...who can't accept that it isn't 1972 anymore -- or even 2002.
Beyond its obsolescence, this "move-to-the-center" cliché ignores the extraordinary political climate prevailing in this country, in which more than 8 out of 10 Americans believe the Government is fundamentally on the wrong track and the current President is one of the most unpopular in American history, if not the most unpopular. The very idea that Bush/Cheney policies are the "center," or that one must move towards their approach in order to succeed, ignores the extreme shifts in public opinion generally regarding how our country has been governed over the last seven years. (Salon)
Greenwald points out that Obama's abandonment of what those who supported him viewed as 'core principles' is likely to be perceived as a sign of weakness and as pandering political gain.
What's most amazing about the unexamined premise that Democrats must "move to the Center" (i.e., adopt GOP views) is that this is the same advice Democrats have been following over and over and which keeps leading to their abject failure. It's the advice Kerry followed in 2004. It's why Democrats rejected Howard Dean and chose John Kerry instead (Salon).
After all, as he argues, the fizzled-out 'revolution' in 2006 a consequence of the perception that the Democratic party was committing to resist and revoke the failed policies of Bush's administration?
[In the 2006 midterm election, f]or the first time in a long time, and really despite themselves -- there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they actually stood for something different than the GOP in National Security (an end to the War in Iraq). Drawing a clear distinction with the deeply unpopular GOP is how Democrats look strong. The advice that they should "move to the center" and copy Republicans is guaranteed to make them look weak -- because it is weak. It's the definition of weakness.(Salon)
Obama was chosen, he points out, by people precisely because they understood that he had rejected the conventional views of conventional strategists.
The most distinctive and potent -- one could even say exciting -- aspect of Obama's campaign had been his aggressive refusal to accept GOP pieties on National Security, his insistence that the GOP would lose -- and should lose -- debates over who is "stronger" and more "patriotic" and who will keep us more safe.... Obama...appeared to be, and in fact was, resolute and unapologetic in defending his own views -- the very attributes that define "strength."
The advice he's getting, and apparently beginning to follow, is now the opposite: that he should shed his prior beliefs in favor of the amorphous, fuzzy, conventional GOP-leaning Center (Salon).
Other bloggers have commented on this point.
Digby frames the current position of the Democratic party -- or the position we could have --- even more strongly than Greenwald.
The Republicans are imploding and the country has turned its desperate eyes their way. So why are we still hearing so much about how the Democrats have to "move to the center?" It seems as though the country's center has moved to the Democrats.
Digby points out that the centrism push may be driven by 'the well known propensity for Democrats to pay far too much attention to the gasbags.' (Digby) The 'run to the center' is partly a response to media figures who are afraid of the dread charge of 'elitism.'
And that raises an important question: if these rich, pampered celebrities are spokesmen for the Everyman, then who are the elites? Well, they're us, the liberal base of the Democratic party. And that's what this "run to the center" is really all about --- putting as much distance between the politicians and us as they can. It's not about being "serious" on national security or crime or family values. It's not even about appealing to swing voters. It's about repudiating liberalism....
Repudiating liberalism is a symbolic gesture required of Democrats by the political establishment to prove that they are not elitists.....The entire construct is based upon Democrats distancing themselves from their most ardent supporters (which is quite convenient for Republicans.)(Digby)
For this reason, Digby wonders whether it is realistic to expect Obama to be the one to challenge the assumption.
I wish that he would use some of his rhetorical gifts to challenge conservative assumptions more and I'm hopeful that he will, as president, work to redefine the conventional wisdom. I'm also hopeful that his approach on the big issues will not be reflexively compromising. But as of right now, there remains a strong belief among all the Democratic players that liberals are losers --- and they want to win. I don't think we're going to change that in the next four months. (Digby)
But, on the other hand, it's what people who only heard the rhetoric thought he was promising. So I'm not surprised that some feel cheated.
VastLeft at Corrente challenges the assumption that Obama was ever a progressive, particularly on the Iraq War.
I don’t think there was ever grounds to be excited about Obama as a progressive change agent. He has consistently worked the Forer Effect, talking in circles, saying something for everyone without regard (or much scrutiny) for the internal contradictions.
But agrees with the overall gist of Greenwald's piece. 'Beyond that, there are many canny observations about the dumb-as-dirt strategy called “bipartisanship” or “centrism” — the errant path that Obama and his unquestioning supporters are traveling ever more rapidly.
The Anonymous Liberal points out that Obama's position on FISA may to some extent be a pragmatic response to the fact that it was in fact heavily supported by Congressional Dems.
[T]he reason it might hurt him has nothing to do with the substantive merits of the bill or public opinion on issues like FISA reform and telecom immunity. The reason it might hurt him is because his party wouldn't have his back. With over two thirds of the members of his own party prepared to vote in favor of the bill, he has no political cover. If he opposes the bill, the question posed to him by every reporter and debate moderator would be: if the bill was so bad, why did over 2/3rds of the members of your own party think it was necessary to keep America safe?
The problem that national Democratic candidates like Obama face is one of collective action.
This is how I've rationalized his capitulation on this issue, though it doesn't give me any satisfaction on some of these other issues.
The libertarian blog Publius Endures argues out that any swing or independent voters who would find Obama's recent positions as attractive are those who may well be moving toward the Republican party ' with its emphasis on American exceptionalism and power, so-called "traditional values," and increasing nativism.'
The Dems' - and Obama's - recent capitulation on warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity should, I think, be viewed as much as an attempt to appease these wavering voters as anything else. To be sure, campaign contributions from the telecoms certainly helped, but those contributions would have been meaningless if there were no elements of the Dem coalition that support warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity. This is being portrayed by some as a "move to the center," and to a certain extent it is - socially conservative, economically liberal populists have become very much a "swing vote" that has become increasingly Republican in recent years, just as economically conservative, socially liberal voters (sometimes roughly and somewhat inaccurately described as "libertarians") have become increasingly Democrat. But as Glenn Greenwald correctly points out, this "move to the center" doesn't necessarily help Democrats, and may even hinder them in the sense that it forces Democrats to portray themselves as just "Republican-lite." To make matters worse, though, it results in policy decisions that are virtually indistinguishable from Republicans on issues like civil liberties and foreign policy, as well as cultural issues....
As long as Obama continues this so-called "move to the center," what he is really doing is simply seeking to maintain the existing Dem Party coalition, hoping that the more ideological liberals continue to support him as simply the "lesser of two evils." In so doing, it is likely that the end result - even if Obama wins - will be simply more of the same, and a style of government that is substantively very little different from McCain. If that will be the end result, then what, exactly, are liberals voting for?
It is my belief that liberals would instead do well to try to push the Dem Party into a position where they have no choice but to grow a backbone on civil liberties and foreign policy. (Publius Endures)
He challenges the assumption that Obama really is 'the lesser of two evils.' He argues instead in favor of third-party candidate Bob Barr. It's not a choice I'd make --- nor would I choose Nader.
But for the many, many angry Democrats who cannot stomach Obama, I would urge taking a look at the third parties rather than throwing a vote to McCain or simply refusing to vote. A protest vote gets you counted as someone who has 'opted out' of the choices imposed on you. I'd argue any Dem who truly, truly can't vote for this candidate to investigate whether there is an option you like better --- otherwise, you simply seem to be endorsing the continuation of Bush's failed policies.
You might want to have a look at this article at CNN: Bob Barr Says He's No Nader
See more discussion at Memeorandum.
RECENT RELATED POSTINGS
Olbermann's O-Reilly-ish Stance on FISA: Greenwald Delivers Knock-Out Punch
Chuck Hagel on McCain & Some Reflections About the Republican Party
Why Bill ---and Certain Hillary Supporters --- Should Let Hillary Drive the Car
The Long-Awaited Unity Event: 'We Are One Party'
Greenwald Takes Olbermann's Defense of the new FISA Bill into a Back Room; Only Greenwald Comes Out
Comments