by D. Cupples | Last fall -- fearing the label "unpatriotic" -- Congress voted on a resolution condemning MoveOn.org's New York Times ad that questioned whether General David Petraeus would "betray us" (i.e., color the facts of his Iraq war report in a Bush-friendly way). Last year, Sen. Barack Obama did not vote either way on the resolution that chastised MoveOn (see roll call).
Yesterday, The Hill reported that Sen. Obama slighted MoveOn.org when bringing up the ad that MoveOn ran nearly a year ago. This is bizarre, given that MoveOn has 3+ million members and endorsed Obama over Clinton in the primaries.
Some media have characterized Sen. Obama's post-victory attempts to look un-progressive as a move to the "Center." That may be a comforting euphemism, but it's not an accurate description of what's been going on.
Granted, some issues do involve two extremes and some points in between, including the so-called "Center."
Such issues usually involve numbers or quantities, like the portion of citizens' health care costs for which government should pay: the two extremes and the middle being (respectively) $0, 100%, and half. Where there's a continuum and midpoint, there is room for compromise.
Issues that don't involve quantities tend to be binary (either yes or no) -- meaning they lack a midpoint. Abortion seems to be one of those Center-free issues: one either favors banning abortions or favors allowing people the freedom to choose.
On some issues that actually have extremes and midpoints, Sen. Obama may be moving to the "Center" (e.g., issues like the amount of regulation government should impose upon polluting industries or financial markets). I haven't yet researched this, so I'm not sure.
When Sen. Obama sort of reversed himself on FISA, however, he wasn't moving to the so-called "Center," because there is no midpoint re: the new FISA bill. Either Sen. Obama wants to oppose the new FISA bill (to protect our Fourth Amendment rights) or he does not.
The same is true of NAFTA, an issue on which Sen. Obama reversed his position after declaring his primary victory. At the debate before the Ohio primary, Sen. Obama agreed with Sen. Clinton's strategy on NAFTA, saying that he would use the opt-out period as a "hammer" to re-negotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico (see video clip below).
In June 2008, after becoming the presumptive nominee, Sen. Obama said that he doesn't want to re-negotiate NAFTA after all -- that his earlier campaign rhetoric had been "overheated" (CNN).
As with the FISA issue, there is no matter of degrees here. It's a yes or no proposition either he plans to use the "hammer" to renegotiate NAFTA or he doesn't.
Similarly, coming out now and telling the world that MoveOn.org had done a bad thing when it questioned General Petraeus is not an example of moving to the "Center." It's an example of blatantly distancing himself from a group whose support Sen. Obama doesn't seem to need so much now that he's the presumptive nominee.
Would MoveOn have supported Sen. Obama so enthusiastically in 2008 if Sen. Obama had resisted the urge to not vote and had instead voted "yes" in 2007 on the Senate resolution that essentially condemned MoveOn's position on General Petraeus?
On issues such as MoveOn, NAFTA, and FISA, Sen. Obama didn't simply tack to a non-existent "Center": he outright changed his position.
Whether or not that is a good campaign strategy remains to be seen. I just think that the media should stop relying on euphemisms and start calling things what they are.
Yesterday, Obama supporter Arianna Huffington noted the difference between reversing positions and "moving to the Center." She also urged Sen. Obama to stop moving:
[Quoting Obama] "'What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics -- the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.... The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page.'
"That was Barack Obama in February of 2007, announcing his run for the White House. 'I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington,' he said that day, 'but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.'
"Was that just 'overheated and amplified' rhetoric?
"The Obama brand has always been about inspiration, a new kind of politics, the audacity of hope, and 'change we can believe in.' I like that brand. More importantly, voters -- especially unlikely voters -- like that brand."
I, too, like that "brand" -- but far beyond that, I'd like to vote for a politician who views positively changing in how we do politics as more than merely a "brand."
Anyone can don a "brand": it's like wrapping paper.
Given Sen. Obama's recent position reversals, it's beginning to appear that "new politics" has been, for Sen. Obama's campaign, little more than a brand.
I'd like to see Sen. Obama actually walk the walk and ensure that his actions are in sync with the "brand."
Sen. Obama on NAFTA in February 2008
Memeorandum has commentary.
Comments