To The Center

One thing that I think's gotten a bit lost in the progressive blog grumbling about Barack Obama's recent efforts to put a more centrist foot forward is that he's a substantially more liberal candidate than we've seen in quite some time. On an optics note, he didn't show up to a DLC National Conversation that was held literally around the corner from his national campaign headquarters. John Kerry spoke at the '04 version, Al Gore spoke at the 2000 version, etc. His health care proposals, though somewhat less far-reaching than Hillary Clinton's or John Edwards', are substantially more ambitious than what Kerry or Gore proposed. His climate change proposals are better than anything Kerry or Gore proposed. His foreign policy proposals represent a more daring break with the status quo than anything from the Clinton administration or the Kerry or Gore campaigns.

This is all true pretty much all up and down the line -- whatever disappointments one has with Obama (and there are sure to be more to come) -- he unquestionably represents a leftward shift relative to the sort of national candidates the Democratic Party has been putting forward in recent cycles.

Comments

A person willing to trash the 4th Amendment for political expedience is no liberal. Next thing you know he'll openly ponder whether Griswold was such a wise decision.

Posted by steve duncan | July 3, 2008 12:02 PM

I don't think it's that on progressive blogs people have been 'grumbling' that Obama more recently or Democrats in general have backed policies viewed as "centrist".

I think the disagreement has been with occasions on which Democratic politicians chose to back policies (or rhetoric) which were stupid, harmful, and politically counterproductive, and then this wrongness was explained away by some as needing to move to a "center" which presumably is where stupid, harmful, and politically counterproductive policies & rhetoric go to make ponies.

Posted by El Cid | July 3, 2008 12:03 PM

But consider the even bigger picture: the problems and the needs this country has which demand a liberal, progressive solution have grown exponentially in their seriousness since 2000 and 2004, while the Obama candidacy represents only a linear advance in liberal, progressive ambition.

It's also a problem that Obama's brand of politics seems best cut out for dealing with symbolic and spiritual and ideological problems - for rebalancing the Force, as it were - when the main issues that face us today look like they'll need a multi-faceted 'czar' president, i.e. a president who is 'Iraq Czar' 'Energy Czar' 'Budget Czar' 'Health Care Czar' and 'Terrorism Czar' all-in-one.

Obama's oratory will help him lead the way in tackling those huge issues, and his smarts will help him take the right path; also, the fact that he doesn't have any psychopathic tendencies (unlike some politicians I won't name) should steer him away from making big foolish mistakes. But will he run over people when he needs to (if, say, the Supreme Court challenges his health care plan)? I don't know.

Posted by lampwick | July 3, 2008 12:14 PM

Cid, that was perfectly elitist. The left knows better and must impose its pure-bred beliefs upon the rest for their own good. Because the ideas in the middle (and the people who hold them) are by definition compromised. These ideas and people are ponies, smaller in stature than the real horses.

A pony is a small horse with a specific conformation and temperament. There are many different breeds of ponies. Compared to horses, ponies often exhibit thicker manes, tails and overall coat, as well as proportionally shorter legs, wider barrels, heavier bone, thicker necks, and shorter heads with broader foreheads.

Ponies are generally considered intelligent and friendly, though sometimes they also are described as stubborn or devious. The differences of opinion often result from an individual pony's degree of proper training. Ponies trained by inexperienced individuals, or only ridden by beginners, can turn out to be spoiled because their riders typically lack the experience base to correct bad habits. Properly trained ponies are appropriate mounts for children who are learning to ride. Larger ponies can be ridden by adults, as ponies are usually very strong.

The pony originated from original wild horse prototypes that developed small stature due to living on the margins of livable horse habitat. These smaller animals were domesticated and bred for various purposes all over the Northern hemisphere.

Posted by El Cid's Horse | July 3, 2008 12:21 PM

I'm pissed off at Obama for one simple reason: He's pursuing a failed strategy. It's the same one that failed Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. As bad as McCain is, Obama will lose this election if he bases his general campaign on moving to the pseudo center.

Obama doesn't have to move. That's the whole point of the critique he's been receiving from the left. The majority of Americans are with him on virtually every issue.

The real center in this country, as opposed to the pseudo center, has become progressive. The zeitgeist has changed. That's the fundamental truth of our time. The conservative movement is played out. So don't defer to it. Kick the shit out of it.

Posted by davep | July 3, 2008 12:26 PM

His foreign policy proposals represent a more daring break with the status quo than anything from the Clinton administration or the Kerry or Gore campaigns.

This may still be true, but it seems to be less true by the day. As Obama works daily now to reassure foreign policy centrists that he does not represent any sort of daring break with the past, I wish he would at least throw a bone or blow a dog whistle to the left from time to time. Give us something to get excited about.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 3, 2008 12:32 PM

The idea that most of this country hadn't heard of Barack Obama two years ago and now he's about to claim the Presidency has got to be the greatest political success story in American history. If not world history.

And it's not hyperbole. It's real.

And if anyone thinks he's going to blow it by listening to what the netroots think, they're political idiots. Obama has what you call a strategy to win. He needs to beat the Republicans. You don't do that by campaigning to the left. You don't win red states all across the West by campaigning to the left.

It's idiotic to ever think Obama would campaign to the left. HELLO! He already did that! But that battle is over.

Now Obama has outflanked the Far Left, who have no choice but to vote for him over McCain.

Now Obama has to win the middle.

This is simple.

The netroots don't matter at all in terms of the presidency. Too small a group to matter. And only talking to themselves anyway. Regular folks don't know who they are or care what they say.

Which means it's not too hard for Obama to outflank them. Getting spit on by the netroots is good for Obama's street cred anyway.

Posted by Mister Lightning | July 3, 2008 12:32 PM

The "moving to the center" meme is overstated. Obama has always supported the death penalty (and wrote as much in Audacity of Hope). Obama has always supported faith-based community organizations. Obama has always supported Israel's right to exist. Obama has always said that NATFA is flawed but should be renegotiated rather than repealed outright. Just because he's highlighting these more centrist positions right now (or, as Matt put it, "[putting] a more centrist foot forward") does not mean he's changing his positions.

The exception to this, of course, is the issue of FISA/telecom immunity, where Obama has in fact changed his position.

Posted by Darius | July 3, 2008 12:38 PM

"he unquestionably represents a leftward shift relative to the sort of national candidates the Democratic Party has been putting forward in recent cycles."

Yes. One way to look at that is not to focus on the mythology of Who he reminds us of (a left Reagan, JFK, FDR, Lincoln) but When. Intentionally or not, he hinted at that in his recent reference to "the past 40 years. It's 1968-72 (yes, I know all the differences then-and-now, I'm doing analogy & not analysis here)-- and this is a guy who clearly has reflected long & hard on the politics of "the past 40 years". Old Boomers like me I talk with feel like it's a (non-nostalgic!)chance for a do-over, to have our votes (in the Streets & in the System) for Bobby & Eugene & Hubert & George to be pooled into a New Majority. I don't know how he can pull that off without appearing at times and to most of us sometimes as "incoherent" or "inconsistent" or "shifting" or whatever. He's taken on a big job, a bigger one than dared by Carter-through-Kerry, and I think he's doing it well so far, warts & all.

Posted by gsk+ | July 3, 2008 12:41 PM

The netroots are an advocacy group like any other. They will never get EVERYTHING they want. Yet they will keep crowing, because that is what they do.

But clearly they have no understanding of political strategy. You fight the fights you want to fight. you don't pick fights on the other guys territory - like FISA, which is national security. It's not because you don't think you can win that fight. You think you can. But there is a greater chance you lose that battle on a national security issue than there is on a domestic issue.

If it's Iraq, where you have a clear and popular position, you're happy to have that battle. But not over something as unclear and complicated as FISA. That's practically a jump ball. Bad idea. You play to your strengths, so you control the ball.

Posted by Me Loves Me Some Maniac | July 3, 2008 12:42 PM

davep:
On some issues, you are right that the center has shifted. Mostly on economic issues. On others, no way.

Gay marriage? No.

Affirmative action? No.

Individual gun rights? Yes.

Death penalty for child rapists? Yes.

Warrantless wiretapping potential foreign terrorists? Yes.

Unchecked illegal immigration? No.

Border fence? Yes.

On other issues such as health care reform, allowing tax cuts to expire, looking at NAFTA reevision, I think the shift has occurred and the left need not compromise on these general ideas. But there is no way the center has moved left enough on the issues above to declare them "fundamental truths." Quite the opposite.

Posted by I'manexcellentdriver | July 3, 2008 12:43 PM

I'll call it a daring departure "when" he gets us out of Iraq. Until then, I say he spent the last couple of weeks pissing on pretty much everything liberals used to stand for.

Posted by Phil | July 3, 2008 12:45 PM

Obama has been saying these things from the beginning. But the MSM never listened. Now there is shock from the media and the netroots that he somehow changed his position when he didn’t. The MSM is just mad because it basically destroyed the whole most liberal Senator meme from the crappy Conservative National Journal article that coincidently said John Kerry was most liberal in 2004. The netroots are mad because they are always looking for something to complain and because they are not use to winning.

Posted by Ann | July 3, 2008 12:56 PM

Left of center types presumably believe that Obama should run a more progressive campaign than he appears to be running because he can. On the face of it, it's hard to see why he is such a big improvement over Hillary. Presumably, he is considered to be an agent of change or less corrupt than the first lady. Having read the Boston Globe piece on Obama's Chicago real estate pals I have my doubts.

Posted by Running Dog | July 3, 2008 1:07 PM

This comment seems like the converse of your astute remark that Hillary Clinton was perceived by many as ultra-liberal, while her policies (particularly foreign policy) tended to be more centrist. This was all before Sen. Clinton's populist turn in the primaries, but I think it was accurate at the time. In any case, you correctly regarded that arrangement -- a centrist candidate who is perceived to be far left -- as the worst of both worlds, at least for people interested in pursuing a progressive agenda. It stands to reason, then, that a candidate who appears centrist but governs as a liberal would be the best of both worlds (though we might refrain from phrasing it that way so as not to sound unduly utopian or cult-like).

Posted by infirm | July 3, 2008 1:16 PM

Darius and Ann are right on - he has changed very few positions, and has been rather skillful at highlighting the leftier stuff during the primaries and is now highlighting the centerier stuff during the general election campaign. I really don't see major flip floppage and pandering, (though his new FISA position does suck.)

The chance of losing a few left votes is heavily outweighed by picking up a bunch of center votes. I will continue to complain about his more center positions (and such complaints from the left DO increase his center cred) but I'll still give him cash, support, and my vote in November.

Anyone on the left who doesn't is a fool.

-J

Posted by john i | July 3, 2008 1:19 PM

The problem I have with "our" side on the FISA issue, and also Bush's use of "illegal" wiretaps are:

a) most of the netroots types don't really even understand the distinctions between the old FISA law and the proposed one (judging from the comments I've been reading on the blogs);

b) whether or not we are "at war", the country was attacked very directly on 9/11, and temporary suspension of certain constitutional rights in defense of the nation, while not my cup of tea, is not the same as what Nixon did.

On this last point I have more understanding for what Bush did than what Obama supports. Bush "broke the law" at a time when he was responsible for protecting the nation, after an unprecedented attack on US soil. People were scared, and I'm sure he felt immense pressure to protect us from another attack. What is Obama's excuse, 7 years later, for continuing this practice?

The answer, as "Me Loves Me Some Maniac" points out, it that this is political strategy pure and simple. We may all wish Obama would support the 4th amendment more vociferously, but if it were a choice between his support for the 4th, or winning the election, I choose the latter (with hopefully some 4th support after election). "But he can win the fisa debate" you may respond. Perhaps he can, but it is surely the weakest position he will have to defend during the debates (and by weak I mean difficult to win due to its complexity and potential for republican chest-thumping misinformation). With the Chicago machine handling his campaign (thank god), we can be assured a much better chance of victory than if MoveOn were running it (I second Jon Stewart's assessment that MoveOn's adds have been cringe-worthy since their inception in the 2004 campaign).

Posted by YankeeFrankee | July 3, 2008 1:20 PM

I don't begrudge anyone their right to express their policy prefences forcefully or to whine/carp/rant on the internet. However, IMO, Matt has this right. The netroots should keep things in perspective.

Partly as a result of a change in political environment and partly because of his own predilections and abilities, Obama has a chance to accomplish very important progressive goals on health care, environmental issues and foreign policy. Even if you don't believe that his positions on these issues are picture perfect, it is short-sighted to lose track of the bigger picture.

Posted by Chunche | July 3, 2008 1:46 PM

What is the "centrist" constituency clamouring for telecom amnesty? Which red state polls suggest that middle america desperately wants telcos to avoid prosecution for their role in warrantless wiretapping? The thing I don't understand about the change in Obama's FISA position is that it doesn't seem to serve any real purpose- I would understand if it seemed like he would benefit in some significant political way or if the legislation had some other ancillary benefits to his campaign but that really doesn't seem to be the case.

Posted by Paper Mac | July 3, 2008 1:51 PM

I don't begrudge anyone their right to express their policy prefences forcefully or to whine/carp/rant on the internet. However, IMO, Matt has this right. The netroots should keep things in perspective.

Partly as a result of a change in political environment and partly because of his own predilections and abilities, Obama has a chance to accomplish very important progressive goals on health care, environmental issues and foreign policy. Even if you don't believe that his positions on these issues are picture perfect, it is short-sighted to lose track of the bigger picture.

Posted by Chunche | July 3, 2008 1:51 PM

I don't begrudge anyone their right to express their policy prefences forcefully or to whine/carp/rant on the internet. However, IMO, Matt has this right. The netroots should keep things in perspective.

Partly as a result of a change in political environment and partly because of his own predilections and abilities, Obama has a chance to accomplish very important progressive goals on health care, environmental issues and foreign policy. Even if you don't believe that his positions on these issues are picture perfect, it is short-sighted to lose track of the bigger picture.

Posted by Chunche | July 3, 2008 1:53 PM

That Obama 'represents a leftward shift relative to the sort of national candidates the Democratic Party has been putting forward in recent cycles' is certainly true, but is it really saying that much? It's 2008, George Bush has been president for almost 8 years and is, along with his party, remarkably, resoundingly unpopular, marking the tail-end of the modern Republican era - and our nominee is not from the DLC! Our nominee was even bold enough to not be a formal part of DLC program related activities! All is well!

OK, I kid. I still think and will continue to do, that cautious center-left on some issues - tax code, healthcare, Iraq - is not what the doctor ordered for this election, that inching the center a little to the left is inadequate to the moment. But I must stay that Obama is doing pretty well. He's an excellent candidate, and he's probably going to win, which is all that matters now.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 3, 2008 2:06 PM

What is the "centrist" constituency clamouring for telecom amnesty? Which red state polls suggest that middle america desperately wants telcos to avoid prosecution for their role in warrantless wiretapping? The thing I don't understand about the change in Obama's FISA position is that it doesn't seem to serve any real purpose- I would understand if it seemed like he would benefit in some significant political way or if the legislation had some other ancillary benefits to his campaign but that really doesn't seem to be the case.

Posted by Paper Mac | July 3, 2008 2:11 PM

I would agree with you on the DLC thing, but I'm not quite sure you've nailed why he didn't go. I'd say his unwillingness to go with the DLC has less to do with their positions, and more to do with how they're a competing power center within the party.

After all, he's already said he's anti-527 and is openly encouraging people to give to him instead of other Democratic-liberal organizations. If he's making a power play to centralize power, why the hell would he legitimize an organization that's almost certainly going to try to to tell him what to do?

And as for the rest... well, we'll see. I'll be more impressed when he takes a stand on something that the base likes and the mythical swing voter wouldn't. He's making a rookie mistake in taking this "swing to the center" thing too literally. As others have pointed out, he doesn't have to move to the Washington center but the American center. There's a difference.

When he proves he understands that difference, I'll get back a little bit of the old optimism.

Posted by Demosthenes | July 3, 2008 2:23 PM

cautious center-left on some issues - tax code, healthcare, Iraq - is not what the doctor ordered for this election

Sorry, not tax code - Obama is OK on that.

My problem with him really is that he so often accepts the conservative frame, instead of re-framing, which I think it's high time we do. Timid when there's every reason not to be. A fine candidate nonetheless, though.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 3, 2008 2:25 PM

"Darius and Ann are right on - he has changed very few positions, and has been rather skillful at highlighting the leftier stuff during the primaries and is now highlighting the centerier stuff"

This is utter bullshit. You are saying that he has been rather skillful at bullshitting people and complimenting him for it. "Yes we can" = bullshit. Respecting people's intelligence = bullshit. New kind of politics = bullshit.

The whole idea that Democratic candidates have failed to win in the past because they don't "move to the center" and pander to the "far left" is complete bullshit. It is the opposite of truth.

People in the center don't give a shit generally. Yes, the people Obama is pissing off now will vote for Obama. But he is costing himself effort and energy from people who *care* about politics. People who pay attention and are willing to push back hard on the right wing crap (muslim, elitist, black, america hating, etc). I guarantee you the energy to do that will not be there if he continues down this path. And it will cost him votes in the precious center.

No Republican candidate wins by moving to the center (at least not legally). That is why they've beating in the brains of progressives and democrats for years.

Posted by duffy | July 3, 2008 2:37 PM

I don't get it. Bush is condemned for his warrantless wiretaps, yet when Obama basically says well, they're ok, let's codify them permanently, it's okay because, well gosh, we have to elect Obama so he can...monitor the inspectors general? He'll have the same damn power as Bush and he will use it, have no doubt.

This isn't about a move to the center. Anyone who would choose to blithely dismiss what this FISA bill as not being important, because the "vast middle" doesn't even know what the original FISA is, surrenders to Bush and allows Obama's previous correct condemnations of the expansion of executive power to be turned on its head.

If the vast middle has no idea what FISA is, then how can it hurt to oppose this expansion of it? Doesn't he know how to tell people that the original FISA is good enough? Of course he does, because he said that when he endorsed Dodd!

"What does it profit a man...?"

Posted by mkevinf | July 3, 2008 3:31 PM

So Obama is the candidate of change, change, change. Change you can believe in. A different kind of politician. All that good stuff. And Obama is actually a centrist, just a bit more left-of-center than Gore or Kerry, and liberal bloggers have always recognized this.

Sorry, it does not compute. You want it both ways. Obama cannot be both an exciting break with the past and just a slightly leftier version of Gore/Kerry.

Even the claim that Obama is to the left of Gore and Kerry at all is highly dubious. He doesn't seem to be to the left of Gore on climate change. And his health care plan may be to the left what Gore and Kerry proposed when they were running for president, but that doesn't mean much. Health care is just a higher priority issue in this election for Democrats in general. Obama's health care plan is more conservative than Hillary's and Edwards'. And waaaaay more conservative than HillaryCare Part I, 15 years ago.

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 3:33 PM

I don't get it. Bush is condemned for his warrantless wiretaps, yet when Obama basically says well, they're ok, let's codify them permanently, it's okay because, well gosh, we have to elect Obama so he can...monitor the inspectors general? He'll have the same damn power as Bush and he will use it, have no doubt.

This isn't about a move to the center. Anyone who would choose to blithely dismiss what this FISA bill as not being important, because the "vast middle" doesn't even know what the original FISA is, surrenders to Bush and allows Obama's previous correct condemnations of the expansion of executive power to be turned on its head.

If the vast middle has no idea what FISA is, then how can it hurt to oppose this expansion of it? Doesn't he know how to tell people that the original FISA is good enough? Of course he does, because he said that when he endorsed Dodd!

"What does it profit a man...?"

Posted by mkevinf | July 3, 2008 3:35 PM

Why all the comparisons with the past i.e. Gore and Kerry. Surely we should be comparing him with Clinton and Edwards to get a relative perspective. In any case, it's important to take note of what he does, not what he says. He has been extremely disappointing thus far. He looks like your standard politician to me.

Posted by Mary | July 3, 2008 4:44 PM

Why all the comparisons with the past i.e. Gore and Kerry. Surely we should be comparing him with Clinton and Edwards to get a relative perspective. In any case, it's important to take note of what he does, not what he says. He has been extremely disappointing thus far. He looks like your standard politician to me.

Posted by Mary | July 3, 2008 4:45 PM

Why all the comparisons with the past i.e. Gore and Kerry. Surely we should be comparing him with Clinton and Edwards to get a relative perspective. In any case, it's important to take note of what he does, not what he says. He has been extremely disappointing thus far. He looks like your standard politician to me.

Posted by Mary | July 3, 2008 4:45 PM

With all the happy talk about Reagan during the DEMOCRATIC primary season, why should anyone be surprised to see Obama moving rightward during the general?

My money says he ain't through yet; he'll probably save the worst til after the Convention so as to put on a smily-family show in Denver.

Posted by Trickster | July 3, 2008 5:00 PM

Mea Culpa:
in my zeal, I erred:
"Of course he does, because he said that when he endorsed Dodd!" s/b "...when Dodd endorsed him".

Posted by mkevinf | July 3, 2008 5:17 PM

Mea Culpa:
in my zeal, I erred:
"Of course he does, because he said that when he endorsed Dodd!" s/b "...when Dodd endorsed him".

Posted by mkevinf | July 3, 2008 5:19 PM

Well of course he's a standard politician. Good night, I can't believe intelligent people ever fell for that "transformation" schtick.

Course he's not the nominee yet. There's still time for the Democrats to come to their senses and nominate a true progressive, Hillary Clinton.

Posted by John Petty | July 3, 2008 5:22 PM

I STILL do not see any concrete evidence that his foreign policy will be in any significant way different than previous Presidents.

His RHETORIC is SLIGHTLY different. His actual policy proposals are NOT.

He thinks Iran is "a threat". It's not. His policy to deal with that is aggressive sanctions and keeping the military option on the table - despite its utter illegality.

His policy proposals for Afghanistan and Pakistan are more troops and more aggressive cross-border operations.

I don't see any evidence that he wants to invade Iran for the oil like Dick Cheney, but that's about it.

His foreign policy proposals for the Palestinian situation are non-existent, as far as I can tell. His pandering to AIPAC and the Zionist freaks is very clear, however.

So where is this "significant break" in foreign policy?

Citations please.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 3, 2008 5:50 PM

Obama's been damned near letter-perfect consistent. Anyone who doubts the sincerity and serious intellectual underpinnings of his recent comments on FISA, guns, faith-based charity, the death penalty, Iraq, etc--simply doesn't understand the strength of his candidacy.

We don't need a foreign policy that's "significantly different" from the last four Presidents'. We need better execution, which is more likely to come from the sort of mental agility Obama demonstrates than from a dogmatic leftist analysis.

Most voters, who are heavily concentrated among the sturdy ponies in the middle, recognize this fact.

Posted by robert powell | July 4, 2008 9:19 AM

Are we going to lose again because we are attacking our own candidate? This is spinning out of control. Relax, think. He has a plan to win. "There aren't red States and blue states, but the United States of America." Remember, what he said? He is the strongest Democratic nominee in 40 years who knows how to win this thing. Please let him win. Everyone is against him rethugs (always assh@les, Puma (total delusional assh@les), Lest wing purist(acting like assh@les now). the MSM (super-assh@les.
Do you think John McLame has any clue as to leading this country forward. Please no more "CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD" PLEASE! For once let's unite... with Barack Obama and win this thing and move this country forward into a progressive future. For all of our sake's.

Posted by margoharris | July 4, 2008 12:31 PM