Sullivan:

“Far left” means a man that Joe Lieberman was thrilled to get to support his last Senate campaign.

Of course, Lieberman was thrilled to get any support in his last Senate campaign from national Democrats during the primary, but it might be worth pointing out that by voting record and ADA score Obama actually is to the left of Lieberman, who is, with the exception of his “centrist” (a.k.a., militarist) foreign policy views, pretty far to the left of center himself.  When defining someone as “far left” (or “far right”), it matters who is doing the defining.  From my perspective, the current administration is pretty far to the left, and Obama would be demonstrably farther to the left on most, if not all, things, so to the extent that the right-left spectrum has any meaning (questionable) how else would you define him?  To many far leftists, Obama appears to be a sell-out and someone willing to compromise with the GOP in unacceptable ways, but the irony of this complaint is that he is much closer to them than they or Obama’s conservative supporters believe. 

To be to the right of Hillary Clinton on nationalising health care is still pretty far out there for a lot of people in this country.  The relevant question is whether the country has moved significantly to the left, or indeed already was there when Bush was elected but had not yet fully expressed it electorally, and there is some evidence that it has when we look at some of the voting for the House or polling on specific policy issues.  That said, there seems to be tremendous stability at the presidential level in the voting coalitions, which is why, according to Rasmussen, McCain doggedly polls at around 45-46% and Obama anemically polls the same, which seems to mean that the center has not shifted all that much despite the last eight years.  That means that a nominee who is running on the most left-wing platform of any candidate since McGovern (as is Clinton, as was Edwards!) is effectively pretty far to the left.  If you’re a liberal or an Obama supporter, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that and presumably it is the reason why you’re supporting him (conservatives who are supporting him primarily because of the war are obviously the radical exception).  In theory, Obama’s potential was supposed to be that he would mainstream left-liberalism with the aid of his style, charisma and inclusive rhetoric, but the consolation for those on the left annoyed by his accommodating language was that he would be unabashedly governing as a left-liberal on the assumption that left-liberalism has the best answers. 

The then state senator who was considered the pride of Chicago’s progressives–that is to say, the candidate in the Senate primary who was to the left of most of his competition–can be fairly described as a leftist, and the only reason to fear such a label is if such a political alignment really does put the candidate so far out of the mainstream that he is not electorally viable.  The meme is not exhausted, or else there would be no reason to challenge its use.  Whether it still has the same political punch that it once did is an open question, but the description of Obama as being far to the left would not worry Obama supporters if it were either manifestly untrue or lacking in power.  Arguably, relative to, say, a Russ Feingold, Obama may be closer to the center, but not that much closer.  Then again, Obama has had higher ratings from NARAL than Feingold and a higher ADA than Ted Kennedy in the past.  As the linked page shows, during the relevant period Obama had an average higher rating from several progressive interest groups than any of his colleagues–so how is it outrageous to say that he is far left?  These interest group ratings are imperfect and are focused on some pieces of legislation at the expense of other votes, but they are one way to quantify someone’s political leanings.   

It seems to me that his conservative supporters are allergic to this description of him because they are aware of how that label has been used to sink Democratic nominee after Democratic nominee, and so they want to insist that Obama is not politically what, in reality, he is and has been for his entire career.  It seems to me that this is to recommend the same halting, fearful sort of campaign in which the Democrat has to run away from what he actually believes to be “common sense” (as Obama has described his own views) for fear of being ”tarred” with the beliefs that he holds.  This is the same kind of lack of confidence that has plagued Democratic responses to the charge of being a liberal or “weak on national security” for decades.  

Meanwhile, this objection seems particularly strained:

“Far left” means well to the racial right of Jesse Jackson.

As a matter of policy, how is this even accurate?  Because Obama does not lead street protests and engage in the rhetoric of racial grievance–matters of tactics and expression–he is to Jesse Jackson’s right?  In what significant way is his current position on affirmatve action really any different from Jackson’s?  He has gestured vaguely towards replacing racial preferences with class-based preferences, but he is always doing that–gesturing vaguely towards reforming this or that policy, and then predictably endorsing the traditional party line when it comes time to vote on anything. 

Then there is this sort of thing, which I’m not sure his supporters want to keep stressing:

“Far left” means retaining the right to bomb Pakistan if al Qaeda is deemed a threat there.

That’s right.  He supports violating allied sovereignty without the ally’s consent, which is the same position that George Bush holds.  It is in his attitudes towards the use of force and intervention abroad where the “far left” label does not apply very well, because in this area of policy he is firmly entrenched in the Washington consensus that supports U.S. hegemony and will consistently disappoint his progressive supporters who think of him as representing a significant break from past U.S. foreign policy. 

Update: A more comprehensive list of Obama’s ratings can be found here.  As you can see, his ADA varies from year to year, but the overall impression from his ratings is that he consistently and predictably votes with liberal interest groups, which is what you would expect from a left-liberal Democrat.

Filed under: politics