10 Responses to “On The Move”

1. conradg, on July 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm Said:

   I think a little clarity is needed here. Obama opposed the specific welfare reform bill of 1996(?), not welfare reform altogether. Even Bill Clinton acknowledged that it had serious problems, but signed it anyway with the intention of fixing it later, which he did. Obama supported back-to-work welfare reform, just not that particular one, and introduced bills of that nature in the Illinois senate and they passed. So the idea that Obama has just recently flip-flopped on this issue is just plain wrong. In fact, it’s wrong to say that he ever flip-flopped on the issue itself. His position has been consistent for a long time, even before the Welfare Reform Act passed congress. You are just trying to keep this meme of yours going at all costs, regardless of the underlying facts. As are plenty of other people. What’s your motive?

2. Daniel Larison, on July 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm Said:

   Yes, at the state level he supported a form of welfare reform. But he clearly wants to obscure that he opposed the federal legislation, since that legislation has since proved to be successful, and he wants to associate himself with the success of welfare reform in general. I overstated things in the post and did not acknowledge his support of the state legislation, which I should have done, but let’s not pretend that Obama isn’t trying to have it all on this issue.

   I don’t need to keep the meme going–Obama does that for me on many, many other things before this. My motive in holding craven pols accountable is the same that it has always been–to keep people from trusting them and making sure, as much as I can, that they aren’t able to pass off expediency as leadership.

3. tenaciousd, on July 1st, 2008 at 2:27 pm Said:

   Funny. During the primary, my wife and I debated about whom to vote for. I started out as an Edwards man, but our primary came to late to vote for him. But, here was my initial rationale after it became a three-way race.

   1. Edwards was a phoney and a sellout who just might have learned his lesson.
   2. Clinton is an unrepentant phoney and sellout.
   3. Obama is an as-yet-unproven phoney and sellout.

   We ended up voting for Obama just to put an end to the Clinton menace. But, I’m disappointed that Obama didn’t have the courtesy to delay his full-on pander mode–I mean “centrism”–until after the convention, which is the traditional kickoff to the sellout season. Obama hasn’t flip-flopped on an issue near to my heart except for NAFTA. But, the larger trend is disturbing. Now, I’ve got to a start considering Bob Barr much earlier than I’d planned unless Obama flips on his liberal internationalism to become an avowed anti-imperialist.

4. conradg, on July 1st, 2008 at 2:55 pm Said:

   The point is that opposing the particular welfare reform bill at the federal level back in the 90’s didn’t mean that even then he was opposed to welfare reform, even of this variety. There were simply serious problems with that bill that had to be overcome with further modifications. Obama was in favor of the general effort, but not the particular bill, so it’s not at all expedient or deceptive to now say that he was in favor of this kind of reform all along, because if fact he was. Using this to typecast Obama as a craven phoney just doesn’t pass muster - it kind of makes you look like a craven phoney, don’t you think? Not exactly the effect I think you are looking for.

5. Daniel Larison, on July 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pm Said:

   He has already proven that he is craven on several other things, about which you naturally have nothing to say. I would be embarrassed to defend the man on those points, too.

   On the welfare issue, Ambinder says:

   “Actually, the word “passed” here is a bit out of context. As other news organizations have noted, Obama co-sponsored the bill, which brought Illinois into compliance with the ‘96 federal law; legislators don’t pass anything. And it passed overwhelmingly — Democrats and Republicans in the Illinois Senate supported it; there was only one no vote And Obama glosses over his opposition to the ‘96 federal welfare reform law.”

   So on the state bill he was taking a position that almost the entire legislature took to put IL in compliance with federal law. It seems directly relevant to his credibility as a reformer that he opposed the federal law in question. If the federal bill had serious problems, he shouldn’t be bragging about co-sponsoring legislation to put IL in compliance with a law that had serious problems. It is slippery at best, and deceptive at worst.

   However, this item is the least important of them all, and I’ll be glad to write an update to that effect.

6. conradg, on July 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm Said:

   Now that you mention it, I do take issue with the characterization of these moves as “craven”. Obviously Obama is a politician, not a saint as you insist he ought to be judged, but I simply don’t see these moves as craven in any sense of he word even for a politician.

   Regarding FISA, he’s simply in a bind, in that he doesn’t want this particular FISA bill, but he can’t change it on his own, and he can’t be perceived as being against FISA either. He certainly doesn’t want the Telecom immunity part passed, but the immunity provision only applies to civil matters, not criminal ones, and he’s already said one of the first things he’ll do is have his attorney general look into possible violations of the law by previous administration officials, which would include violations of FISA, and that’s a more important way to deal with it than civil lawsuits against telecoms. Now, if Obama is elected and doesn’t do that, then I’d feel betrayed. Likewise, if he doesn’t, once elected, put in modifications to FISA that protect against further violations of civil liberties, then yes, that’s also bad. But pre-emptively judging him on these issues seems bad politics and simply cynicism on your part. There’s simply not much a senator whose party does not control the White House, and has only a tentative majority dependent on Joe Lieberman, can do.

   Regarding NAFTA, as you say, Obama has always been predominantly a free trader, with some cavaets. It’s true he stretched his opposition to NAFTA somewhat during the primaries, but primarily in the context of Clinton’s total distortion of her own record on that issue.But to say he adopted a strong anti-NAFTA line just isn’t true. He never said he wanted to repeal NAFTA, he was just critical of it, and claimed it needed to be changed. Mostly, however, he was just pointing out that Hillary’s claim to be opposed to NAFTA was sheer lunacy. He never took an Edwards-like line against it. You claim he demogogued the issue, I say give us evidence of that. What did he actually say that can be called demogoguery?

   As for guns, yes, Obama says the right to own guns is constitutional. He’d certainly have been happier if the court had upheld limited gun bans in areas of high gun crime, but he’s never suggested that gun bans should be universal. There’s no fli-flop here. This is very much consistent with Obama’s general notion of using federalism in such locales to allow local people to solve problems with some leeway. He just doesn’t see the 2nd Amendement as protecting the right to fire guns in a crowded theater. Of course, that kind of nuance isn’t much appreciated in the midst of an election, so Obama simplifies it. I’d hardly call that “craven”.

   As for public financing, first it’s a media myth that Obama pledged to only accept public financing. He said he would strongly consider it, and meet with McCain to discuss how that works out. But I for one have never considered public financing the goal of campaign finance reform, nor is it even desirable, and given the serious underfunding that it imposes on candidates, it’s actually anti-democratic. The goal of campaign finance reform is to take the influence of big money out of politics, and Obama has succeeded in that well beyond anything any previous candidate has done. He’s not indebted to any group or individual, and his average contribution is what, $100? Not exactly a sign of corruption. But in the spin to make Obama look bad, this is somehow measured as a negative, when in fact its a huge positive for him. If anything, his and Ron Paul’s campaigns have shown how in the internet age candidates can free themselves tremendously from the stupidities of raising money from vested interests to finance full blown Presidential campaigns, quite a positive development. So what exactly is craven about this? Yes, it’s to his advantage not to take public financing, but that doesn’t make it craven, does it? Or is your definition of the word craven, “anything that helps Obama”?

   In short, I can’t see a single issue you’ve raised that supports the charge of cravenness. Perhaps you need to define the term better.Now, my definition of cravenness would be to seek the support of the very people one has previously decried as corrupt and morally repugnant, as McCain has done in seeking the support of the very evangelical leaders he denounced in 2000, or when you trot out defenders of your military record people who were part of the swift-boating of Kerry in 2004, which you also denounced. If you have examples like these to point to in Obama’s camp, let’s hear about them. Until then, this charge of “craven” political posturing seems overblown and baseless. Certainly Obama is a politician trying to show his best profile, but that’s hardly craven, or a betrayal of his real positions on these matters.

   Of course, it doesn’t hurt me much that Obama’s positions on all these issues pretty closely reflect my own views as well. I would suggest that it’s because Obama’s positions don’t reflect your own views that you judge him so harshly.

7. Daniel Larison, on July 1st, 2008 at 8:22 pm Said:

   I judge him harshly because he has abandoned at least four positions he took during the primaries in the space of about two weeks. That would be remarkable even for a Clinton. It goes to his credibility and trustworthiness. He was aware of the political risk that sticking to his guns would have entailed, so instead he bailed on his commitments. Fine, that’s politics, but he doesn’t get to make these changes without being attacked for his maneuvering. This is how he expects to change the ways of Washington? Fat chance.

   If it doesn’t bother you that your candidate is so cynical, I guess I shouldn’t be troubled, either. He has never challenged a single entrenched interest, which makes him a pretty lousy reformer, if you ask me. If you don’t care, I suppose it’s no skin off my nose if his promises are empty ones. If people on the left are not concerned about this, I guess I can’t be more outraged than his own supporters.

   I don’t judge him according to the standards of a saint (he would failed a long time ago if I had). I judge him by his own standards, which he once claimed were slightly higher than the norm.

8. Profiles in pandering « Upturned Earth || John Schwenkler, on July 1st, 2008 at 9:50 pm Said:

   [...] Absolutely, 100% right. And Barack Obama is different … well, how exactly? Read Greenwald, Larison, and Dominic Lawson, wash it down with a glass of Obama’s self-serving evolution on the war which he opposed before he voted to fund before he opposed again before he softened his opposition to it, and call me in the morning. That someone as smart, independent, and (at least very often) clear-headed as Andrew Sullivan is unable to call this sort of nonsense out for what it is - a shameless, weak-kneed, thoroughly unprincipled opportunism deserving only of scorn, and which indeed would receive nothing but scorn from people like Klein and Sullivan were it the “Rovian” opportunism of a Republican - is something with which I am unfailingly disappointed, and (more importantly) it is also the sort of thing that, as I have suggested before, is poised to be the ultimate downfall of the Obama Democrats in much the same ways as Bush Defender’s Syndrome brought down the GOP. Ezra explained later on in the morning that my rule is if I think of a critical post I want to write, I have to write it. I’m not part of Obama’s campaign operation, and it’s fairly important that the folks who are part of his campaign operation get criticized from the left and remain sensitive to those concerns. If they think they can take progressives for granted, they will. [...]

9. The incomparable Larison on Obama « Nathancontramundi, on July 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 am Said:

   [...] The incomparable Larison on Obama This man is always on. Be sure to read the discussion in the comment box, too. [...]

10. conradg, on July 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm Said:

    Daniel, I can understand your “disappointment” in Obama, in that you are more interested in purity than actually getting things done, but I have a hard time complaining over the fact that Obama has moved in the right direction on all these issues as far as I am concerned. What I see in Obama is a practical intellect looking for the best solution in any given situation. Some people see political integrity as a matter of always sticking up for some principle, I see it as an ability to adjust to the situation at hand as best as possible, and keep evolving one’s views to fit reality, not to buck reality in favor of some form of absolutism. In other words, I’ve always thought the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to own guns in one’s home, and I agree with the Supreme Court decision. Bowing to that reality is not pandering, it’s a sign of realism. Likewise with the realism of letting FISA pass (he can’t stop it anyway, does anyone acknowledge that?) and changing it after he gets into office. Likewise with his sympathy for the ability of states to impose the death penalty for extreme pedaphiles. I want Obama to stand up for principles when doing so can actually change things, not to tilt at windmills and go down in flames like a Ron Paul with his purity intact. I vote for politicians to get things done, not to be martyrs to principle. Which is why I supported Obama from the beginning and not Edwards. Edwards would fight on principle all the way to an electoral defeat once again. Obama will get far more actually done, in the compromised fashion that all politicians must adopt to get things done.

    And yes, his standards are slightly higher than the norm - note the word “slightly”. Of course, I never assumed he was a wild-eyed idealist, so I’m not disappointed to discover that he isn’t. I’m happy to see him acknowledgin the human realities of politics and the possible rather than the ideal. I’m also happy that he’s not upholding far-left ideals, since I don’t hold them either. I do read Greenwald, and while I admire his purity of purpose, I don’t share it, and I don’t want my political leaders becoming preachers and purists either. I’m not looking for a Ron Paul of the left.

    But here’s how I see Obama as being different: he actually tries to move closer and closer to the best possible position on the issues - best meaning not necessary the ideologically correct position, but the position that can allow him to make actual changes. Martyrs do not get things done. I support him because I see a practical intelligence at work that is aimed at the best possible course of action. Not that he will or could ever achieve that, but that he strives for it, and I think is better at this than most. That’s why he adopted the issue of no mandates on health care for example - not because he was against universal health care, but because he could foresee that requiring mandates would lessen the chances of passing an actual change to the system. I see a similar intelligence at work on all these issues here, and of course it rubs the ideologues the wrong way, because they think the way to change things is to man the trenches and never give an inch. Like that’s worked so well. These guys want to die in the bunkers rather than make tactical retreats which increase the odds of future victory.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.