That’s Not Change, That’s More Of The Same
Posted on October 7th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Even though all of this will amount to little more than a sideshow, the return of Ayers as the center of a minor campaign controversy baffles me for some of the same reasons why the Wright controversy early in the year baffled me. None of this stuff was a secret, and anyone paying the slightest attention would have already encountered the whole story. If you think membership on the same board constitutes some close working relationship between the two, you have already been scandalized; if you think it is a pretty minor connection, you just find rehashing it one more time to be a waste of time.
What few people seem to take away from the limited Obama-Ayers connection is that, just as he did with Wright and Trinity United and just as he has done with everyone who has become an embarrassment to him, he dropped Ayers like a hot rock the minute it became necessary. The liability of having dealings with Ayers in practical terms exists only if voters believe that Obama somehow shares Ayers’ radical politics, just as the real liability of the Wright connection existed only if people came to believe that he actually shared Wright’s most incendiary views. Few people seriously claim that, Obama explicitly denies it, and I’m not sure that the people who claim it really believe it. This is why I don’t understand the Obama campaign’s concerted effort to pretend that Obama and Ayers didn’t know each other or that Obama knew nothing of Ayers’ past crimes–this is like saying, “I knew nothing about this irrelevant information.” If it’s irrelevant, which it basically is, why act as if it matters whether he knew about it or not? The reality that Obama abandoned many of these associates and allies directly contadicts the fear that Obama is somehow still in league or sympathetic with them.
John Kass is probably one of the only people to understand how Obama operates; one of the others has been Ryan Lizza. I’d like to think that I have also more or less recognized the same thing that David Sirota saw in Obama months and months ago, which is his avoidance of confronting power and his aversion to risk. His preference for consensus-building and his habit of using conciliatory language, which annoyed so many progressives early on, show him to be the opposite of a radical; he has no interest in getting at the root of our current problems, but generally wants cosmetic changes and wants to tweak how things are managed. Flipping on the FISA legislation and signing off on the bailout are just two prominent examples from this year of how he yields to establishment consensus; his less-than-outspoken opposition to the war inside the Senate, his half-a-loaf withdrawal plan and his endorsement of the Iraq Study Group proposals are more examples of his desire, as Kass says, to go along and get along.
Kass has made it clear all campaign long that Obama is neither radical nor corrupt himself, but he simply looks the other way when surrounded by those who are. That may not be very inspiring, but it isn’t the sort of complicity that McCain wants it to be. Of course, as we are being reminded this week in the Best of S&L, McCain has sometimes done more than just look the other way when surrounded by corrupt associates. Lizza reminds us that Obama is an aspiring member of the establishment, and Lizza’s story is filled with the accounts of the once-upon-a-time patrons and backers of Obama whom he left behind (at least as they see it) as he ascended ever higher. The dissatisfied former patrons and allies Obama has left in his wake bear a striking resemblance to the small army of enemies Palin made as she rose up in Alaska politics. Obama has no compunctions about cutting off old allies when they begin to threaten his future–nothing terribly unusual about that, but Obama adds his own flair when he declares that Jim Johnson never worked for him or Wright isn’t the person he knew. Sirota has argued persuasively that Obama yields to powerful interests, which bothered him particularly in connection with Obama’s trade and economic policies, but whatever area of policy you’re in you can come away with the consolation or disappointment that Obama will accommodate himself to the status quo. This is the real reason why trying to portray him as the terrorist’s pal or as a raging anti-American black nationalist (and, again, I have to stress that it is the anti-Americanism of Ayers and Wright that agitates the people who obsess about them) is so profoundly stupid. To say, as Robert Samuelson once said of Obama, that he represents the sanctification of the status quo is to expose the main theme of Obama’s campaign as empty and meaningless. That the people running the McCain campaign cannot understand this basic truth is perhaps an even more damning indictment than all of the charges of dishonesty and dishonor that are now properly being hurled at them.
Filed under: politics
24 Responses to “That’s Not Change, That’s More Of The Same”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m sure that the McCain campaign understands it well enough; they think, probably correctly, that such a line of “attack,” given the fundamentals, won’t work. Obama’s base isn’t going to be persuaded by a McCain attack, whereas the persuadables would find the “real,” cautious, basically status quo Obama reassuring. Which ties in to something I’ve said here before: most voters don’t want real, fundamental change. They want change from (very specifically) the Bush administration. Obama really does offer that - not as much change as you or I would like, but almost precisely as much change as the typical swing voter wants.
Or, to put it another way, what appears damning to you (and even me ) isn’t going to be seen as damning by the typical swing voter - and the McCain campaign knows this. As I’ve also said before, I believe that the McCain campaign has been inept at almost every level, and it’s showing through again with the recent line of attack, but that doesn’t mean that they are wrong about their fundamental insight - McCain’s only hope is to convince the persuadables that Obama is a scary outsider.
Can they do it? Likely not, at this point, but then again, to coin a phrase, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
I’d also quibble with one thing - he did not immediately throw Wright under the bus - he refused to disavow him (albeit disagreeing with his statements) in the initial speech on the issue- he dropped him only after Wright tried to throw Obama under the bus, so to speak. Otherwise, I agree with your basic narrative; i just disagree about the political implications of it.
[...] And see Larison. No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> [...]
“McCain’s only hope is to convince the persuadables that Obama is a scary outsider.”
I think most people have a vague idea of Chicago as a place of extraordinarily sleazy politics, but yelling “Chicago Machine Pol!” or “Ayers/Wright!” simply won’t connect without something tangible (tangible as in Obama received bribe X to perform action Y) to support the narrative.
Adam01,
Well, yes, I agree that the McCain campaign isn’t doing a very good job of executing their attack strategy. That doesn’t mean that the basic strategy (given the fundamentals, the current shape of the race, and the alternatives) isn’t “correct.” Nor do I find the strategy as executed anything other than despicable, dishonorable, and, in practice, a virtual incitement to violence. But that’s a seperate issue.
“…he has no interest in getting at the root of our current problems…”
I’d say “he seems to have no…”
In presidential politics, Obama is the first African American to get to the top of his ticket. And in these times, it is amazing that the first African American candidate has a Muslim name.
I think Obama is well aware of both facts and decided to get to where he is, he can’t do it by being any more new than the two previous facts. He needed to be the Jackie Robinson of politics. Getting to the Hall of Fame is what you do only after you’ve made it to “the Show”.
Obama is a pragmatist and knows where bread gets buttered. At the same time, he’s working very hard to build up the Democratic Party because he won’t be able to achieve a progressive agenda without it. He is about incremental change, not some radicalism that people keep yelping about, but definitely a liberal agenda. Having grown up with things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and working with the poor, how could he not want to keep programs like these and expand them? Obama’s about the bill that will pass, not necessarily the ideal. That is how things like FISA and the bailout package make sense, and if you thought it out of character, you weren’t really listening to him before.
Yes, what was I thinking when I thought I heard Obama say he would filibuster the FISA bill? Did I actually think he would do that once gullible progressives in Wisconsin had given him their votes? It certainly was silly to think that something as trivial as constitutional protections would trump electoral considerations. They haven’t up until now, right? Obviously, I don’t speak pragmatese.
LMag is precisely right, possibly without having known it. From today’s Washington Post:
Honestly, he should have filibustered it anyway, IMO. Unfortunately, he decided that it was a good-enough compromise, as the revised bill did add some protections. So there you go, preserving the status quo.
It certainly was silly to think that something as trivial as constitutional protections would trump electoral considerations.
I think Obama was wrong to vote for the FISA compromise, but let’s be clear: the FISA court has failed at protecting our constitutional rights. Over the course of decades, the court approved EVERY SINGLE government request. What kind of oversight can you possibly provide if you never say no? Does anyone here think that the federal government never once asked the FISA court to approve something improper over the course of decades? Is anyone that naive?
The FISA court was always a questionable idea; after Nixon’s abuses, it made sense for us to try the experiment and see if it could work, but we’ve known since the Clinton years that as an institution, the court cannot work. How can any court act impartially when it only hears one side and when its decisions are secret and not subject to review? How can any institution remain faithful to the constitution when it never has to face scrutiny?
So yes, Obama’s decision on FISA was bad, but let’s not pretend that it actually matters. I have been following arguments about FISA for the last decade and a lot of the hand wringing over Obama’s FISA call I’ve seen seems to come from people who never gave a thought to FISA before it could be used to criticize Obama. Which is fine, but if you’re going to do that, you don’t get to claim the high ground and act sanctimonious about it.
Can we get on the high ground when we also attacked his vote to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act? Or does that not matter, either? To be clear about that, I was writing letters against the original passage of the PATRIOT Act before I had ever heard of Obama.
There were two other problems with the “compromise” legislation–not holding anyone accountable for illegal acts conducted by the administration and telecoms, and providing for extensive warrantless wiretapping powers under very limited oversight. The “compromise” was not much more than a slightly less egregious form of the so-called Protect America Act, and I’m not sure why anyone would want to defend any pol who supported such legislation. Obama’s support for it was notable most of all because he pretended that he would oppose it. I bring it up here as evidence of how readily he abandons promises to his constituents and concedes important points to avoid confrontation with power. That’s nothing new, either, but I don’t have to pretend that he’s anything he isn’t.
I was not surprised at Obama’s capitulation on the FISA bill. Obama is a cultural progressive but that does not mean he is a capital P progressive on every issue. He needed to go left hard because of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy but he has a more pragmatic and consensus minded sensibility. He is running for a more efficient government, not for changing all establishmentarian views.
Palin needs to be careful not to demagogue further (catch the “kill him” reference made by an anonymous audience member) because if some nutjob does something to Obama, she would have committed political suicide.
R. Justin,
I had the very report in mind when I wrote my comment, as well as yesterday’s only slightly less outrageous rallies. Perhaps I should have omitted the term “virtual.”
I do wonder what the response of the McCain camp will be to those horrible but predictable crowd reactions. I don’t think for a minute that they will be swayed by any concerns aside from the narrow utilitarian interests of their candidate, but they MUST at this point realize that they are playing with fire - a fire that could end up burning their candidate, their party, and their own political and professional futures.
‘Obama’s support for it was notable most of all because he pretended that he would oppose it. I bring it up here as evidence of how readily he abandons promises to his constituents and concedes important points to avoid confrontation with power’
That is one way of looking at it. Another is that he’s running for president, he isn’t yet president. If he becomes president and does nothing about FISA or avoids a confrontation with power then I’m right there with you. Until then I can sort of see it as a man avoiding the trap doors laid in front of him by an opposition that believes winning elections matters most of all. The right probably had an ad ready to blast him for opposing a law that would let daddy gov’t protect us all from big bad Osama. It’s how they play. Another tactic was saying Congress should return from recess to vote on drilling close to shore. The hope was that McCain would go along with it while Obama opposes what good God fearing Americans know is a common sense solution to our gas crisis. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
This is the McCain campaign we are talking about. When has foresight or strategy ever been part of the campaign?
“they MUST at this point realize that they are playing with fire - a fire that could end up burning their candidate, their party, and their own political and professional futures.”
And what if they come to the conclusion that their candidate has been scorched, their party reduced to ashes, and they still want to play with matches? Angry, embittered partisans who believe that the highest office in the land is about to be taken over by some foreign agent provocateur? I’m less worried about the professional political operatives surrounding the campaign itself than about those who respond to the sort of dog-whistle described above.
Well, Adam, I heartily agree with you, but really at this point all we can do is gape with horror and hope against hope that sanity prevails.
“and hope against hope that sanity prevails”
If hope in the wisdom and decency of what passes for “conservatives” these days was a stock, I’d be shorting it right about now.
I think we’re going to get a chance to revisit the whole mid-90’s black helicopter militia nonsense all over again, this time with an added dose of race-hatred.
Obama represents corporate progressivism. He definitely existed in a milieu where loudmouthed nationalist preachers and ex-Weathermen were routinely tolerated. “No enemies to the left,” and all that. His goals are more radical than midnight basketball, for instance, but possibly not much more so. He’s no Weatherman, and no black nationalist (at least, not more so than most blacks are in their hearts from time to time).
His phlegmatic quality (”Don’t just do something, sit there”, voting “present” and with the consensus) may allow us to avoid some military adventures that McCain would dive into. If so, that’s a plus.
Palin’s right. Taking temperament into account, McCain-Palin really are more mavericks than Obama.
What is the difference between voting “present” and simply missing votes altogether? How many votes has McCain missed in his years in the Senate? No one has raised that, to my knowledge.
Regarding “corporate progressivism,” I don’t see him in that vein at all. More like “grassroots centrism” but leaned somewhat left. I mean, this is a guy who wants to EXPAND faith-based initiatives (though after reading Kuo’s excellent book I don’t know if this is such a good idea) and who wants to ease abortion restrictions but also stem the tide of abortions… this may all sound very “pandery” to many of you, but I’ve felt the same tugs in my heart from time to time… the difference is that I don’t detect much cynicism in him–opportunism maybe, but not cynicism–where as McCain is the archetypal cynic and his “straight talk” is impossible to gauge as to its actual straightness.
As for any violence toward the man, I have honestly sat awake at night, wondering when the attempt will come and praying that it will be stopped. He’s going to win… a president (or president-elect) Obama assassinated would tear this country apart.
And in that 2nd graf, I meant to say, I also sense that cynicism in myself, pushing me away from anything that “feels good” and back toward a hardline position that’s not going to be adopted and enables me to continue feeling better-than-you and complaining the way I like to. I think we all have a lot of that in us, and it does affect our politics.
I’ve said this before, and you seem to ignore it, but Obama represents himself not as a radical change agent, but as a someone who is trying to undo a radical change agent - meaning the Rove/Bush Republican agenda. In that sense, Obama’s idea of change is not a break from normal politics, but a return to normal politics, after a period in which our politics has been subverted and degraded by a perverse group of politicians. So you are right, in a sense, that Obama is an agent of the status quo. It’s just that the status quo he is an agent of is an older, more conservative, more traditional status quo, not the status quo of recent history. (And by “conservative”, I don’t mean the politics of that name, but the safer, more predictable world of old time FDR liberalism, JFK foreign policy and can-do economics, Kissingerian diplomacy, and not the mad-world of pre-emptive war, extraordinary rendition, and deficits-don’t-matter spending. What Obama is selling as “change” is a return to sanity and stability, which is an honest sales pitch. He’s as far from a Bolshevik as one could be, which is why the Ayers/socialism angle just doesn’t wash. If anything, he’s a reactionary, in the way that Reagan was, trying not so much to change things by doing something radically new, but to change things by undoing radical changes others have embarked upon that led to very bad results - from the other side of the aisle, of course. Much of your put-down of Obama is based on the notion that he’s a fraud because his idea of “change” isn’t what you think change ought to be - some kind of radical transformation. Instead, he’s advocating a change back to a safer standard of decency. It’s why he’s perceived as a conservative in some respects - because in some respects he actually is.
[...] Or as Larison puts it: … Obama is an aspiring member of the establishment, and Lizza’s story is filled with the accounts of the once-upon-a-time patrons and backers of Obama whom he left behind (at least as they see it) as he ascended ever higher. … This is the real reason why trying to portray him as the terrorist’s pal or as a raging anti-American black nationalist (and, again, I have to stress that it is the anti-Americanism of Ayers and Wright that agitates the people who obsess about them) is so profoundly stupid. [...]