Obama recently changed his position on FISA. After promising to filibuster any bill that contained retroactive telecom immunity, he says now that he’ll support the “compromise” bill that was recently passed by the House. Many so-called “netroots” type bloggers have written extensively on the mistake Obama is making by reversing his position (there are also hints that Obama is changing his tune on his promised 16-month Iraq withdrawal deadline). I don’t find it at all surprising that Obama has taken this new stance; it was all perfectly predicable. Democratic candidates have repeatedly (and disastrously) taken a defensive posture toward the Right in the U.S., and have tried to position themselves as “centrists” by abandoning their own professed core values. Bill Clinton did this after he was elected, though he (notably and successfully) campaigned as an unapologetic progressive (for universal health care and against NAFTA, both hugely popular positions), only having been “persuaded” that NAFTA was right and good, that the free market and free trade was ever and always a wonderful thing, after he won.
Regardless of whether Clinton’s conversion was heartfelt (let’s assume for now, it was), and whether Obama’s rapidly changing stances toward FISA and the Iraq War reflect his newfound, sincere views (let’s grant that, too), neither candidate received support for these new/revelatory positions. Their advocates and supporters voted for them on the basis of their stated platform, their professed values, their implied and explicit political beliefs. People voted for an anti-NAFTA Clinton, an anti-telecom-immunity Obama. This is why the “netroots” backlash is so crucially important, because it’s testing the premise that networks of coordinated and motivated bloggers, with little or no corporate support, can twist the arm of flip-flopping candidates as they ineluctably fly toward the so-called “center.”
Obama has posted his response to his critics here (Glenn Greenwald replies point by point here). The fact that Obama felt compelled to respond is why I supported him over Hillary Clinton (though Edwards was my preferred candidate in the Democratic field). Obama’s reply is a huge admission of weakness, in my view. He can’t ignore his critics, because his strength depends very much on capturing and harnessing the genuine enthusiasms and energies of a large vast decentralized network of excited young people. It is entirely true, it seems to me, that he has energized previously apathetic young citizens, an admirable feat in itself. But he did so not in some content-free way or by just being generically inspiring. His positions matter to this network of support, especially his positions on the war. If Obama begins to alienate his network–if he begins to abandon what he previously claimed were his own core values–then he is vulnerable to a massive backlash. He might be able to count on the support of those critical semi-elite “netroots” bloggers (like Glenn Greenwald, Kos, etc.) despite their strong political disagreement (Obama’s clearly superior to McCain in a number of vital ways, they’ll point out, quite correctly), but he can’t count on the larger network (the younger people, independents, etc.) of (previously-apathetic) voters to turn out in large numbers if “Obama 2008″ becomes just another campaign.
Obama’s weakness, his dependency on large numbers of enthusiastic (mostly progressive, but somewhat cynical and alienated) voters, is our strength. Politicians should ideally fear their supporters. They should be terrified of betraying their supporters because doing so, theoretically, ought to destroy their credibility and careers in the long term. So here’s to the so-called “netroots.” Keep twisting the screws. Keep putting on the pressure. Make Obama sweat.