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.
First: My understanding is that Obama is still opposed to telecom immunity in principle, but supported the recent bill in question because he thought the benefits of supporting the entire bill outweighed the costs of allowing telecom immunity. You haven’t done anything to convince me that Obama’s judgment was flawed, and I’m still assuming, in spite of the uproar, that his judgment was correct. The American people can’t afford a president who won’t act until he gets every little thing he wants.
Second: Obama isn’t giving any hints of changing his tune on a 16-month withdrawal. A blog entitled “Why I support Obama” shouldn’t just repeat right-wing talking points. If you don’t trust Obama’s commitment to withdrawal the troops, then you’ll never trust him, so he’d do well to just ignore you anyway. The candidate you seem to want is someone so dogmatic he’d alienate Americans who want their presidents to think and analyze. If Obama wants to take 17 months to withdraw instead of 16 months, will you call him a traitor to his supporters? Even if that extra month saves American or Iraqi lives? Just because the Bush years dumbed us down doesn’t mean we have to stay dumb. Obama wants us out of Iraq, period!
Third: your statement that you find it “all perfectly predictable” that Obama would change his position on FISA and the war is smug and unfair. I supported Obama because I trust him to make pragmatic decisions on these issues. I absolutely respect the right of honest liberals to express their strong disagreement with his positions, but accusing Obama of abandoning his “core values” is just nonsense. He’s always been upfront about his desire to transcend partisanship and forge a new working majority: liberals who took that to mean he would just parrot the left-wing line on everything weren’t paying attention.
Fourth: Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that voters supported an “anti-Nafta Clinton”? Because that’s just false. And I don’t think voters supported an “anti-telecom immunity Obama” either. I want more health care, less unnecessary war, middle-class tax cuts, progress toward mitigating global warming, etc. Telecom immunity is not the most important issue facing this country. It’s not even in the top 10.
Fifth: How are Obama’s recent positions examples of contradicting his previously-stated “core values”? Again, if you’re going to parrot right-wing nonsense, you should be prepared to defend yourself explicitly. If you’re going to attack Obama’s integrity in such an aggressive way, you should feel obligated to back up your attacks with a fact or two. Has Obama ever said opposing civil immunity for telecoms was a “core value?” I hope not. That would be a dumb thing to say while 40-plus million Americans don’t have health care and American soldiers are dying for no reason in Iraq. Obama’s core values involve transcending partisan gridlock by rallying the American people and the people of the world to work for a better future. His core values involve overcoming the cynicism and fear that keeps us divided and prejudiced toward each other. It’s time for some perspective.
Finally: politicians shouldn’t fear their supporters. That’s crazy talk. I respect and applaud American citizens who are speaking out in criticism of Obama’s position on FISA; but I would urge Obama to do what he thinks is best for his campaign and best for the country. A president who makes decisions out of “terror” of the political consequences is not a leader in my opinion.
Anyway, I enjoyed the post! Keep it up!
Comment by iabagley — July 5, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Good questions, all.
Many of your questions are answered directly in the posts I linked to (most of them written by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com). A general comment: I am criticizing Obama from what would normally be taken to be the left, not the right. The right, as it is traditionally defined, very much welcomed the FISA compromise: they got pretty much everything they wanted, the Democrats almost nothing.
(i) Obama promised to filibuster any bill that included telecom immunity. Now, he has changed his mind and is not going to filibuster the FISA “compromise,” despite its including telecom immunity. That is a significant and serious reversal, for reasons mentioned below.
(ii) The 16 month withdrawal deadline is a minor issue for this posting, which really concerns FISA, but I agree with you: 17 mos, 15 mos. The number don’t matter. I worry that Obama is going to “pull a NAFTA” on his faithful supporters. I am arguing that Obama’s supporters, among whom I number, should be vigilant against such moves. I am also arguing that Obama’s responsiveness to criticism is a GOOD sign, part of why I support him. It means his campaign is hearing discontent and feels the need to reply. A Clinton campaign would not have replied to similar criticism, I think.
(iii) I agree: those self-described liberals and left-of-center Americans who thought Obama would parrot a “left-wing line on everything” were gravely mistaken. That’s exactly why I say in my posting that his shift to the center for the general election was entirely predictable. I suspect this centrist position is a reflection not of political calculation but of his real opinions. I hold different opinions.
(iv) Whether or not people supported a specifically anti-NAFTA Clinton is an open question, I agree. Maybe Bill Clinton’s union supporters felt just great about his total reversal on NAFTA. Let me modify my claim then: if I were a union member who supported Clinton because he opposed NAFTA, then saw him reverse positions, I would give Clinton a lot of flack for his reversal.
If I in part voted for Obama in the primary because he explicitly said he would filibuster telecom-immunity, and then saw him reverse his previous position, I would be pretty mad. If he now “compromises” on this issue (which is actually a complete reversal, not some middle stance), where do we draw the line? Where will he?
(v) Obama didn’t initially say “This FISA business is a complicated issue that needs to be weighed carefully, and the telecoms have a point about needing to be immunized.” Obama said this: “No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people — not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. . . .” Obama crossed the line he himself drew, an important line. If FISA wins, the telecoms get a free pass to break the law.
(finally) I disagree. Politicians will take as much power as they can and will always claim to be acting for noble purposes, out of good intentions, and in the spirit of democracy and freedom. We should never take them at their word. The rule of law is important because it ties the hands of the strong and hobbles the ambitions of the powerful. Without the rule of law, the powerful can do whatever they want, and we have to hope they have good intentions. Obama can lead in whatever manner he prefers. Fortunately, it will be we as voters who will decide, as individuals and then all together, how to respond to that prospective leadership style.
Thanks for your response! Get posting!
Comment by Lee — July 5, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
I haven’t read the Greenwald piece and I know I should — and I will.
But just to keep up this dialogue, which I’m enjoying:
When you say the left got almost nothing out of the FISA compromise, do you mean you believe the bill was worthless? Because Obama says the bill included some things that were good and worth supporting. Do you think he’s lying? If he’s wrong, why is he wrong? (I apologize in advance if the answer to that question is in the Greenwald piece.) I get that you believe immunity for telecoms is bad, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the left got nothing out of the bill. Why was the bill, overall, bad for America?
The left may want to win partisan battles, but many left-leaning Americans also want what’s best for the country, even if it means compromising. Politics isn’t a zero sum game where people on the left necessarily lose if people on the right win. And the purpose of Congress is to solve problems — not hash out ideological debates for the benefit of philosophers. That’s the sort of thinking that Obama is trying to overcome — a “core value” of his.
Again, I seriously question your apparent belief that Obama isn’t really serious about withdrawing troops from Iraq. What evidence is there to support this idea? I believe Obama shares my view that getting the troops out of Iraq — “getting out as carefully as we were careless getting in” — is important. That’s been a central premise of his campaign. I would challenge you to present any evidence that I’m being naive in my assessment. This idea that he’ll cave on that point is the sort of right-wing talking point that frustrates me, and the damage it does helps the right even if you intend to be attacking him from the left.
Not getting immunity is not the same as getting a free pass to break the law. If the telecoms had a free pass to break the law, there would be no need whatsoever to pass legislation granting them immunity. The fact is that the Congress and the nation openly debated the question of whether the telecoms should be liable in a civil court, and Congress made a decision for which its members will be held accountable. That’s democracy, not lawlessness. Is your entire opposition to criminal immunity for telecoms based on your commitment to the abstract principle of law and order? (Civil cases aren’t like criminal cases, in that civil cases only get heard when somebody decides to sue, often on their own dime. Securing money damages for victims of illegal wiretapping just isn’t a top priority for me right now. Should it be?)
But here’s my biggest beef: When you say the left should be “vigilant” against flip-flops by Obama, are you suggesting we should consider (a) withholding money or support from Obama’s campaign (b) not voting for Obama (c) voting for John McCain (d) or supporting a movement to publicly criticize Obama for a vote he shared with a majority of the U.S. Senate? Why on earth would you advocate these things, when they are bad for the country? I applaud you for expressing your disagreement with Obama on this issue, but beyond that, what leverage do you intend to wield against the Democratic nominee for President? There’s more at stake in this election than whether Obama is flip-flopping on telecom immunity. Are you advocating protests? Anti-Obama protests? Is that what the left should be engaged in?
I agree: It’s up to us to decide how we respond to Obama’s leadership style. But if Obama isn’t president of the United States, then John McCain will be president — that IS zero sum at this point. That’s the deal, and the sooner we get that fundamental situation the more effective we’ll be in making positive change.
Now I’ll do what I should have done at the outset and read the Greenwald post.
Thanks again.
Comment by iabagley — July 5, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
The details of the FISA compromise would be too extensive to get into here, but Greenwald has a good overview—many, many posts, in fact, all quite lengthy. The deal was worked out in secret by certain Democratic party leaders, then sprung for a vote in under twenty-four hours. Almost all Congressional Republicans voted for the compromise, about half of Democrats—not really a compromise, since the other side of the aisle didn’t have to give up anything it wanted. In effect, the whole process was designed to ram the bill—containing everything the President wanted—through to a yes vote without significant debate—or even a chance to read the bill carefully, let alone organize an effective counterattack. Only the Senate can stop the bill before it lands on the President’s desk.
So: the left is a large and complex political umbrella. It has short, medium, and long term goals, which sometimes may seem to contradict each other. In the case of the FISA compromise bill, opposing Obama’s stance may seem to go against the idea that one supports Obama, but no one ever supports a candidate without strings attached or without expressing criticism of some areas. Republicans are very vocal in criticizing their candidates (think of Harriet Miers). If you’re a card-carrying member of the ACLU, the brouhaha that emerged with the expiration of the Protect America Act and the effort to “reform” the FISA court is a major league big deal. And you’re right, it’s not just about retroactive telecom immunity, but also about much more significant, and unjustified, attacks on our civil liberties: legalizing the President’s (previously illegal) warrantless wiretapping program and limiting the FISA court’s oversight of the wiretapping program. The question is: does pressuring Obama on FISA threaten his campaign? Only if his position on FISA becomes part of a pattern of negative changes. If it’s a single, isolated shift, it’ll lose steam as a charge. It won’t stick. If it is part of a pattern, I think left-liberals would be right to complain, though there’s almost no chance they would pull the lever for McCain. At worse, like discontent evangelicals, they’ll stay home, and that seems quite unlikely.
As I mentioned in a recent private email to you, this posting was originally a thought-experiment on long-term strategy and was meant to answer the following question: how do liberals make politicians sweat in a systematic way? Previously, the left-liberals have had very few instruments at their disposal, because they were outflanked, outgunned, and outfinanced by big money on the right–all those so-called conservative think tanks, institutions, policy centers. I am interested in the long-term strategy that the netroots, in coordination with other organizations like the ACLU, will develop to push the country incrementally leftward. Individual campaigns matter–and the presidential campaign matters enormously–but the goal of the liberal-left should be a radical and permanent shift in the political orientation of the country. Obama’s changing/reversed positions is interesting to me inasmuch as it tests the theory that a decentralized network of bloggers working in unison, using network fundraising capabilities unique to the Internet, can have an effect on how a candidate positions himself.
The Democrats are going to win larger majorities in the House and Senate by all accounts so the question becomes: what sort of Democrats do we want in the legislative branch–and ultimately in the executive branch. Greenwald and co. are focusing their modest energies and monies on challenging Democrats in the primary phase–that is, getting rid of FISA-compromising Democrats in favor of consistently anti-FISA Democrats, to give one example. In the specific case of Obama, what they’re proposing is (d): Making noise, arguing, outlining the case why one view is better than the other, persuading Obama to change his minds. The FISA compromise bill can still be defeated. Obama can still change his mind and return to his original pledge to filibuster. If he did so, it would be good for the country and I think good for his campaign. Americans value their civil liberties. If Obama said, I’m going to tell you the truth: this bill stinks, and I won’t stand for it, he could galvanize the country or at least that portion of the country that pays attention to politics at all.
Fun debate!
Comment by Lee — July 5, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
I just want to make sure my position is clear: I absolutely don’t mean to criticize anyone for criticizing Obama’s vote on the FISA bill. To me, supporting Obama doesn’t mean you have to pretend to agree with everything he does — in fact, we as good citizens have an obligation to speak our minds.
Is it possible to say in a sentence or so what’s wrong with the FISA bill, overall, setting aside the issue with telecom immunity? I’m willing to wade through Greenwald’s posts, but I’m just wondering if it’s possible to sum it up. Why does the bill stink?
Comment by iabagley — July 6, 2008 @ 10:32 am
Beyond retroactive telecom immunity:
Under the new law, the government would be able to tap all electronic communications with a foreign party coming in and out of the US basically without warrant. Under the 1978 FISA law, there was a court (FISC) set up to evaluate requests for such communications.
This court was highly effective at doing its job in a timely and comprehensive way. From 1979 to 2006, more than twenty thousand applications for warrants were made. FISC only rejected 5.
Under the new legislation, the FISC is basically legally forced to accept whatever communications the executive wants it to tap, no oversight. Critics take the FISA compromise as an abrogation of the Fourth Amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I.e., this act would enhance the executive’s power to spy on people inside the US (including citizens) with no warrants. I don’t support that power in the hands of Bush. And it doesn’t belong in the hands of Obama, even if in practice he doesn’t abuse the power.
Comment by Lee — July 6, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
If this particular bill violates the Fourth Amendment, couldn’t someone challenge the bill in Federal Court? Isn’t that partly what courts are for? To protect the people from unconstitutional laws passed by Congress? I realize it might be hard to sue if you don’t know your phone is being tapped, but is there any hope that the court might eventually weigh in, one way or the other? (Anyone thinking about withdrawing support from Obama should consider the consequences of McCain-appointed judges weighing in on these sorts of issues. Obama may not have the power to stop this bill from passing, but as President he might have the power to appoint judges who could declare the bill unconstitutional.)
Comment by iabagley — July 6, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Yes, quite true. It’s likely that Obama will appoint judges who will overturn FISA. Another reason to support Obama over McCain. Then again, the fact that the courts might (or might not) overturn the FISA bill eventually isn’t sufficient reason, I feel, not to oppose the bill strongly, and not to worry that Obama has shifted gears–not only on Constitutional but on moral grounds as well.
Comment by Lee — July 7, 2008 @ 4:17 am