I want to link to two significant stories I haven’t seen discussed as fully as I would have expected in the blogs.
(i) From the WSJ:
President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say
…
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama criticized many of President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism policies. He condemned Mr. Bush for promoting “excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping and ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like simulated drowning that qualify as torture through any careful measure of the law or appeal to human decency.”
As a candidate, Mr. Obama said the CIA’s interrogation program should adhere to the same rules that apply to the military, which would prohibit the use of techniques such as waterboarding. He has also said the program should be investigated.
Yet he more recently voted for a White House-backed law to expand eavesdropping powers for the National Security Agency. Mr. Obama said he opposed providing legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided warrantless surveillance, but ultimately voted for the bill, which included an immunity provision.
The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition. Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.
Is this what Obama meant when he spoke about bipartisan cooperation and a turn away from ideology and a return to getting things done? Apparently, to call for the unambiguous end of the CIA’s use of torture would be shrill, non-pragmatic, ideological, the hallmark of the looney left. If so, consider me all of the above. Let us hope the WSJ is wrong in its assessment, and let us always remember that the Iraq war was implemented in a highly bipartisan way.
(ii) From Reuters:
President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise – to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans – as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday
…
His aides’ comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt. He may also be seeking to bolster Republican support for his recovery measures.
“The main thing right now is to get this economic recovery package on the road, to get money in the pockets of the middle class, to get these projects going, to get America working again, and that’s where we’re going to be focused in January,” Axelrod said.
Let’s get this straight: Obama campaigned on the promise of raising taxes on a certain segment of “high-income” Americans. He won. He might be said to have received a mandate from the American people to do so. Does anyone think it’ll be easier to return to this promise in 2011?
(iii) As I’ve written before on this blog, in agreement with Obama’s campaign rhetoric: Real change comes from below, not from above. If we want Obama to live up to his promises, to end the war, to end torture, to dismantle our unaccountable national security state, to fix our economy in a way we approve of, voting for Obama was never going to be enough.
The real work must happen now. Obama may be the nicest guy in the world, but one man doesn’t rule this country. There is a whole system of individuals and organizations responsible for our problems, which have been decades in the making, not the result of the maniac fringe of the Bush administration alone. Only a system can change a system. And a system that theoretically allows a Bush to go unchecked needs to be changed.
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.
This is even more true now than it was during the campaign. Let’s not deceive ourselves here: the netroots are weak in American politics. They wield little influence and are only now learning how to exert power in the political system. But eight years ago, there was no netroots.
Our goal needs to be systemic reform; our horizons in this medium- to long-term project should transcend individual election cycles and parties. We should create a system of government that can push back against and hold accountable a Bush or — god forbid — a Palin in the White House. Our current system is not up to the task.