Obama, Centrist or Liberal?
There’s a fascinating debate going on in the liberal blogosphere about the ideology of Barack Obama.
There’s a fascinating debate going on in the liberal blogosphere about the ideology of Barack Obama. Early on in the primaries most liberal bloggers embraced Obama, believing him to be a truly progressive candidate who could actually win a national election. Quite some of them thought highly of John Edwards but, they feared, he can’t win. Hillary Clinton was considered to be a politician like her husband; much more of a centrist and realist than a progressive idealist.
But Obama, they thought, was different.
Sure he may talk about unity, etc., but the change he talked about, they thought, was progressive. The hope was progressive. His entire agenda was progressive.
So they supported him in big numbers. They helped him win the nomination, and went after his Democratic opponents with a passion normally reserved for Republicans.
But then, at the very moment he won the nomination, Obama started to change his rhetoric. Suddenly he apologized for using too strong words to describe policies most progressives disagreed with. He backpedaled on NAFTA. He suddenly supported a bill that grants immunity to telecom providers while, only a couple of months ago, he said he would not.
The result: both Glenn Greenwald and Chris Bowers are wondering whether Obama’s shift to the center is an indication that he may not be as progressive as many thought, or whether he’s simply doing it for pragmatical reasons. Many Democratic strategists, Greenwald explains, believe that a Democrat cannot win if he run as a true progressive; no, he has to shift to the center (Greenwald disagrees with that theory). So, it could very well be that Obama is a progressive at heart, who’s simply lying to moderate voters right now, hoping they will vote for him if they believe him to be one of them, just like progressives believe he’s one of them as well.
Chris Bowers deals with that view in quite an intelligent manner; there comes a time when you’ve got to take people at their word. Obama has said in the past, and is repeating it nowadays, that he’s not a progressive, but a moderate. A pragmatist. Progressive activists can assume he’s lying, because he wants to win, but they can also start taking Obama at his word; if he’s truly a moderate, well, then progressive activists can expect less ‘progressive change’ from him than they hope(d).
It’s an interesting debate, but it all boils down to one simple observation I made months ago; Obama will have to disappoint millions of people. He bragged in the past about him being a white sheet, upon which people write whatever they believe. They project themselves on Obama, which is something Obama considers to be a strength. And it is.
But he seems to have forgotten that it is also a weakness. When you’re a ‘whatever you want me to be’ candidate, people are bound to be disappointed. Why? Because he can’t be all things to everyone once elected. He will have to favor specific policies, he will have to implement specific plans. This means that either moderates or liberals are going to be disappointed.
The only question left right now is how Obama will rule? Like Bill Clinton… or like a progressive version of Ronald Reagan? As Paul Krugman points out, Obama’s rhetoric sounds a whole lot like Clinton’s back in 1992. He’s almost the same kind of candidate. Many progressives hoped that Clinton would be a progressive Reagan but, instead, he ruled like a centrist (pretty much).
At this moment, I think it’s too early to tell. Obama has a liberal record, a very liberal record even, but he often presents himself as a moderate. But he can’t be both.
We’ll find out what he is if he wins. Until that time; expect liberals and moderates who support Obama to thoroughly and passionately debate about this subject.
I don’t understand, why must he always be a progressive or always be a moderate? The mere fact that Obama presents himself as someone who’s stories can be written upon says to me that even if he is liberal, he’s a guy who’s at least willing to listen to the other side’s ideas before making up his mind.
Everyone keeps talking about his shift to the center, but nobody is talking about McCain’s shift to the right (which I’d argue he’s eventually going to reverse if he wants to keep Independents).
So, I’d say that on some issues he’s pandering to pick up Independents and some conservatives. On others, seemingly like NAFTA, these more moderate positions might be his true ones.
It’s hard to tell.
Michael: first, welcome! Second, on the issue of McCain’s courting of the conservative base, I’m not sure how you can feel that no one is talking about that. What I see is that McCain is actually trying to finesse some shifts to the right and some to the center at the same time, but certainly it’s not as though he’s doing these things without anyone commenting on it. I think the only difference is that it was totally expected- McCain is conservative but he’s not a purist, so he’s always recieved criticism from both the right and left.
In Obama’s case, the thing is that people had written their hopes onto that blank slate- one group hoping that he really was quite liberal/progressive, and seeing signs of that from his short political record, while the other group was hearing his rhetoric and feeling that they could trust that he’ll be more pragmatic than ideological. Either way, it’s an issue of almost blind faith because neither group has enough of a track record with Obama to know who is accurately foreseeing his intentions.
And no, one shouldn’t have to be 100% progressive or 100% moderate, but unfortunately for politicians there are parts of the base who expect something close to that. And not only that, but all of the constituencies have a right to expect to have some understanding of what core principles a candidate holds that will determine when he’ll lean more to the left or right. With Obama there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to it except for political calculations to get elected.
Christine: you’re back! I was going to send you an e-mail!
There is a serious problem in the electoral system in the USA. If any candidate, whether on the right or the left, maybe thinking about winning the elections must spend millions of dollars on his/her campaign. This is a hard-core fact that needs to be understood very well. In order to spend millions, either you must spend most of your own money, like Bloomberg in NYC, or try to raise it like almost all other politicians. This is where the cooperation’s and interest groups come in. There is intense lobbying going on in the congress for certain groups to achieve their agenda. For example, if the energy industry or the pharmaceutical industry wants to effect foreign or internal US policy, they damn well pay up and in a way, buy the politicians who will be on their side. So now, there is a symbiotic relationship formed between the politician and the big cooperation. They both need each other! This is EXACTLY what happened to Obama. Quite frankly, like many “liberals” or “lefties”, I was all for Barak Obama when he was running against Hillary Clinton. Because I felt, he was not part of the cooperate world like Clinton. Clinton was a pundit of the big interest groups and therefore did not represent the little guy, which is me! Many of my liberal friends even donated tons of money towards his campaign because they believed in exactly the same thing as me. What did he do? He betrayed all of us! He is a puppet of big money like McCain and Clinton. In fact just like all the others before him… So let me make a correction in your thinking… You argue or some liberals argue that if any “liberal” candidate who wants to be elected must move to the center because otherwise people will not vote for him. That is incorrect! People were totally ready to vote for him. He did not need to move to the center. He was doing great until he changed his stance. The other thing that needs to be looked at is, his cabinet. The people in his cabinet are the old hawks of Bill Clinton. And we know Bill was no liberal! (At least not in the true sense of the word). Maybe to the Republicans Clintons may have seemed too far left but to us, he was smack in the center right…. Now it seems we need to ponder with idea of voting back to good old Ralph Nader….
Yeah, I was out of town for a while and busy since I’ve returned home. I’ve also not had much to say- I was going to comment under your post about the controversy of the day, that I agree about the echo chamber of silly partisan attacks on the blogosphere lately. I’m really tired of it and not spending nearly as much time on it now (which isn’t a bad thing anyway!)
nevber: The issue with remaining where he was is the that might have been okay to get the base’s vote, some Independents, and even some Republicans, but to win, Obama has to appeal to a wide range of people. It’s why I can understand McCain’s move to the right, even if I don’t like it. He needs the base to win, which he wasn’t really courting before.
We know the Republicans would never vote for him. What is Obama afraid of? Plus who are the "wide range" of people? Didn’t Obama scream "WE NEED CAHNGE"… "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"… where is the change in old Clinton Hawks??? NO! He betrayed this supporters and is pondering to "big" money! simple as that!
correction in spelling : CHANGE not cahnge
"We know the Republicans would never vote for him."
So all the Obamacons are lying, then?
Marxist - Obama represented a district filled with far leftist academics. Most of his early supporters were such leftist academics. Let’s face it; you don’t get "meet the candidate" receptions at William Ayers house if you’re a moderate. Examine the class warfare rhetoric coming from both Obama and his wife. Pennsylvania middle class are desperate people who cling to guns and religion etc. Michelle telling students not to work in the markets or the private sector. Of course the most compelling evidence of all is Obama’s tax and energy plans that are as extreme and flawed as Jimmy Carter’s ever was. Every answer he has seems to indicate top down government control where the people work for the government, not the other way around.
I’m with you Chuck, I have yet to hear anything from his campaign that would lead me to believe otherwise. That being said, frankly, I am fed up with both candidates. In my view, both the McCain plan and the Obama plan would increase the deficit. Neither has sufficiently explained how thier proposals would be paid for. We can slap whatever label on them that spins them however we want, but both Candidates actions thus far have not impressed me.
Jay: I agree with that. Both have not impressed me either.
I’m sure glad I’m not American! I don’t have to feel forced to choose a ‘lesser of two evils’ candidate!
At least McCain is a spending hawk- something that neither party has put forward for a long, long time. With the likelihood of a larger Democratic majority, I hope that any independent/centrist voters who are fence sitting right now will consider the need for divided government to help reign in spending- or at least keep it from rising astronomically as usually happens when one party controls Congress and the White House.
It’s simple, it’s the ideology of gaining power.
"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." –Barack Obama in The Audacity of Hope
Rorschach Man