Why Criticize Obama [View All]

It seems to me that there is a feeling among many well meaning people these days that criticizing Barack Obama for moving rightwards towards the center is a bad idea. Various arguments for that line of thought go something like this:

 It is imperative that Obama be elected because he is infinitely better than McCain
 He can’t be elected unless he moves right, towards the center
 The new FISA amendment (HR 6304) isn’t so bad
 Obama’s stance on the FISA amendment isn’t so bad
 Criticizing Obama will hurt him and increase the chances of electing McCain

I have very ambivalent feelings about this whole issue, which is one reason that I haven’t said much about it so far. However, I do feel that the above arguments have some important holes in them, and that it is unhealthy to our political process to go off too far in that direction. So, I’d like to address some of these issues in this post.


“It is imperative that Obama be elected”

I mostly agree that it is imperative that Obama be elected, mainly because he is so much better than McCain on every issue that is of importance to our country. I discuss those various issues in this post. In summary:

Torture:
Obama has been consistently and strongly against torture, whereas McCain almost always votes with Bush on supporting his torture plans – notwithstanding his frequent rhetoric to the contrary.

The Environment:
Obama emphasizes the need to combat global warming and has a lifetime voting record on that issue of 86%, as determined by the League of Conservation Voters, compared to a 24% lifetime score for McCain and a 0% score for McCain for 2007 – notwithstanding his rhetoric to the contrary.

The Economy and taxes:
McCain’s idea of an economic stimulus plan is to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, and his ideas for tax cuts include lowering taxes on capital gains and dividends and preserving the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama’s tax plan is in many ways the opposite of McCain’s. It would reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich, while reducing taxes and simplifying filing for working and middle class Americans.

Civil rights:
McCain’s voting ratings on Civil Rights are: ACLU – 0%; NAACP – 7%; Human Rights Campaign for gay rights – 33%. Obama’s ratings on Civil Rights are: NAACP – 100%; Human Rights Campaign for gay rights – 89%; No rating from ACLU.

Health care:
Obama offers a national health care plan to all Americans to buy affordable (through government subsidies) health care coverage that is “similar to the plan available to members of Congress.” Unlike the McCain plan, this plan would make healthcare coverage affordable for everyone, prohibit discrimination based on preexisting illness or health status, and substantially change our current private for-profit insurance company domination of the market by making available to everyone a Medicare-like, government sponsored program as an alternative.

War:
McCain is a war monger, as is evident when he proclaimed that “No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.”; when he acknowledges that he believes that gaining control over another country’s oil is a legitimate reason for war; when he says that we should stay in Iraq for 100 years; when he makes jokes by singing about bombing Iran; and when he tries to set the stage for a war against Iran by lying about Iran harboring al Qaeda, despite being corrected about that lie several times. In marked contrast, Obama plans to withdraw from Iraq, while being committed to meeting our humanitarian responsibilities there, as he has stated on his website.

Judicial appointees:
Specific changes that would be highly likely to occur with a McCain Presidency and appointment of just one more radical right wing Supreme Court Justice include (as explained by Constitutional lawyer Cass Sunstein)

 The overturning of Roe v. Wade
 The total extinction of affirmative action
 The enabling of our states to overturn (page 68) our entire Bill of Rights without federal interference
 Radical curtailing of civil rights for women, homosexuals, and minority racial groups
 The declaring of environmental protection laws to be unconstitutional
 The widespread disappearance of habeas corpus
 The virtual creation of Christianity as a national religion
 The Dismantling of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

There’s more, but that’s enough.

Nevertheless, though I agree that it is extremely important that Obama be elected President over McCain, it is not the only thing that is extremely important. Depending on how far Obama moves towards the center, some of us may feel that such things as electing liberal/progressive Democrats to Congress or specific progressive issues deserve as much or more time, attention and money than does the Obama campaign.

In other words, it is not only a question of whether or not we liberals support Obama, but with how much enthusiasm we support him. It’s important for him and his campaign to understand that enthusiasm for his campaign among liberals and progressives will wane depending on how much he moves rightwards.


“Obama can’t be elected unless he moves rightwards towards the center”

I don’t agree with that statement at all. Obama has been doing consistently well in polling against John McCain, in general elections polls, in almost all the perennial swing states’, and even in new swing states formerly safely in the Republican column. He’s done that without moving way to the center, and he has plenty of money to keep going. So I don’t see why he can’t continue to do well without moving rightwards.

A more moderate version of the above statement would be that moving right is likely to increase Obama’s likelihood of winning the general election. It’s possible that that is true, but I would not have thought so.

The great strength of Obama as a Presidential candidate was that he attracted so much enthusiastic support and money from his base because they see him as an untypical politician with an unusual degree of integrity. Moving right may diminish that strength, thereby substantially reducing the enthusiasm of his base.

Furthermore, most Americans hold views that are substantially to the left (See section on “Tell me if you think the rich, people with middle incomes, and the poor are paying their fair share of taxes”) of what most politicians seem to consider the center. In other words, Obama’s views were pretty much mainstream as they were. Why should it be necessary to move right? I will concede that his advisors should have a better handle on the politics of this than I do. But I just don’t get it.


“The FISA bill (HR 6304) isn’t so bad”

I recognize that there is a good deal of controversy over how bad the new FISA bill actually is. I am not a legal expert, so it is possible I might be off base on this. However, it seems to me that most who are in a position to understand the pertinent issues are adamantly opposed to it. The ACLU is adamantly against it, and has made the following points, among others, about what this bill allows:

 Mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the U.S., without any individualized review
 Permits only minimal court oversight… The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped
 Even if the application is denied by the court, the govt. has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process
 Ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies … over the last 7 years

I don’t understand the precise meaning of all the points that the ACLU makes, but the distinct impression that I get from their assessment and others gets to the heart of the two things that matter most to me about this bill: 1) It appears that oversight of the government by the courts (or anyone else) is so minimal that they can carry on pretty much whatever surveillance they want, regardless of whether it has anything to do with terrorism; and 2) The telecoms pretty much get the immunity that they want.

What bothers me so much about this is not just that the bill appears to wipe out our Fourth Amendment. It seems to me that the Bush administration’s principle reason for pushing this bill stems from its desire to continue spying on the American people with impunity. Does anyone really believe that the Bush administration’s purpose in doing this is to prevent terrorism? It had all the surveillance tools it needed from the first day it took office, from the FISA bill of 1978. Yet that was never enough for them. And we know that the reason that that wasn’t enough for them had nothing to do with terrorism.

Telecom immunity is not bad only because it sends the message that our laws and our Constitution don’t apply to the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected. Giving immunity to the telecoms will cut off investigation and subpoenas that probably would provide us with answers as to what the Bush administration used their unlawfully obtained information for. Those answers are essential to understanding the extent of damage done to our country by George Bush’s warrantless spying program.

God knows what kind of information they’ve picked up from this program! I’ve often considered the possibility – or likelihood – that some of that information is intimately related to why we haven’t seen any impeachment hearings against Bush and Cheney. Who knows what they’re yet going to use it for. It seems to me that the most likely bet is that they’ll use it to buy Congressional acquiescence for a war with Iran.


Why Obama’s stance on the FISA bill bothers me so much

Of all the recent perceived Obama moves rightwards, his attitude towards the FISA bill is what bothers me the most. The rest I can live with, for various reasons. With regard to his “reprimand” of Wesley Clark for his comments about McCain’s war time service, I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on that. Basically, he repudiated Clark’s remarks but not Clark himself. That’s just like saying that he wouldn’t have made those remarks himself. I’m fine with that. If he actually repudiated Clark himself for his honest and obviously valid statement to the effect that McCain’s getting shot out of a plane doesn’t qualify him for the presidency, that would upset me pretty bad. But Obama hasn’t done that, and I assume he won’t.

But with regard to the FISA bill, where exactly is the center? I don’t see how giving up our Fourth Amendment, and at the same time giving unprecedented dictatorial powers to George Bush and Dick Cheney, is a centrist policy. Nor do I see what is centrist about giving immunity to powerful corporations who broke our laws and violated our Constitution. Furthermore, polls show that most Americans are strongly against both warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity for those who violate our rights.

It is claimed by the Bush administration that it needs the amended bill in order to pursue terrorists. How can that be? The current bill gives them the right to spy on anyone they suspect of terrorism prior to obtaining a warrant, and gives them three days to retroactively seek a warrant. No court in our country would turn down a request for such a warrant if there was any reason to suspect that the requested information would provide the government with information on terrorism. What could Bush and Cheney possibly need this new law for, other than to obtain non-terrorism related information on innocent American citizens, for nefarious purposes?

The Obama campaign promised late last year that Obama would support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Yet on June 20th he made a speech in support of the so-called “compromise”, indicating his belief that the bill is not anywhere near as bad as many legal experts claim it to be, and that he believes the bill is necessary to protect us against terrorism. Subsequently, MoveOn.org, which strongly supports Obama for President, has urged its members to hold him accountable to his promise.

There are those who tell us not to worry about this too much because it’s being done for tactical political purposes. But when a candidate moves to the right during the general election it can be very difficult to reverse course after being elected. And there is no guarantee that that will happen. In any event, the passage of this FISA bill will set a terrible precedent, just as the failure to impeach Bush and Cheney is setting a terrible precedent.


“Criticizing Obama will help elect McCain” – Why I believe that well directed criticism of Obama can be a good thing

While it is certainly true that some kinds of criticism of Obama would help McCain win the election, that doesn’t apply to all criticism. Any criticism of Obama – or even some defenses of him – that uses right wing talking points would be likely to help McCain, because such criticisms (or defenses) help to frame the issues in the absurd world views of the Republican Party. But those aren’t the kind of criticisms I’m talking about. Here are some of the reasons why I believe that criticisms of Obama’s rightward leanings can be helpful to our country and to the Obama campaign as well:

Criticism from the left helps to put the lie to Republican talking points
One of the biggest talking points of Republicans this year, as in 2004, is that the Democratic nominee is the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate. When Obama receives a barrage of criticism from the left for not being liberal or progressive enough, that makes it pretty hard for Republicans to maintain the fantasy that he’s way to the left of the American public.

Criticism helps the Obama campaign understand where their base stands on the issues that are important to them
It is not a bad thing for a candidate to know when he is alienating a certain segment of the electorate, whether that segment of the electorate be from the left, the middle or the right. George Bush and Karl Rove have shown that appealing to one’s base can be as important in a political campaign as appealing to the center. It is better that Obama’s base let him know when he does something that makes them feel nervous about him than that they simply be quiet about the alienation that they feel. If Obama’s campaign doesn’t feel it’s a big deal that his base is alienated, then so be it. But they certainly won’t do anything about it if they don’t know that the alienation exists.

Criticism of rightward movement serves to check excesses in that direction and ensure a more successful presidency
This is related to the above point, but it’s a little different. Criticism from the left has the potential to bring a candidate back to their point of view. It may not work, but at least it has the potential to work.

If a candidate goes too far rightward for the purpose of winning an election, there is a good chance that the candidate will stay there when he becomes President. I believe that it is wonderful that an African-American has a very good chance of becoming President next year. If he does that, and if he has a successful Presidency, that should do a lot to reduce racism in our country forever. But I also believe that if his presidency is not successful, his presidency won’t help much in that regard. And I don’t believe that Obama’s presidency has much chance of being successful if he adopts too many Republican points of view. Our country is in a very precarious situation right now, and I think that we desperately need a leader along the lines of FDR. Yes, I know it’s been said that FDR moved to the right to win his first presidential election. I don’t know enough about that campaign to comment on it. But FDR certainly did not move to the right for his next three elections, all which he won by landslides.

Failure to criticize when appropriate sets a dangerous precedent
When a candidate’s base fails to criticize the candidate when appropriate, that is not good for democracy in my opinion. I can’t explain why I feel that way any better than Bill Burton does, so I’ll end this post with a quote from him on this subject. Burton made this comment in the context of Obama’s support for Bush’s FISA bill. But these words apply to any candidate, any time, any where:


Yes, I’m well aware that Barack Obama is no George Bush. And perhaps Burton’s statement doesn’t take that fact sufficiently into account. Nevertheless, I agree with his basic point.