Heads Up, Obamakins Update
May 11, 2008, 10:29 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Chicago approves. How can he lose? Here’s the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.html?hp
Update: NYT’s subhead: Pragmatic Politics Forged on the South Side That’s why he can win!
I’m confused, what are you trying to say, that it’s a good thing that he ultimately falls right in line with Chicago politics? I certainly don’t see it that way. What I got from that article is further confirmation that the closer we look at Obama the more he seems like politics as usual. Seriously, is it just me or did anyone else find themselves even less impressed with his rhetoric of “change” and “unity” after reading that article?
Well, it is a confusing political season; so much to be confused about. If you read the story carefully he is not right in line with Chicago politics. He got elected without help from the machine, who have come to embrace him–what choice do they have. I am increasinly impressed with the history of coalition building among many divergent Democratic groups. Sounds like unity to me.
But it’s not just the Chicago politicians embracing him — he’s openly returned the favor, endorsing Mayor Daley and other shady figures in Chicago politics. And let’s be honest, if Obama really was all for reform, would he stand by endorsements from guys like Daley? I think those kind of ties and endorsements are far worse than having connections with Wright.
Interestingly, here’s a recent opinion piece from the Chicago Tribune questioning how the media and public have fallen for this narrative that Obama has somehow stayed above the dirty politics throughout his career:
“Obama magically unstained by grime of Chicago Way”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass_bd11may11,0,2398464.column
And here’s a story that shows how even south side Chicago politics isn’t always neat and clean (Barack didn’t get 26 pieces of legislation through just because the Democrat had regained control):
“Barack Obama and Me”
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/1
I wonder if the media will every begin to question the “reform” and “change” narrative that the Obama campaign has so craftily delivered to them.
And regarding unity, in one sense, yes, he has brought “unity”, but the NYT article makes it clear that many people who initially agreed with him and thought he agreed with them, now question his motives and sincerity at times. Why? Clearly many of the bridges he’s built bring into conflict various types of values, which forces one to wonder whether all the “unity” talk might sometimes compromise his positions on issues in a way that is harmful, or result in just flat out dishonesty. None of this would be surprising coming from a politician, but I thought Barack was supposed to be “different”.
Additionally, even coming from a pragmatic perspective, this seems like that least likely time period in the last 20 years where a Democratic presidential candidate would need to worry about “unity” as much as Obama does. The Democrats are going to clearly have control of Congress. If the Democratic candidate is president, he really shouldn’t have too difficult a time getting his agenda accomplished. Plus, after the last 20+ years of the Democratic Party moving further to the right and becoming increasingly entangled in corporate interests, is this really the time to be compromising yet again? I really just don’t understand the point here, so if you have any insight on any of this, please share.
Another reason I’m bothered by Obama is that despite his rhetoric against political corruption in Washington and his criticisms of lobbyists, in practice there seems to be little difference between him and anyone else:
“Barack Obama Inc.”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
“Hope for Corporate America”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080428_hope_for_corporate_america/
“Obama’s Money Cartel”
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html
“The Obama Bubble Agenda”
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05062008.html
And no, I really don’t think Hillary is much better in this regard. The two are pretty similar. I just can’t stand how so many people have bought into Obama’s rhetoric. I have an incredibly hard time believing it. And this post has gotten extremely long now, so I’ll stop and wait for a response. Thanks for listening!
By the way, I should add that I too am impressed by and grateful for how Obama has inspired many new groups of people to take more interest in the political process.
But I worry about the extent he’s going to act for all of those groups. I worry about whether he’s really going to block any corporate influence (it already seems to have affected some of his positions, such as on healthcare and his backing of corn ethanol, among other things).
I hope Obama continues to encourage his supporters to get involved in politics, though, even to the point of questioning him if he may have done or is doing something wrong. If he does, it will be good for democracy and for our country.
“But it’s not just the Chicago politicians embracing him — he’s openly returned the favor, endorsing Mayor Daley and other shady figures in Chicago politics. And let’s be honest, if Obama really was all for reform, would he stand by endorsements from guys like Daley?”
Chris,
I say the answer can be Yes. The essence of coalition politics is to join together with people who have enough in common with you for you to work together for shared goals. This does not imply that you will never oppose the other person. Sometimes Democrats think that the over-riding issue in a race is that the Republicans do not continue in or gain the ascendency. Hence reformers like Obama joining with people like Daley..
At it is also the case that, as the philosopher Jacques Maritain pointed out when discussing democracy, it is possible to reach the same conclusion coming from different premises. Politics is about actions and goals you think are for the common good. It is not necessary to agree with *why* those actions and goals are good.
Okay Ann, regardless of my other points, assuming you’re right here, can you give me some concrete examples of how this will work with Republicans? That might help me in understanding how this is going to work.
And I’m also curious, do you see this “coalition building” as different from the “triangulation” practiced by the Clinton administration in the 90s?
What you have well documented, Chris, I have been saying all along. No one seems to have an adequate response except for vague, obscure hope. As days go by it will become more obvious where Barack is getting all this money. Some change candidate.
“Obama’s Money Cartel”
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html
Excerpts below:
On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005.
Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the passage of this legislation:
“Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights..”.
Three days before Senator Obama expressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama’s home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and House, pleading to stop the passage of this corporate giveaway: The AGs wrote: “State attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens… In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state. We are concerned that certain provisions of S.5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions..”.
The second part of Pam Marten’s article on Obama, Wall Street and his money source.
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05062008.html
Excerpts:
The number one industry supporting the Obama presidential bid, by the start of February, — the crucial time in primary season — according to the widely respected, nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, was “lawyers/law firms” (most on Wall Street’s payroll), giving a total of $11,246,596.
This presents three unique credibility problems for the yes-we-can-little-choo-choo-that-could campaign: (1) these are not just “lawyers/law firms”; the vast majority of these firms are also registered lobbyists at the Federal level; (2) Senator Obama has made it a core tenet of his campaign platform that the way he is gong to bring the country hope and change is not taking money from federal lobbyists; and (3) with the past seven ignoble years of lies and distortions fresh in the minds of voters, building a candidacy based on half-truths is not a sustainable strategy to secure the west wing from the right wing.
Chris –
I’m not sure how coalition building would work with the Republicans of the next Congress, but Obama has already shown that he could work with Sen. McCain to get the lobbying bill passed. Also, if the Democrats end up with a large majority in each house, Republican help won’t be needed so much.
But there are also coalitions within each party at times. For instance, Democratic senators who are against a particular nominee for the Supreme Court might work together with some other Democrats who are in favor or him/her to end the war in Iraq. In fact, I expect that many Republicans will also vote next congress to do just that.
I’ve seen the term “triangulation” but have never understood what it means in a political context, so I can’t compare it to coalition building.
It seems to me that too often we think there are the good guys (who always agree with us) and the bad guys (who are bad even if they disagree about just one major thing). That’s us-and-them thinking, and it makes for legislative paralysis.
Before we pursue all of the Obama supporter/money questions, do we have to have a serious discussion about “Purity”; I suspect, Chris, (but correct me if I am wrong, really) that there is no candidate for president, and never has been, who would pass your test.
And Bill: how about posting the equivalent info about Hillary? As you well know after I was a Biden fan, I was a Hillary voter, and I will be an Obama voter.
Peggy, I have not denied that Hillary gets corporate money. My problem is that he pretends to be this new statesman when he is really a very shrewd politician. He is really the best politician since Bill Clinton. It is the ‘fairy tale’ promotion (aptly termed by Bill Clinton) that bothers me.
I am not saying I will not support Obama if he is nominated. I just want to be spared all this Messiah baloney.
Margaret, yes, I do believe this is a serious discussion about purity, because as Bill I think rightly suggests, there is a questionable image of Barack Obama as somehow standing above the fray and never getting his hands dirty. The MSM has largely bought into this picture and so has a large portion of the public. In addition to the uncritical acceptance of Obama’s so-called anti-lobbyist platform, another great example of this is how the Clinton camp was painted as the first to go negative in these elections back in February by the MSM (with the encouragement of the Obama camp of course, i.e. “kitchen sink” language), despite the fact that there are countless examples of the Obama campaign and other Democratic campaigns going negative against her back in 2007 when she was well in the lead. The truth is one hardly has to be negative when one is in the lead, a position Obama clearly was in by February. But to ignore what happened prior to January and February 2008 is just utterly mind boggling to me.
Now, seeing as I’m not a big fan of Clinton either, maybe I should be happy, because well, politics is politics, and Obama is fooling everyone with his rhetoric and will be able to get into office that way. As you rightly points out, no candidate is perfect. Nevertheless, shouldn’t these above image issues be addressed? Hope is a good thing, but if too much false hope is given, that could seriously backfire on the party as a big perceptual disappointment and actually be more harmful than helpful in the long run. That’s at least a concern of mine. What do you think?
Ann, thanks for the response.
Working with McCain on the lobbying bill does seem like a good example of possible coalition building. If coalition building is as simple as that, as well as recognizing that reality is complex and black and white, that’s wonderful. But with Obama, I see his efforts to “bridge” as frequently leading to compromises in his positions along with occasional lies about his past.
One example of bad coalitions building is the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Another example of bad coalition building (or at least the attempt to do so) seems to be his shift to the center on health care (he thinks single payer is best “in principle” — a shift from his earlier position in that troublesome questionnaire he filled out a few years back — yet he has the audacity to criticize Clinton for her mandates?). His health care position is likely connected to his choice of centrist/conservative economic policy advisers, another seeming example of coalition building gone wrong — coupled with this could also be his campaign’s strong ties to Wall Street (which I also saw exemplified in his weaker criticisms of corporations when the subprime mortgage crisis was first getting national attention, in contrast to the stronger critiques by candidates like Clinton and Edwards). Another example of bad coalition building seems to be his vote for the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Those are just some of the big moves he’s made that first come to my mind as examples of shifting away from a more progressive position. These are all good reasons why I’m concerned that Obama is too compromising in his effort to “reach across the aisle”.
I’m fine with bipartisanship when it can work — after all, it is a good thing and almost all politicians do it (including Clinton, I might add). But the danger is in going too far and compromising, and this is what I fear about Obama.
As for “triangulating”, I believe it was a term coined during Bill Clinton’s presidency for his poll-centered policy decisions. Wikipedia says the following about it:
“the act of a candidate presenting his or her ideology as being “above” and “between” the left and right sides of the political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one’s political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent’s ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue. Opponents of triangulation consider the dynamic a deviation from reality and dismiss those that strive for it as whimsical.”
Anyway, I suppose “coalition building” is different in that it’s goal is simply to work, one issue at a time, with whoever agrees with you upon that issue, right? “Coalition building” isn’t meant to be compromising, even if that’s what has frequently happened for Obama — that’s actually why I thought he might be triangulating before I knew what “coalition building” meant precisely. Perhaps though, “coalition building” is more rhetoric from the Obama campaign and not necessarily what always goes on in reality. Just a thought. And I don’t mean to belittle it’s value as an ideal, because it does sound like a good one to me. I’m just saying again that, hey, look, Barack isn’t perfect.
Which brings me back around to my response to Margaret. This reminded me of another problem I had with him — he had the nerve to frequently criticize the Clinton campaign of being calculating and divisive (isn’t that divisive rhetoric in and of itself?). One quote from December strikes with particular irony: ”We’ve had enough of … triangulation and poll-driven politics,” he said. ”That’s not what we need right now.” I can’t help but laugh at this kind of remark, because the Obama campaign has spent far more money on polling than any other campaign in this election (yes, even more than Clinton). And I’ve already dealt with his possible triangulating, or at the least, his compromising, so I won’t go there again.
And so here’s a serious question I have: while I love the idea of “coalition building”, honestly, how unique is Obama in his effort to achieve this? Do you think he really shows signs of being better at this than usual? Better than any of the other Democratic candidates that were running for the party nomination? I’m not so sure about that, but I’d still like to hear what you think.
Chris –
You’re right, I think, to be concerned about compromises that Obama has made in the past. I don’t know his legislative history, and it certainly is relevant. No doubt, McCain and Co. will tell us more about it :-)
However, I am not suspicious of all compromises. Yes, there are self-serving ones, but others are a matter of half-a-loaf is better than none, and they are sometimes justified.and, of course, sometimes what benefits the community also benefits the politician, for instance, many Civil Rights votes helped the Afro-Americqn politicians themselves. I see nothing at all wrong with this.
I’m not sure how easily ethical principles concerning compromise can be articulated. Too many de facto situations require judgement of priorities and facts, as well as prudential judgments about allowing things to be neglected which in fact need governmental assistance. And, of course, there’s the terrible moral dilemmas involved in abortion legislation.
My interest in ethics was always in the foundations of ethics, so I can’t be of much help to you about more specific principles. If there are political ethicians on the blog maybe they could help. I’d be interested in what they have to say myself.
As to triangulation, that does seem to be directed mainly to self-aggrandizement, but still, as noted above, what is of benefit to the politician sometimes bnefits the people aswell. It seems to me that it’s the political intentionsof triangulation as you describe it that are so sleezy. It’s also a truism that dictators often do some good, and, I think, decent politicians are sometimes wise and fair to work with them towards some ends. Again, this is a matter of different premises leading to the same conclusion with the attendant joint action.
Ann, thanks for such a thoughtful response. At this point, I’m not sure what else can be said. I’m glad that you are willing to agree with me that there can be legitimate reason to be concerned about Obama’s past actions (especially in comparison with his present day rhetoric). I also completely agree with the rest of your response — indeed, these are complex and complicated ethical questions. If one wants to get things done in politics, it’s very difficult not to make any compromises at all. For the record, I don’t think compromise is inherently evil!
My hope is simply that people are willing to be asking these questions, because I feel as though, more than usual this year, folks have been incredibly defensive of their candidate and less willing than normal to really critically examine the politician they support. And so I was provoked in this thread by how positive the take was that Margaret got from the NYT article. Personally, I saw it as presenting Obama as much more of a mixed bag. (Margaret, feel free to defend yourself!)
But this problem is true for Hillary’s supporters too, not just Obama’s. However, I never considered it to be as big of an issue with Hillary because she’s been around longer, examined more thoroughly, and is even despised by many. Obama’s the new guy, and even if he’s a good candidate, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be seriously questioning him and examining him too. After all, he is a politician! ;-)