June 28, 2008
Obama, the FISA compromise, and the True Believers
Barack Obama is clearly the better candidate in this presidential election and I believe he has the potential to be a superb president. I will vote for him and suggest you all do the same. However, I am also a skeptic and an independent who has never agreed with the entire platform of any party and who has refused to ever join a political party. I'm also a student of human behavior. In that respect, especially, the long, flat, seemingly endless Bataan Death March to the White House has been particularly interesting. The Obama phenomenon hasn't been the only interesting aspect of this election season, but it might be one of the most interesting.
It remained interesting this week, as Obama made some moves that were... let's say 'intriguing' because I don't think it's totally fair to say 'unexpected'. His decision about financing his campaign seems pragmatic (and consistent, albeit unconventionally, with the concept of public financing). His statements about capital punishment are acceptably consistent with other statements throughout his career. But his decision with regard to the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer FISA bill is hard to explain except as political maneuvering - perhaps it's simply an example of the 'run to the center' typically made by candidates after the primaries. Maybe he's just trying to play nice with the current Democratic congressional leadership. Who knows...
It's fascinating that people seem so surprised to find that Barack Obama is, indeed, a politician and not some golden being sent from above. (You simply don't get that far without playing the game, even if you play it a bit differently.) What's most interesting is the way some of his most ardent supporters - who would normally be appalled at his statements with regard to the FISA bill - have shied from criticism and even supported him. Clearly, he has that special "it" that could make him an historic leader. However, that's also something to keep a close eye on if he is elected.
Glenn Greenwald wrote an interesting article about it. I wanted to quote several passages, but I suppose this one offers the best summary:
... perhaps it will be that the illusions of "lily-ness" about Barack Obama can finally fade away and be replaced by a more realistic perception of what he is, what his limits are, and the reasons why he merits real scrutiny, criticism and checks -- like everyone else pursuing political power does. Recall that the very first thing that he did upon securing the nomination was run to AIPAC to prostrate himself before them and swear undying fealty to their militant pieties. There will be plenty more of these sorts of ugly rituals to come. Whether you think he is engaging in them out of justifiable political calculation or some barren quest for power doesn't much matter.
Either way, no good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values. The overriding lesson of the last seven years is that political figures, more than they need anything else, need checks and limits. That is just as important to keep in mind -- probably more so -- when you love or revere a political leader as it is when you detest one.
Obama will get my vote and I hope he gets yours; but if he is elected, remember that slogan, "Yes We Can." It's not about one man or woman, as much as we are drawn to that idea. Too much executive power is dangerous, even in the best hands. At the end of Greenwald's article, you will notice two quotes:
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams
"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence . . . . Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitutions." - Thomas Jefferson