In a joint interview with his energy policy team yesterday, President Obama positioned the climate change bill that passed through Congress as the moderate position:
So I think that at the end of the day this bill represents an important first step. There are critics from the left as well as the right; some who say who doesn't go far enough, some who say it goes too far.(...)
[T]he final legislation that emerges is probably not going to satisfy the Europeans or Greenpeace. On the other hand, I think that when you've got corporate leaders like Jeff Immelt, legislators from coal regions like Rick Boucher, and Al Gore all agreeing that this is worth doing, that's a pretty good coalition to work with.
The mention of Greenpeace is noteworthy, given that they came out in opposition to the bill believing that it was too flawed. It is highly likely that President Obama is aware of Greenpeace's opposition, and was briefed on it as a means of selling the climate change bill as a moderate position.
This rhetorical move, positioning himself to the left of either real or caricatured left-wing positions, is emblematic of Obama's style. Consider comments he made in 2006, even before he was a Presidential candidate (more in the extended entry): |
In town-hall meetings, when those who opposed the war get shrill, Obama makes a point of noting that while he, too, opposed the war, he's "not one of those people who cynically believes Bush went in only for the oil."(...)
We're now in a packed room at Eastern Illinois University. A woman stands up and tosses Obama what I assume she thinks is a bit of red meat. What, she asks, does the senator think of the pervasiveness of religion in public discourse these days? Obama doesn't take the bait.
"No one would say that Dr. King should leave his moral vision at the door before getting involved in public-policy debate," he answers. "He says, `All God's children.' `Black man and white man, Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic.' He was speaking religiously. So we have to remember that not every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy.
It is remarkable how similar these passages are, even though they are separated by three years, a grueling campaign, and now five months of Obama's presidency. Obama frequently makes a point of noting that he is for change and progress, but that is isn't one of those left-wing wackjobs who think Iraq was about oil, or that the climate change bill was too flawed to support. Barack Obama wants you to know that he is for change, but change that won't freak you out with its extremity.
When he was first rising to national prominence, Barack Obama often contrasted himself with left-wing caricatures (see also Obama's comments on "the excesses of the 60s and 70s" and "Tom Hayden Democrat") in order to present himself as a moderating figure. Now that he is President, he longer appears to have to rely on such caricatures, and is instead using real left-wing criticism of administration-supported legislation to position himself in the same way. In fact, he is reliant upon continued left-wing criticism in order to maintain his moderating image.
What President Obama knows, as President Clinton knew before him, is that without prominent, left-wing criticism of his policies and his administration, then he becomes a left-wing caricature rather than being able to contrast himself with such caricatures. Two weeks ago Bill Clinton told me a group of a dozen other progressive bloggers about how he wished that there was more progressive media in the 1990's, so that he would be called a sell-out in a far more prominent way. It was a story I had hear before, so it must be a point that he makes quite often. Lacking left-wing criticism, there is no public rationale for left-wing policy, and the drift of policy will be entirely rightward. For lack of a better way of putting it, due to the high number of left-wing caricatures in this country, Democrats need lefties to call them sell-outs.
It is also important to remember how incredibly unpopular President Bush has made not only Republicans, but right-wing policies in general. It is worth wondering if regular, prominent, right-wing criticism of, say, President Bush and Republican spending policies, might have allowed the conservative movement to still appear intellectually honest. Spending, by far, the number one concern people have about the Obama administration (PDF, page 8), but Republican officials and conservative commenters who held their fire during the Bush years have no credibility to attack Obama on those grounds. I bet they wish they could have it all do over again now, rather than deciding to carry the Bush administration's water.
The bottom line is this: progressives who hold back on criticizing the Obama administration from the left are doing a disservice both to President Obama and to progressivism itself. Not offering such criticism bears the real risk of discrediting both President Obama and progressive policies. While it might get you access, and invitations to the best parties, over the long term it is a huge net negative for the causes in which we believe. |
