Obama Specifically Told Me We Should Take Him At His Word

by: David Sirota

Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 22:46


Just to follow up on Chris's terrific post, I want to point out that Barack Obama told me that progressive activists should judge him explicitly by what he does - and not come up with wild theories that absolve him. Here's the money quote from my article on him in The Nation two years ago:

"You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in," Obama said.

So by Obama's own admission, when he casts, say, an anti-progressive vote on civil liberties, we shouldn't whip up wild fantasies about him supposedly doing it because he actually is progressive on civil liberties. We should believe that he is, in fact, anti-progressive on civil liberties. That is, we should judge him on his actions.
David Sirota :: Obama Specifically Told Me We Should Take Him At His Word
Of course, in the same interview, Obama then said this:

"The thing that bothers me is the assumption that if I make a judgment that's different from yours, then it must mean I am less progressive or my goals are different, meaning I must be not really committed to helping people but rather I am trying to triangulate or drift toward the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council]."

This struck me as odd in that he is simultaneously saying we should judge him by his votes, but then saying we shouldn't. I take this latter comment as him just being a politician who doesn't like pressure (or, in his words, is "bothered" by it), and is therefore trying to pre-empt it.

It's the first comment imploring us to take him at his word that I think we need to take most to heart. Obama is telling us very clearly: If and when he moves to the right on key issues, we should take off the partisan blinders, shy away from the excuses, judge him by his concrete actions - and apply pressure accordingly. This comes on top of Obama's talk about the need to build a movement to hold him and others in public office accountable.

That makes things pretty clear: Those who think they are being Obama loyalists by either concocting apologist rationales about his behavior or telling everyone to shut up when he runs over the progressive movement are not just harming the progressive movement by supplanting it with Partisan War Syndrome. They are actually being disloyal to Obama by defying what Obama himself says he wants us to do.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Specifically Told Me We Should Take Him At His Word | 42 comments
There's No Contradiction Here, David (4.00 / 4)
He's simply telling you that he's right and if you disagree, then you're wrong.

So, gutting the 4th Amendment is the progressive thing to do.  And if you can't figure out how that is so, then maybe some time in the Gulags will help.

Heh!  Just kidding!  For now, anyhow.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Urgh (0.00 / 0)
Don't we all believe that we are right and the others are wrong ?
Are we to assume that because you would put into action your progressive beliefs if you were President, that would make you an arrogant bastard ?

Obama believes in what he says and does and we are welcome to criticize him for it - and try to change his mind or pressure him.
But just the same way some Obamaniacs should stop trying to rationalize everything he does to make it fit into what they want him to be, people who disagree with some of his moves should cut it out with the overreacting.

[ Parent ]
people who disagree with some of his moves should cut it out with the overreacting (4.00 / 3)
why should I?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
What exactly is the overreaction here? (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
Whatever one thinks of Obama (0.00 / 0)
I have no illusion that Clinton and .or Edwards would have been better. I can't certain about Edwards given his transformation, but Iam reasonably certain about Clinton given her hawkishness and need to prove she's a strong leader.
[ Parent ]
there's a difference between believing you're right... (0.00 / 0)
and believing a political label (whether "progressive" "conservative" "liberal" "communist" "fascist" or anything else) applies accurately to you in a particular context of time and place.

a lot of what this is about is about 1) who gets to define what 'progressive' means and 2) what range that definition it encompasses.

[ Parent ]
I don't think its crazy to assume that sometimes Obama is just doing what is most politically expedient thing to do (4.00 / 3)
After all, this is what politicians do. To take him at his word that he believes in everything he says/does and none of it is for political reasons would be giving him more credit than I am willing to do.

That being said I don't see what is politically expedient about his stance on this FISA Bill. Maybe there is something and I am just missing it, but it appears to be one big disaster all the way around for him.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

It's called money (4.00 / 1)
Maybe it's not politically expedient in how it plays with the public, but it is expedient in terms of money. See here  and here for a taste.
[ Parent ]
That's just silly (0.00 / 0)
You see, you are doing exactly what you complain about the DLC doing to us.
They say that if you disagree with them on those kinds of issues, it makes us dirty hippies. It is bull. And it is insulting.
On the other hand, the fact they disagree with us does not necessarily make them all dirty corrupt potential dictators.

SOME GOOD-FAITH SANE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE. Enough with the overreacting.

[ Parent ]
Empirical evidence (4.00 / 5)
There's nothing wrong with citing empirical evidence - namely, that Barack Obama has taken lots of money from telecom companies. Should we just pretend that's not the case? I'd say no.

Sure, Obama may disagree on principle with us on FISA - his past rhetoric on the issue, of course, suggests that's not true, but sure - it's possible. My guess it's a mix of principle (as he's asked us to believe), money, and a desire to move to the fake "center" as defined by Washington.

But that's not the point of what I've written. The point is that whatever his reason, we should - as he's requested - take him at his word that he believes our civil liberties should be trampled and that the government should let those trampling those liberties off the hook in the form of immunity. And in taking him at his word - regardless of why he's doing what he's doing - we should act accordingly in terms of applying pressure.

[ Parent ]
If I had to come up with alterior motives to suspect Obama of on this... (4.00 / 1)
I would say that maybe he was more concerned about possible bad media coverage leading up to November than about donations per se. It also could be something like another Senator he wants to remain allies with called in a "favor."

But who knows, maybe he really believes the telecoms should get off Scott Free. At this point I don't really care anymore. I'm counting it as a strike against him and moving on with my life.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
I don't get what's politically expedient about supporting a bill (4.00 / 1)
that the public doesn't support when you are running for office. This just sounds like DC CW.
[ Parent ]
Neither do I. That's exactly what I wrote. Maybe you should read more carefully before you post sarcastic ad-hom comments. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
I was agreeing with you. (0.00 / 0)
Not attacking you.
[ Parent ]
He's beholden to congresisonal superdelegates... (4.00 / 1)
...that's what the problem is... our stupid primary system!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
A non-paradox? (4.00 / 1)
But that's not the point of what I've written. The point is that whatever his reason, we should - as he's requested - take him at his word that he believes our civil liberties should be trampled and that the government should let those trampling those liberties off the hook in the form of immunity.

David,

I am not an Obama supporter, but I would guess that he would respond thus: You understand him correctly to be saying that you should look at an action of his as a consequence of his beliefs not expediency. However, as his second point notes, your interpretation of what his action implies is just his, not the proven progressive interpretation. In other words, he may agree with you that [it is a progressive idea that] government should not permit or protect those who trample on your civil liberties. Where the disagreement arises is his judgement on whether FISA is such a case or not. His defence may be that his judgement on the progressive stand on this matter happens to be different from yours. Of course he faces a severe burden of proof here, but as a man adored by fainting millions he probably feels no pressure to take on that burden.

Personally, I am afraid he is a bit of a confused man. It seems to me that he is rather guilty of that which he perceives in his critics -- a sort of knee-jerk notion of progressive values generalised from one's personal views and actions. He does not want the left blogs criticising him as a non-progressive merely for disagreeing with them. Which may be a reasonable demand ... but at the same time, his actions and rhetoric themselves seem to stem from a conviction of his own progressive infallibility.

Correction... (0.00 / 0)
My second sentence above should read:

However, as his second point notes, your interpretation of what his action implies is just yours, not the proven progressive interpretation.

[ Parent ]
I don't know what to think (0.00 / 0)
Obama's a brilliant guy. He knows this is wrong.  But he's also competing against a brutal shameless enemy in the Republicans. So, I think he may have decided that from now until November he is just going to agree with them on as many issues as possible.  And since only 15 senators had the cajones to say no, he might have figured there was no plus for him to join the 15.  
How do you know that he knows that this is wrong? (4.00 / 3)
Are you in on his secret plan?
[ Parent ]
Because he used to be against it (4.00 / 4)
And his reasons for changing his mind don't make any sense, IMO, especially in light of his background as a constitutional scholar. And he's come out recently in favor of the the conservative wing on the DC Gun issue and the Punishment for Child rapists issues -- in favor of individual right over state rights, and in favor of state rights over federal rights, respectively.  It doesn't make any sense for him to suddenly favor federal authority over state and individual rights unless he's doing so for political reasons.  His recent stands are all over the place and don't seem to be part of an integrated framework.  
[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Mainly agree... (4.00 / 3)

 ...though I happen to believe that the SCOTUS ruled properly on the DC gun case, and many, many progressives feel the same way, so Obama's praise of that particular decision doesn't necessarily constitute a betrayal of principles or anything. One can construct a good progressive argument in favor of the Second Amendment.

  But one cannot construct a good progressive argument (or any good Western-democracy argument) in favor of the demolition of the Fourth Amendment. The FISA bill is completely indefensible by ANY interpretation of the Constitution. And it is on THAT issue that Obama has betrayed not just his ideological base, but his Constitution and his country. Along with a couple hundred other lawmakers.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
The Scotus decision was wrong for the reasons they supported (4.00 / 1)
and almost certainly will come back to haunt progressives in other ways. This is the reality of Con Law. It created a precedent here that will increasely lead to an activist radically conservative court. Its rarely about the individual decision in Con Law.
[ Parent ]
I don't have a problem with DC Gun ruling (4.00 / 2)
My point was that if Obama was ready to support the 2nd Amendment (perhaps even beyond what was put down in the Constitution), how he justify selling out the 4th Amendment? Both amendments put the individual's right over the alleged "greater good" of the state. The idea that a person can have a shotgun (to protect their person) but can be spied on w/o a warrant (and lose their privacy) is ridiculous.  A person's reputation and his physical person are both sacred -- and that is why Madison put this down on paper.  
[ Parent ]
so you don't know that he knows this is wrong (0.00 / 0)
You're conjecturing.  And that's fine; we all do it.  And the way in which you're conjecturing makes perfect sense to me. But that's different than you or me or any of us knowing what he knows (or thinks), especially because it could also be that he's really changed his mind and now thinks that telecoms should have immunity.  Or maybe he always thought that and didn't say so before.  And maybe he really does agree with the Supreme Court on the DC gun issue.  I don't know; I'm conjecturing, but that's all we can do here.

To say that we really know what's going on with a candidate when that candidate is doing or saying something really different seems to me to be a dangerous road to go down for all the reasons that people have talked about here.

[ Parent ]
Dude, you're a relativist? (0.00 / 0)
I'm not. So, I'm going to agree with you.  I believe there is right and wrong and it's clearly wrong to spy on people without  a warrant.  The very idea that you or Obama or anyone is twisting themselves into a pretzel to make what is wrong into what is right is very sad.  Our country is based on "self-evident truths" and these truths were not suddenly untrue because we were scared of Britain (who was ready to torture, shame and/or kill all of our founders.)  These truths were greater than any temporary political crisis.  
[ Parent ]
not in the least bit (0.00 / 0)
You wrote that Obama knows it's wrong.  I asked how do you know what he knows?  There's nothing in that about relativism.  I think it's wrong too.

My point was, and is, that people act like they know the "real" Obama, and it's only conjecture on their part about what's going on inside his head.  I think there's a dangerous tendency for people to read into him what they want to be there--and it may or may not actually be there.

That's a completely different point than whether there really is a right or a wrong.

[ Parent ]
I don't know Obama but I know that (0.00 / 0)
ANY sensible person would come to the same conclusion we did.  It's a choice between freedom and fascism.  I don't have to an expert on Obama to "know" that he knows fascism is wrong.
[ Parent ]
I'm sure you remember 2002 (4.00 / 3)

  What you describe was the Democrats' "strategy" for the Iraq war resolution.

  How'd THAT work out electorally?

  There is no upside for Obama's FISA stance. No constitutional upside, no political upside. None. Obama sold his soul and his country and his Constitution -- for... nada. Nothing.

  The Democrats might finally learn at some point that doing the wrong thing and aping Republicans doesn't translate into winning elections. I thought the Obama nomination was a critical step in getting us there. I was wrong.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
enough already (4.00 / 2)
They are actually being disloyal to Obama by defying what Obama himself says he wants us to do.

I know the whole point of this post is to reiterate the "he's not f@#king jesus" approach to politics so let's reiterate here too - it doesn't MATTER if it's 'disloyal' to Obama or any other person in power what ordinary people decide is right or wrong.  If that's the calculation that people are using, it's not just not progressive, it's not democratic - which is probably a more important point.  Everyone should think for themselves or no one except the most powerful will have any input into what thoughts are out there.

I'm sick of progressive 'Obama skeptics' implying that a significant number of Obama supporters are simply 'kool-aid drinkers' (derogative term) who adore Obama and believe him to be infallible (0.00 / 0)
In fact, this is a mean-spirited right-wing frame that has very little basis in reality. The Clinton squad pushed this frame as well during the primary, but in reality very few Obama supporters fit this description. This is just another example of irrational deep-seated psychological Obama-resentment bubbling up from the surface of peoples irrational subconscious and presenting itself its a bazaar manner, this time coming from a left-wing perspective.  

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
Make your point . . . (4.00 / 3)
 . . . that Obama is an imperfect vessel for everyone's hopes.

No need, however, to insult our intelligence and/or reduce your own credibility by saying, "This struck me as odd in that he is simultaneously saying we should judge him by his votes, but then saying we shouldn't."

The two quotes you cite are in no conflict with one another:
1) I believe what I say.
2) You are not the sole arbiter of what is progressive.

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.

A number of people have recently commented (4.00 / 4)
that whatever Obama's reasons for flip-flopping on FISA and other important issues recently--general election tacking to the center, telcom money, pressure from congressional Dems, he actually believes that it's a good bill, etc.--the fact remains that what he's actually doing is something that most of us strongly disagree with, and we should react to the action, not the impossible to accurately infer motivation(s).

I suppose that on a micro, tactical level, it might be helpful to have some notion of why he's doing this, to know which pressure points to focus on (e.g. ads targeting Obama's telcom donations vs. playing up his flip-flopping tendencies). But on a macro, general strategy level, the point is that whatever the reason, whenever he veers from where we believe that he should go, beyond what is reasonable to expect any politician to do (a few unavoidable small compromises here and there, differences in style, etc.), we have to hold him accountable for it, and apply pressure on him. That's what you do in a democracy. You help elect the best leaders that you can, and then you keep the pressure on them to do what you want them to do. It's what the right does with its politicians, and it's what we are obliged to do.

And I don't buy all this nonsense about how we're overreacting, making more of FISA than we should, being too hard on him, not getting that this is just for show so he can lock up swing voters, risking his losing the election to McCain, etc. We're neither that powerful, nor reckless. I have no doubt that should we be in a position to actually put McCain in office by doing this or that, we'd pull back (assuming, of course, that Obama didn't emerge as an even more scary president than McCain, but I seriously doubt that could happen).

We are doing exactly what we should be doing, what we've committed ourselves to doing, and what we need to continue to do. Usually partisans wait until someone in their party is actually in office before hounding them. Obama has forced us to do this before he's even been elected. That was his choice, not ours. And he's smart enough to have known that this is what would have happened. If he really thought that it would hurt him, he wouldn't have done it. He didn't, and felt free to do it.

Obama's a big boy, playing in the ultimate big boy's game. He knows what he got himself into, even if he might only now be experiencing it for the first time at such a level. But he's doing what he thinks he needs to do, and we're doing likewise. It's how democracy works.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

"how democracy works?" (0.00 / 0)
feh. it's "the reality of how funding major campaigns works, in which the one time/short term donations of millions of Little People count for nothing against the long term financial pressures the telcos can apply during his administration."

understand who your masters, and obama's, really are. there is no "political" gain to be had from supporting the telcos. none. i defy you to find one american with nothing but kind words for their phone company. indeed, if i thought this was all about 'smart strategy,' i'd be dumbfounded as to why obama, 'constitutional scholar,' isn't making FISA opposition a centerpiece to his campaign. "your phone company overcharges you and gives you bad service, and it spies on you! vote for me and i'll end all that!" tell me how that wouldn't work with voters. no, as everyone here has pointed out, this is plain old corruption. we don't live in a "democracy" today. we live in a oligarchy in which the forms of democracy are observed mainly as a distraction and cover for those who subvert our constitution every single day. obama is one of those people, and as david notes, we should take him at his word when he says so.  

[ Parent ]
It's ALWAYS a good idea to watch /judge what people DO (0.00 / 0)
Not what they say. Obama's ALWAYS been a sold-out shill for ethanol and all the other 'magic' nostrums that 'should' make it unnnecessary for his benefactors and donors--adm. cargill, monsanto, plus the big bankers--to avoid spending ANY money on actually recovering the Earth from their profitable, poisonous predations...

Chi-Dy sez: "Your phone company overcharges you and gives you bad service, and it spies on you! vote for me and i'll end all that!" tell me how that wouldn't work with voters.

Yeah, i reckon that'd work...but it'd be a REAL dangerous precedent for a hand-picked hand-maiden of the oligarchs to start...folks might expect something similar honesty for the rest of the hegemons...and we all know that AINGAHAPPUN!!!!

[ Parent ]
How our system currently works (4.00 / 1)
I agree with your comment, but your cynicism is deafening.

Yes, our current system is overly influenced by rich people, large corporations, and vapid corporate media. Rather than reaching out to voters and representing their interests, politicians generally work to placate these powerful entities. We have a government of, by, and for the power elite, not of, by, and for the people and the common good.

Obama talked about running a new kind of campaign based on mobilizing more voters and firing them up. But this last week, he seemed to shift into placate-the-power-elite mode -- an anti-democratic as well as losing strategy.

It is easy to be cynical and throw your hands up in despair, but this is not very useful. A better alternative is to pressure Obama to act as a progressive, help him win as a progressive (not as a placater of the powerful), and reform the system so it is ruled by people, not the power elite.

Or pursue a longer term strategy of organizing a powerful grassroots progressive movement for social change that is large enough and strong enough to undermine the power elite and neutralize their power.

[ Parent ]
Yes, on all counts (0.00 / 0)
Maybe we should call it "Constructive Cynicism". I.e. a political outlook that begins with cynicism as a starting point, because we live in a cynical world, but not as a self-defeating end point, in which it is assumed from the outset that there's nothing that we can do about how things are--i.e. life sucks and then you die. Just because the world is filled with a small group of powerful people working against the interests of most others, doesn't mean that nothing can be done to make things better for those people. I.e. life sucks so let's make it better!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Um, yeah (0.00 / 0)
I would offer that the "Why even bother because the Deep Government operating out of the dungeon of the Skull and Bones at Yale secretly controls everything and we're all screwed anyway and there's nothing nothing nothing that we can do about it until there is La Revolucion!" school of "activism" isn't likely to play well here, for all sorts of reasons.

Sorry, I don't do simplistic nihilistic cynicism. And yes, I realize that that makes me out to be a clueless moron who lives in a fantasy world in which people still pathetically cling to the rediculous notion that there can still be positive change through the efforts of dedicated activisits and citizens, and am damn proud of it.

Cheers!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Evaluate the truth of the following sentence: (0.00 / 0)
"Everything I say is a lie".

It can't be true.  If it's true it's false.

Silly exercise in first year logic?  Perhaps.  But not much sillier than using Obama's own silly statement to justify criticism of him.

I simply can't and don't believe Obama when he says that he will always be saying what he thinks inside.  If he does, he'll never be elected.  No politician can do what he claims to be doing.  At best, it's a statement of how he'd like to think of himself. If Obama has now changed his position on FISA, then the man who always says what the thinks inside owes us an explanation for why he changed his mind.  And he hasn't given that.

Simply, he set himself an impossible standard, and it's ridiculous to be pretend to be "shocked, just shocked" that he's violating it, David.  He's a politician for Christ's sake.

On the other hand, I'm in basic agreement with your point that criticism of Obama is totally legitimate.  But this post adds nothing to that case.

The acid test will come when we see how Obama treats people who continue to try to hold him accountable in some way.

Jury's still out.


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

He's a pragmatist. (0.00 / 0)
He'll sometimes take a bad bill that doesn't do everything he wants over no bill at all.

Not saying it's right or wrong, just telling you the way the guy thinks.

That logic doesn't work with this bill (0.00 / 0)
because there's no pressing need to pass ANY FISA bill. The existing, pre-PAA version of FISA, while flawed, was quite adequate as it was, and the only reason to amend it would be to improve it, in terms of both national security and civil liberty needs. This bill does neither, so I see absolutely no face value reason to pass it. This bill being passed is about telcom donations, administration pressure, Democratic CYA and election year politics. Not the slightest bit of merit in there whatsoever. It's not just a bad bill, it's a horrendous bill. Anyone who disagrees is obliged to prove this assertion wrong.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to support this bill. None.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
If you really want to get into this... (0.00 / 0)
Then you should only judge him on what he does (i.e. votes on).  That means that you should wait until he votes on the issue.
Obama Specifically Told Me We Should Take Him At His Word | 42 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox