| Many activists involved with the struggle to preserve our 4th Amendment rights and oppose the latest revisions to FISA were deeply disappointed by the substance of Obama's response, which contained a whole series of misleading arguments, as Glenn Greenwald documented here.
While some were ecstatic that Obama listened at all, others had a higher standard, and found the disingenuous arguments to be insulting to their intelligence, particularly given how fundamental the issues are, and how clearly Senator Obama had previously stated his intention to filibuster if telco immunity was part of the deal.
Although running to the right after the primary--and losing--is a time-honored tradition in the Democratic Party, many of Obama's supporters were expecting something more from him. And when he spoke of reaching out and bringing people together, they did not envision the unifying cause to be the embracing of Bush/Cheney/Rove lawlessness.
Which brings up the question, what next? One possibility is to up the pressure by sitting in at campaign offices this coming Monday. If people are truly serious about there commitment to the rule of law, this is a logical next step. Unlike other lawbreaking, civil disobedience upholds the law by willingly embracing the consequences of its actions in order to challenge injustice.
Some would argue that such a move would be highly damaging to Obama's campaign, but others might disagree. It is still quite early in the general election campaign, and putting a stop now to such wrong-headed triangulation, directly violating his own word, could be doing him an enormous favor. What's more, truly demonstrating his capacity to listen to the people and be persuaded--after 8 years of Bush/Cheney--could be the most powerful demonstration imagineable that the change talks about is actually real.
Furthermore, Obama himself has tacitly endorsed such a move, in the Presidential Debate sponsored by CNN and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on January 21, 2008, in response to the last question asked:
Wolf Blitzer:If Dr. Martin Luther King were alive today, unfortunately, he's not, but if he were alive today, why do you think he would or why should he endorse you?
....
BLITZER: Senator?
OBAMA: Well, I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us. I think what he would call upon the American people to do is to hold us accountable, and this goes to the core differences, I think, in this campaign.
I believe change does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up. Dr. King understood that.
(APPLAUSE)
It was those women who were willing to walk instead of ride the bus, union workers who are willing to take on violence and intimidation to get the right to organize. It was women who decided, "I'm as smart as my husband. I'd better get the right to vote."
OBAMA: them arguing, mobilizing, agitating, and ultimately forcing elected officials to be accountable, I think that's the key.
So that has been a hallmark of my career, transparency and accountability, getting the American people involved. That's how we're going to bring about change. That's why I want to be president of the United States, to respect the power of the American people to bring about change. |
| Obviously, the question of civil disobedience in this context is a very serious matter. But so is passing this bill that constitutes a frontal assault on the rule of law.
I will posting a series of diaries this weekend seeking to gain a deeper understanding of how Obama has absorbed far more Reagan-era rightwing thinking than he--or most of the rest of us--realizes. Yet, he still gives lip-service to memory of Dr. Martin Luther King. And so it behooves us to ask, in these circumstances, what would Martin do? |
