A Lobby He Can Believe In
The enormous disappointment-generating machine that is the Obama campaign has been working overtime lately. The latest to feel its effects is Uri Avnery:
The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles.
If it’s any consolation to Mr. Avnery, there was nothing in the AIPAC speech that compromised Obama’s principles, since this speech was almost identical to the one he gave last year and is entirely consistent with every major statement and action he has made concerning Israel. Contrary to the hopes of his admirers and the accusations of his critics, when it comes to Israel and most of America’s Near East policy he is utterly conventional. Avnery is right that opposing the war was a move that would not win any favour with “pro-Israel” forces, but it was much easier to take such a stand during a Democratic Senate primary in one of the most Democratic and antiwar states in America than it is during a presidential election. The thing that should worry Obamaites about the AIPAC speech isn’t just the embarrassing pandering, but that as someone in national office Obama will not go against such a major lobby during the election, which suggests that he may never do so. More worrying for his fans has to be the possibility that Obama gave the speech he did because he genuinely believes everything he said, and that his opposition to the war in Iraq was essentially a fluke and not at all representative of how he understands the U.S. role in the Near East and the world. Of course, it is entirely consistent to be more or less conventionally “pro-Israel” and antiwar concerning Iraq, since almost everyone acknowledges that the war has been very bad for Israel and has empowered Iran in ways that have been detrimental to Israel, but politically it is a strange position to be in because the supporters of hawkish Israeli policies and hawkish American policies tend to align with one another. Obama is an odd man out in this respect, since he is quite happy to support Israeli hawkishness, even to the point of unequivocally backing their counterproductive and failed war in Lebanon (he might have called it a “rash and dumb war we can believe in”), while demonstrating more prudence when it comes to the American use of force in the region. His admirers will still say that half a loaf is better than none, but the plaintive cry of Mr. Avnery in this column is representative of a lot of Obama’s admirers who are discovering day by day that there is not much about U.S. foreign policy that Obama will change. The thing is that he never promised he would change U.S. foreign policy in large ways–this was something that his admirers imputed to him because they assumed that it had to be true.
Update: More lamentations about Obama’s AIPAC speech here, here, here, here and here. Meanwhile, the Post is quite satisfied.
I’m learning to love this phrase of yours “The enormous disappointment-generating machine that is the Obama campaign”, because let’s face it, it applies pretty much only to conservatives who imagine Obama is going to advance an across-the-board conservative agenda. Of course he’s going to disappoint such people, because, surprise surprise, he’s a liberal. He’s going to advance liberal causes. Now, some liberal causes, like ending the war in Iraq, coincide with some rock-bed conservative principles. Likewise with certain economic principles of fiscal discipline, perhaps. But the idea that Obama’s “change” message means that literally every single policy of the US government, like support for Israel, is going to change, is sheer fantasy. And such fantasies of course are going to disappoint. In that sense Obama’s campaign could be describe as a “reality-generating machine”, and to the degree that people are living in a fantasy world – which is what’s going on for those who think US support for Israel is going to change any time soon – it’s going to be a disappointment. Or, more accurately, it’s going to be “an enormous disillusionment-generating machine”.
Now, as for liberals such as myself, not so much. High hopes seldom get satisfied in politics, but in our current political climate, even marginal victories are much appreciated. But there’s certainly a decent chance at much more than that. There’s the distinct possibility of a sizeable Obama victory, maybe 360 electoral votes big, combined with substantial gains in the house and senate, giving Obama an opportunity not seen since the days of FDR and LBJ to actually pass substantive legislative changes, that if done properly, can win over the country to the Democrat side for quite some time to come. Not that I expect this to happen, but if you don’t aim high, you don’t achieve much anyway. Fear of being disappointed is a terrible drain on one’s political energies.
There are a handful of conservatives who think that Obama is, in the words of Sullivan, “more conservative than Bush.” They are wrong, and I’m not talking about them for the most part. They will be disappointed, too, but they have set themselves up for it by imagining Obama as someone he is not in a much more fundamentally misguided way.
Obviously, nothing concerning conservatives applies to Uri Avnery, who is viewing Obama from the Israeli left where there is a great deal of (misplaced) enthusiasm for the changes they think Obama is going to make. The harshness of Avnery’s critique is rooted in disillusionment with someone the Israeli left had made out to be much more on their side than he is. The people who are going to be disappointed are all those progressives and J Street boosters who expect something from Obama on the peace process, settlements or anything else related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Obama’s campaign holds out these hopes of vast government and political reform and a fairly ambitious domestic agenda–that is where most of the disappointment will come from when one or the other doesn’t come about. The people who delude themselves into thinking that he represents meaningful change in foreign policy are spurred on by the promise of “turning the page” without paying attention to the fine print.
“But the idea that Obama’s “change†message means that literally every single policy of the US government, like support for Israel, is going to change, is sheer fantasy.”
Of course it is, but you are going to hear a lot of complaining from all of the people who have embraced this fantasy, and there are quite a few of them on the left. This is all the result of the disconnect of many Obama admirers, who are attracted to the most vague aspects of his campaign, from what the candidate actually proposes doing.
I’m a fan of Sullivan’s, but I think you’re right that he’s going to be a little shocked at how Obama – especially if he’s successful – is going to enact policies that Sullivan has spent a lifetime opposing. I understand why, in that Obama is at least a very decent guy who will correct the sheer indecencies of the Bushies, but I wonder how long that can possibly satisfy him.
Now, I can understand Averny’s enthusiasm for Obama, in that the Israeli left, like their American counterparts, have been so beaten up for so long as to cherish even small victories. I think they simply think that Obama’s soft power, diplomatic intent, and general savior faire can help change the atmosphere, if not the deeper dynamics. I think they will probably get that kind of change, and frankly, after the Bush years that will seem like a major advance. But the basic dynamics won’t be changed much, and barring some kind of miraculous diplomatic breakthrough with Iran – which isn’t impossible if we actually talk with them, because crazy cultural/historical differences aside, we are actually natural allies in the region – things will just proceed on their natural, dismal course over there. The thing is, I don’t know if that is really going to disappoint many here in America, in that there’s precious few people who have even the slightest expectation of things in the Middle East getting any better, ever.
Now, as for the left being disappointed overall, you vastly overestimate the optimism of the left. We are the kinds of people satisfied with crumbs and used soda straws. Obama just has to not be a total asshole, and we will be pretty much lick his boots.
[...] The disappointment-generating machine that is the Obama campaign is firing on all cylinders, judging from laments such as this one: Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most. [...]