Is There Anything Worth Defending?
This is pretty good satire as far as it goes, but it gives the impression that the backlash against Obama on the left is irrational and evidence of an insistence on ideological or some other sort of purity over political pragmatism. Besides making a joke out of the legitimate reasons for anger at Obama from his own supporters over the FISA legislation, it makes it seem as if principled protests from the left are somehow the cause of Democratic defeat, when the disastrous results of ’88 in particular were the result of a horribly-run campaign. Think about it from their perspective: they see a tremendous opportunity in an overwhelmingly pro-Democratic year to win an election that also could provide something like a mandate for a progressive agenda, and in the interests of winning they have swallowed their objections to Obama’s relatively less progressive platform (as compared to Edwards or Clinton) only to be betrayed on an issue as fundamental and central as constitutional liberties and derided in the process as part of the problem with our political system. “Be practical,” someone says, “we’re trying to win an election.” To which they might reasonably reply, ”To what end, if our candidate caves in on major issues?” Many conservatives like to argue that when they give the Republican nominee grief about his pandering, changed positions or (as they see them) bad positions they are standing up for important principles. When people on the left engage in the same behaviour, it’s supposed to be crazy, loserish fratricide. It seems to me that there have to be some things that are not negotiable and things that should not be compromised for electoral expediency. You might think constitutional protections would be among those things, and that this would not be the concern of left-liberals alone. Apparently, you would be wrong.
What has been remarkable about the slow, but eventually almost total embrace of Obama by the netroots is that most of them ultimately felt compelled to side with him in the primaries after Edwards dropped out. His grassroots online movement arose largely outside of the netroots structures and became something of a competitor with them before gradually starting to subsume them. Pretty early on the major community blogs became overwhelmingly pro-Obama, so much so that the few remaining Clintonite bloggers at Daily Kos broke away in protest. For perhaps the first time there is sustained criticism of the nominee, and then only after the nominee did something that, as a matter of substance, is pretty terrible (and not just in the view of the left), but to listen to “mainstream” commentary everyone is supposed to treat this reaction as ludicrous. That says as much about what is wrong with our political culture as the cynical reversal itself.
P.S. The backlash is growing.
14 Responses to “Is There Anything Worth Defending?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
First, I don’t see how the backlash actually hurts Obama, in that it takes away the criticism that he is a far-left candidate. But then again, I’m not a far leftist myself, so it’s understandable that I don’t feel betrayed. I have always had problems with the notion of hanging these FISA violations of law on the Telecoms. I work in private industry, in construction, and if the government came to me and insisted that I build something that was vital for national security but violated a few laws, and was assured that this wouldn’t be a problem, and that if I did this I would be rewarded, and if I didn’t that I wouldn’t get many government contracts again, what exactly should I be expected to do? I have no love whatsoever for the Telecoms, but even I can see that they were in a bind, and I can’t imagine how they can be made the fall guy for the government’s violations of the law. If we make our entire system of laws dependent not on the government following the law, but on private individuals bucking the government’s inducements and extortions, we have a crazy system of checks and balances in place. The only way I see we can keep the government in check is to prosecute those in government who do this sort of thing. So I don’t really have a problem with Telecom immunity, in that they have a perfectly valid defense to begin with. It would be different if Obama were granting immunity to the government itself, but he isn’t. As I mentioned before, he has pledged to have any violations of the law investigated if he becomes President, which is all the more reason to vote for him. So I disagree with my leftist colleagues, who I think are swayed by their inherent animosity towards the Telecoms for other reasons. I owuld prefer that no immunities be granted as a matter of principle, but it’s not the primary principle at stake in this issue. Government accountability to the law is. I think people on the left have misplaced their priorities, and Obama has it closer to the right position, especially taking into account electoral realities.
“It seems to me that there have to be some things that are not negotiable and things that should not be compromised for electoral expediency. ”
Careful. Such a sentiment harbors dangerous undertones of optimism!
I’m not sure what “far leftist” means here, but I think the left is for the most part so disgusted with Bushism, that Obama has an incredible amount of leeway. For me, I expect a kinda sorta, very messy, withdrawal from Iraq and a substantial move toward national health care as about the best we can hope for. The FISA crap is a disappointment, but given that America as a whole is going through one of its crazy times, it just is not that surprising to me. He deserves a lot of criticism of course, but so what. He knows we’ll still pick him over the crazy old bloodthirsty coot, and that’s where we are. Too bad, but still not so bad that any of us would seriously punish Obama for his decision. That’s what the two-party system is all about, unfortunately. (Now if we could seriously change that …)
I thought Obama was supposed to be more progressive than Clinton.
Also, to answer the question “Is there anything worth defending?”, of course the answer is yes. The 4th Amendment is worth defending, and if voting against the current FISA law would do that, I say yes. it’s worth it. But we both know that isn’t the result that will occur. You have to recognize that in a war, a strategic retreat in some areas will bring about victory in the long run. If the German army, say, had retreated from Stalingrad rather than holding an unwinnable position to the bitter end, it could have lived on to fight and probably win. Which is why opponents of many candidates like to urge them to do just that – hold their ground and fight from an untenable position. But as Patton said, the goal of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other guys die for their country. I certainly don’t want to see Obama die for the 4th Amendment. I want to see him live on and fight the battles that can be won, which will indeed include this one, but from a much more favorable position.
Quick disclosure – I’m a (minor) telco employee and a (minor) telco share holder. I’m liberally inclined, but always had thought that the conservative voter (not the politicians) were a bastion of strength for the rule of law and for the Constitution.
I am therefore appalled that there is no activism regarding FISA except among the Ron Paul supporters.
Unlike a small builder, the major telcos have enormous legal departments, and executives don’t visit the toilet before consulting their lawyers. We should note that one of the smaller telcos, Quest, did not comply with the government’s order, deeming it illegal. If no one else, the shareholders of the telcos that did comply would want to know if the company lawyers thought that the government order was legal; or did they advise the executives that it was illegal, but the executives disregarded that advice.
The idea that only the government alone is responsible for following the law, and everyone must do what the government says, is in my opinion, contrary to the idea of personal responsibility, and to the very founding principles of this country. It is also the essence of fascism that corporations can break the law with impunity. And don’t forget the already awesome power of corporations to get favorable legislation passed (as is happening now.) Unlike small business folks, the corporations do not need any indulgence; rather, we need protection and accountability from them.
I also do not see, apart from the Ron Paul supporters, any clamor among conservatives for impeachment or even effective hearings on all of this, where government officials have to obey sub poenas and testify under oath (of course, with their fifth amendment rights not to self-incriminate intact).
I also believe that if the telcos acted in good faith, believing they were legal, the American justice system will exonerate them. But apparently even that belief is no longer worth defending.
PS: I meant (insignificant) when I wrote (minor).
conradg, war is a zero-sum game. Either you’re losing men and materiel faster than you can replenish them or the other guy is. (That’s why Germany was never going to defeat the USSR given the numbers and US materiel.) I’ve seen no such depletion of resources in American politics lately. We just swap votes back and forth. What’s truly outrageous here is that Obama has never even made a “stand” on FISA (like the one he promised, much less a “last” stand. Where’s his golden oratory now?
Let’s make this analogy clearer. What if this hypothetical building were a torture chamber?
– Chris
“I certainly don’t want to see Obama die for the 4th Amendment.”
Is there some red line you won’t allow your candidate to cross? Some position you won’t bend on in order to help your team to victory? 1st amendment perhaps? Or are they all pretty much optional at this point?
The fact is, unless there is some kind of court proceeding, a trial or hearing, or some other form of judicail review, none of the details of what has actually been done to “defend our country” will ever be known. The chokehold that this administration has of information of importance to the citizens of this country is an abomonation.
“I certainly don’t want to see Obama die for the 4th Amendment. I want to see him live on and fight the battles that can be won, which will indeed include this one, but from a much more favorable position.”
What evidence is there that caving on principles (like protecting the 4th Amendment) or moving to the right ever won the Democrats anything? In 2000, 2002, and 2004, the Dems retreated to the center and got creamed. In 2006, they stuck with their base – standing up against the illegal Iraq war – and won control of Congress. In all recent political battles, and in most military examples, retreat means defeat.
More importantly, by reversing himself on this issue, Obama has abandoned several core principles that most Democrats hold dear… regarding the Constitution, no less, which in my opinion is far more important than the Iraq war. He deserves stern criticism for this, and while it’s still possible, urgent pleas that he return to his promise to oppose retroactive amnesty. Only a Machiavellian sycophant – a worshipper of the principle of “power at any cost” – would argue otherwise.
“Only a Machiavellian sycophant – a worshipper of the principle of “power at any cost†– would argue otherwise.”
That’s evidently how they grow them in Chi-town. A vast number of the worst policies over the last 7 years are about to get the official bipartisan seal of approval.
DIdn’t notice there were replies to my comment here. It’s probably too late, but:
1) Yes, there are plenty of lines I don’t want my candidate to cross. But meaningless symbolic lines aren’t what matter to me. This FISA bill will pass no matter how Obama votes. Agreeing to this compromise bill doesn’t give Obama everything he wants, but as he says, it’s the best we can get right now. If he becomes President, he can certainly change it with relative ease. If he doesn’t his vote here wouldn’t change anything anyway. Politics is about compromise, like it or not.
2) The FISA bill as it stand hardly eviscerates the 4th amendment. It applies only to international communications, which it is not clear the 4th Amendment applies to in any case. It does provide oversight, and it is certainly challengable in court on constitutional grounds.
3) THe evidence that Democrats are perceived as weak on defense and the war on terror are everywhere. Current polls show Obama ahead on many issues, but McCain is +!9 on the issue of who is best at fighting terrorism. Opposing FISA would give McCain further grounds to weaken Obama where he is most vulnerable to the fear card. Americans punished Democrats for being weak on the war and fighting terrorism until it became manifestly clear to them that the war in Iraq was a disaster. I see no evidence that the elections of 2002 and 2004 would have been better for the Dems had the opposed these things more vigorously, and much to presume it would have turned out worse if they had.
4) Yes, if the government asked me to help them kill innocent people, I would refuse. But no one was killed by FISA. It’s a completely irrelevent and hyperventilated comparison, all too typical of the hysteria surrounding this issue. What the telecoms did was nothing more than re-routing some cables to government offices, at the behest of the government. If the government then prosecutes them for doing what the government asked, it’s a prima facia case of entrapment, and you can’t get a conviction based on entrapment. So I don’t see that there’s a prayer in hell of ever getting a conviction in this case, or of anyone being able to demonstrate damages incurred as a result of the telecom cooperation with the government. Most of the left actually knows this. They promote the telecom civil suits merely as a way of getting the information out, not because they believe there’s a real case there. Call me a prude, but I think that’s an abuse of the justice system for the purpose of correcting an abuse of the justice system. The correct way to go about this is for the government to investigate and prosecute the government officials who enacted these illiegal pollicies, not to somehow make private companies responsible, and let the government off the hook. Only a Democratic administration can and will do that, of course. That’s the area where Obama should be pressured – to ensure that those who broke the law are brought to justice. Not to try to put all the blame on the telecoms. And there’s nothing in the law which grants the telecoms criminal liability, though I don’t think there’s a chance of convicting them anyway, given the circumstances.
5) As for politics being a zero sum game, elections certainly are. One party’s victory is another’s loss. If Obama loses this election, it means McCain wins.
6) As for making a stand, I think it was foolish of him to promise a stand, but wise not to carry through with it. Why? For one, it was bound to lose in any case. Second, he felt the compromise bill was good enough for now, and didn’t necessitate a final stand at this point. As mentioned already, sometimes it’s best to make a strategic retreat even on important battles in order to win the greater battles down the line, and not lose one’s strength unnecessarily. Obama hardly has a huge lead he can afford to lose some of over a symbolic protest vote. Better to settle for this bill now and revise it down the line. Or is that what you call “Machiavellian”?