Unambiguous
Philip Weiss discusses “Obamaguity” (shouldn’t that be Obambiguity?):
It’s time to identify a central characteristic of this great politician: his ambiguity. Obama is neither black nor white, he is neither progressive nor conservative, indeed even his sexuality can seem ambiguous. His femininity is part of his enormous charm. Look how lithe he is next to masculine McCain. Ambiguity has served Obama very well indeed. For instance, he alienated no one at Harvard Law School–the stories are always about him engaging a group of people in a spirited discussion of issues, and giving nothing away, never taking a stand [bold mine-DL].
This reminds me of an old Daily Show clip mocking Cheney’s claim to be part of the legislative branch: “He is neither man nor beast, yet has elements of the twain!….He is the Highlander!” That line about Obama never taking a stand is worth noting. In this context, it’s clear that it means that he never took firm positions in these discussions, but looking at Obama’s entire career it becomes clear that he is not in the habit of taking stands that jeopardize his continued advancement. What I have never quite understood is why Obama’s supporters find this quality attractive, since it guarantees that he is almost certainly going to yield to established policies and interests concening most things that they take seriously. It suggests that any promise he makes to his constituents that involves challenging entrenched power is more or less worthless. The conclusion that Weiss and a number of Obama supporters never seem to reach is that this ambiguity is a means to disarm opponents who might create difficulties for him if he took a clear position one way or the other, and that his opponents ultimately include them on the issues that matter most to them.
Weiss continues:
Obamaguity–I need to coin this–is a big issue for us on the left. We want Obama to be a leader not a pol; we want him to be the Reagan of the left. And, in my little camp, we want him to be the savior of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. He gives us very mixed signals. He used to be Rashid Khalidi’s friend. I’m sure he knows the Palestinian narrative, and not just from eating Mona Khalidi’s hummus. Now Obama’s thrown Khalidi under the bus.
Well, of course he has. If he threw Wright under the bus, there was and is no one he won’t be willing to abandon if it becomes politically necessary. What Weiss mistakes for “mixed signals” are not signals at all. Obama’s friendship with Khalidi had and has no significance when it comes to policy. Obama’s signals on Israel and Palestine have been unambiguously “pro-Israel” in the most conventional sense. Let’s grant that he knows the Palestinian narrative–that has not changed his policy views at all. The belief that he will later turn against this position is an expectation that is just waiting to be dashed. Far more likely, it is his progressive and antiwar supporters whom he is likely to turn on after Tuesday, because he will not need them nearly as much once he is President and they will be told time after time that they have nowhere to go if they don’t like what Obama is doing.
Is this criticism, or praise? Isn’t this willingness to listen to all sides of a conversation a sign of high intelligence and open-mindedness, rather than a lack of spine? Please note that the anecdote only says that Obama doesn’t take stands while conversing about an issue, not that he never comes to any conclusions he finds worth fighting for, or taking positions on the issue. Isn’t this the sign of a first class intellect? Or is your idea of intelligent discourse arguing in support of conclusions we have already arrived at, rather than using argument to arrive at conclusions we have not already come to? This seems to me to be a crucial distinction between two different ways of using the intellectual process of discussion and argumentation. Obama, in my view, has the superior approach.
Now, you have a point that this approach leads Obama to be more flexible on his stands than many ideologues. It’s not that he has no ideological views, but I think it’s fair to say that he has not final ideological conclusions, that he’s continuously open to considering, and even changing his mind, on the issues, and on strategy and tactics, rather than becoming rigidly bound to a set of conclusions, and making life and death stands on the smallest of matters. Where I think you go wrong is to assume that all this is merely a cover for being a devious politician whose only interest is in getting ahead, and constantly adjusting his positions to the prevailing political winds. There’s no question he’s a politician, and certainly that he will adjust himself tactically and strategically to the “conditions on the ground”, but this overlooks his most basic intellectual attitude and approach of being adaptable rather than rigid, and of using debate, even internally, to advance his understanding rather than merely to advance some “cause”. This is a guy who actually continues thinking as he goes along, not merely advancing conclusions that he arrived at some time ago and needs to rationalize and promote with various arguments. I think that’s a very good quality, and one of the reasons he is so popular. People sense that he isn’t a rigid ideologue, and they like that, and this is why these charges that he’s an ideological extremist simply don’t stick. It goes against not just his interests, but his very character and intellectual method.
Another way to phrase it: Obama is a believer in the Socratic method, which requires the questioner to keep his cards close to his vest during the decision-making process. It’s not that he has no views, it’s that he doesn’t want to close doors on possibilities before he knows all the facts. And, as Machiavelli said, a good prince takes counsel not just from his friends and supporters, but from opponents as well. Obama shows every indication of doing just that.
As Conrad said above, once Obama reaches a decision, he’s firm in his views. He hasn’t substantially altered his views on any of the big topics (Iraq, energy, taxes) in over a year.
I tend to agree that Obama will be a little disappointing to many lefties, because he’s far less rigid than they hope he will be, but the other side of the coin is that I suspect he will be far more popular among moderates than is now realized.
By the same token, we won’t need him as desperately either. You’re right that there’s likely to be a falling out (see: FISA), once the imperative of ending our long national nightmare is no longer in front of us.
The moderation and even-handedness Obama champions is not the direction I would have pursued– and he’s still far, far too tepid on issues like Universal Healthcare or holding the Bush administration to account for criminal wrongdoing.
But Americans say they want someone who will reach across the aisle and get things done. Since John McCain forfeited this mantle in his effort to win the primary (and then, on numerous occasions since), Barack Obama is almost singularly able to do this. Our expectation, on the left, isn’t that his agenda will be most-perfectly in accordance with ours, but that it will be in the same direction and actually get accomplished.
Contrast with the right which is spiraling down into ever more rigid tests of ideological orthodoxy (Progressive taxation is Marxist? Really?), and I’m reasonably comfortable with where I stand.
Obama’s ambiguity is precisely what makes him so attractive to me. I want a leader who leads a discussion, who negotiates between factions, who will agree with the best ideas rather than adhere to a rigid ideology.
If Obama goes to Washington and starts telling Republicans how it’s going to be, that we’re going to make all these radical liberal changes and there’s nothing you can do to stop it since we own two out of three legislative branches, then our politics will continue down the same counter-productive path of partisan warfare and ideological rigidity that has gotten us to where we are now. I want him to lead the discussion, to present his liberal ideas and demand that the opposition challenge them. And then I want him to listen. By preserving a neutral action stance, he will be able to talk to these people. Further, when they have a good idea and he agrees with them, he will not be accused of flip-flopping or betrayal.
In sports, a common stance is the “ready position”, where you balance yourself centered on the balls of your feet, ready to spring left or right as the situation warrants. If you always go left, your opponent can predict what you’re going to do and neutralize you. So Obama’s ambiguity, a product of his liberal intellectualism and his conservative temperament, is a wholly desirable character trait in my ideal commander in chief. I really expect him to be a uniter, not a divider – not just in the culture war, but in the hardball politics of Washington, D.C..
All right, then. When he sells out his constituents on something they consider fundamental, I don’t want to hear about it. I want to hear his supporters talk about how much they value his pragmatism and his willingness to “get things done.” If he signs off on bombing Iran, I look forward to hearing about the virtues of his efforts as a bipartisan uniter. That should be quite a display.
What strong Obama supporters such as myself expect is not the advancement of so called “liberal” causes, but a new focus on the challenges that the government is actually capable and expected to take on, such as our projected energy shortfall, the global war on terror, health care, and more effective regulation of finance and other industries. He will continue to effectively vote present on hot-button issues like abortion (perhaps eventually coming out in support of gay marraige, though not before the 4th of course). This doesn’t bother me in the least. My foremost opinion on most “culture war” issues is that they are not the real business of government in the 1st place. Obama has wagered that most of the country feels similarly, and it appears that he has wagered correctly.
Obama “threw Wright under the bus” only after Wright began holding press conferences and otherwise publicly speaking out in ways that actively undermined his “mentoree”. Wright was clearly engaging in opportunism, whether for fame fortune or politics I don’t know or care.
You’ve opined recently on the meaning of loyalty as the GOP and its proxies rend itself from within. I fail to see how Obama’s reaction to Wright’s attack was any less principled than the Republican moderates/pragmatists who have also been attacked, undermined, and sidelined for years.