Who is the real Barack Obama?
|Sunday, December 19,2010 18:07|
When President Barack Obama ran for the presidency, his rhetoric was distinctly progressive. He is a very good orator and a superior debater and so we can be forgiven for taking the rhetoric seriously. He also often acted like a progressive up to that point. If he talks like a progressive, and acts like one, shouldn’t he be one? Here are some relevant biographical facts.
Obama the pre-presidential progressive
1. Barack Obama worked , albeit mostly in an administrative position, as a community organizer on Chicago’s south side during the years 1985-88. He was apparently dedicated and successful in this effort.
Obama the presidential anti-progressive
However, soon thereafter President Obama started to pursue anti-progressive policies. Indeed, this turnaround has been quite startling. It has made many people angry and has destroyed at least that part of his political base that lies on the left. Here is a short list of the president’s recent positions and actions:
1. He has absolutely rejected holding accountable any member of the Bush administration (or its private contractors) for actions which were in violation of both domestic and international law. Among these actions were instigating war on false pretences and pursuing policies of torture and illegal detention.
Explaining Obama’s transformation
How are we to account for such a remarkable about-face by a man who is trained as a constitutional lawyer and who was a progressive until soon after entering the Oval Office? I imagine the definitive answer to this question will have to wait for the opening of the Obama presidential library and the biographies that are even now germinating in minds of scores of historians. In the meantime, here are some observations that may help our understanding.
First of all, time and position can certainly change a person. It is one thing to be a constitutional law professor and another to be a professional politician. Constitutional lawyers often have consistent principles, be they conservative or liberal. It is harder, rarer, for a politician to act consistently on principle. In his relatively brief pre-presidential political career Obama did maintain his progressive orientation. But then, suddenly as president, he ceased to do so. In order for this change to have happened so quickly and so radically one is led to the assumption that the man’s principles were always associational and not fundamental. That is, Barack Obama has probably always adapted his behaviour to the environment he finds himself in and the crowd he associates with. It is when he became president that both his environment and crowd apparently changed. He simply followed suit.
Second, presidents always seem to lose touch with the reality that lay outside the nation’s capital. Obama is not unusual here. Once you hit the Oval Office, make your grand plans and pick your advisors, "groupthink" becomes a mainstay of your worldview. Obama’s world no longer has any direct feed in from constituencies that might sustain behaviour based on constitutional principles. He is now in an environment that is essentially "value-less" and dominated by a deal-making culture.
Third, concerning that culture, Obama appears to be constantly searching for political consensus. Under the circumstances, he cannot define his own principled political positions. He apparently feels forced to make constant changes according to the demands of special interests with which he believes he must compromise. Thus, the constitution ceases to be a guide and instead becomes something that one sacrifices for the sake of political agreements. If going after the criminals of the last administration means alienating conservatives with whom he seeks consensus, he lets the criminals go. The law becomes a secondary factor. If treating Manning and Assange according to the rules of law means alienating powerful Washington bureaucracies, he ignores their mistreatment. Again, too bad for the law. If cutting ties with the apartheid state of Israel means challenging the Zionist lobby, he ignores the escalating crimes of our "ally". Justice and humanness also become secondary factors. If championing the First Amendment means having to fight accusations of being "soft on terrorism", then free speech be damned. This is not political wisdom at work. This is political expediency. Nor has it provided him with a winning formula. Obama may well be a one-term president.
And, as is usual, along with political expediency comes hypocrisy. In October 2010 Nelson Mandela’s autobiography, Conversations with Myself, was released in the US. It has a forward by President Obama. In it he praised Mandela as a man whose "sacrifice was so great that it called upon people everywhere to do what they could on behalf of human progress". That sacrifice inspired a young Barack Obama to become a political activist "coordinating" his rhetoric with that of Mandela in the fight against apartheid in South Africa.
But, of course, Mandela and the organization he led, the African National Congress, was at that time a designated "terrorist organization". Fortunately for Mr. Obama, his rhetorical support for Mandela was then protected by the First Amendment. That protection is what present Barack Obama’s Justice Department has erased. The FBI is now raiding homes and issuing subpoenas for people in Chicago and elsewhere who can fairly be described as acting just like Barack Obama in the early 1980s.