Why Obama can afford "a pragmatic shift to the center"

As if the Senate's upcoming vote on the updated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wasn't already enough, the Supreme Court's rulings this past week concerning the reach of the death penalty and the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment gave Obama ample opportunity to bask in his reputation as the country's most liberal senator. He instead did just the opposite and veered dangerously close to the "vital center," territory charted by Bill Clinton in the early 90s. In both Supreme Court decisions, he unenthusiastically embraced the positions upheld by the court's fragile five person (really four, but recently, the "moderate" Kennedy has sided with them more often than not) conservative block. He has given a similarly tepid endorsement of Steny Hoyer's FISA "compromise" that Harry Reid hopes to have the Senate vote on before it breaks for the July 4th Holiday recess.

No doubt, I join any true progressive in taking a sec out of our busy schedules to briefly glare at our respective 9X5 Obama posters with looks of disdain. And, any Republican swift boater must be giddy with excitement considering how much prime flip-flop material Obama's recent statements have provided them. However, somewhat surprisingly, neither camp seems eager to publicly, at least for now, question Obama's merits as a political reformer. Perhaps it's because in this last week he has positioned himself as exactly that: a pragmatist, unobstructed by any long held ideological doctrine, who's willing to appease the political opposition when it comes at little realistic expense to those causes he feels most passionately about.

I've always viewed Obama's pledge to engage in post-partisan politics as something fundamentally different than what Bill tried to do in his first term as president. Bill's 'moderatism' was founded on a give and take policy of matching every liberal reform with a conservative one, leaving lawmakers on both sides of the aisle more or less content. But, without providing the political framework in which the two camps felt comfortable enough to occasionally join forces and achieve bold acts of compromise, the debate became more polarized than ever before. Considering the failures of Bill's project, Obama seems to understand that it's the manner, and not just the content, of the debate that must be "moderate" for any real cross-aisle exchange to take place.

As opposed to Bill's, Obama's post-partisan efforts will be based on the notion that after being subjected to eight years of failed policies that have left only a few Americans better off, America is gradually shifting to the left. He recognizes that the average American cares increasingly less about hot button 'moral' issues long exploited by the Christian right--abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research...etc.--as they're faced with more pressing concerns of a weakening dollar, rising gas prices and an imperfect public school system. Despite efforts by the extreme right and the mainstream media to convince us otherwise, all in all, the daily concerns you or I might have are shared by the majority of Americans. All we need is a healthy and open political climate in which we can sit down and realize our similarities and--without being sidetracked by fiery rhetoric and baseless ideology--begin to pragmatically work out our differences.

Having said all that, I think the positions he's taken this past week clash with this unique approach that he himself began. I'm not looking for a moderate president willing to forfeit a progressive issue in return for the Republicans' promise to sporadically do the same. We have real problems right now that I don't think can be fixed by half-assed solutions reached purely in the interest of bi-partisan unity. However, I do think Obama's tactical maneuvering over the past week reminds us of the reality that there is no more concrete declaration of a president's promises than legislation and on occasion, we have to make concessions. Ethically, I think the ones he's made recently represent a betrayal, but politically--aka in the interest of being elected--they're brilliant.

Firstly, all three issues--warrantless wiretapping, the proper use of the death penalty and gun control--feed into the greater debate over the role government should play in remedying society's ills. Especially in the case of the second two, these largely symbolic victories leave the party's conservative base convinced that it's winning this bigger, more elusive debate over big government. Conversely, losing in these two ideological showdowns represent barely any realistic setback for the Democratic party. Despite the fact that its more progressive base only reluctantly accepts the necessity of capital punishment and strongly supports strict gun control laws, technically, the Democratic establishment's take on these two issues isn't all that different from that of their Republican counterparts. In short, everyone wins. Separately, regardless of how much of a waste you might find the House's redrafting of the FISA bill, it enjoys large support from the moderate bases of both parties and Obama would have been slammed if he didn't join his colleagues in backing what's considered a rare display of compromise.

To tell you the truth, I strongly believe (and hope) that Obama's current efforts to tone down his 'liberal' reputation will pan out to be more comparable to Roosevelt's softening of his image in his 1932 campaign,--which, as we all know, gave way to a presidency that saw an unprecedented expansion of state-backed social welfare programs--than to Bill's cowardly and divisive pandering to the right. However, regardless of whatever good intentions I think Obama probably has, he can't expect to rely on the enthusiastic support of his progressive base for much longer if he keeps up this week-long trend of voting with the majority just because it's safe.