Winning at Any Cost (Updates 1 &2)

MJ Rosenberg makes the case at TPM Cafe:

No election in my time has been as remotely significant as this. I don't have to explain why to any liberal or progressive except to say that Obama's election is, literally, a matter of life and death for many Americans, not to mention God knows how many people worldwide.

Accordingly, it is silly to get bent out of shape when he says something he may or may not believe in order to win, or not yo be successfully swift-boated or race-baited. That is precisely what I want him to do, just as I wanted him to opt out of public financing.

I'm not saying we can't criticize. But we need to maintain perspective.

That means always remembering who and what the alternative to Obama is (this would have applied to a Democratic ticket led by any of our primary season candidates). Let Obama say what he wants to right through the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. I assume he has his fingers crossed behind his back anyway. You know, just like FDR when he promised to balance the budget or Lincoln when he said that he did not oppose slavery itself, just its extension.

In 2008, Vince Lombardi's mantra is more apt than ever. "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." That and getting America off its suicidal course.

I understand the argument, but I don't buy it with regard to the FISA/Telecom immunity. There are some issues that transcend tactical compromise. The precedent that this sets is far too dangerous, and it's amazing to me that Rosenberg or anyone who understands what is ailing us can be so dismissive of its toxic effects. This isn't just about catching the bad guys; it's about stopping and reversing what the bad guys have put in motion. To stop bills like this is precisely the reason we don't want the Republicans in office anymore, and what's the point off having Democrats in office when the Dem leadership is actively capitulating to the administration on an issue as central to the health of the republic as this one? 

Are Obama's fingers crossed? It's one thing to play coy with one's position on an issue; it's another to actively support and vote for something you don't believe in. My fingers are crossed that he still might find a way to change his mind. He's the one who's supposed to be about changing the Beltway mindset, not succumbing to it. 

Rosenberg is right about the need to get America off its suicidal course, but passing this bill is an unnecessary self-inflicted wound that increaes the bleeding and hastens us along that course. And the fact that Dem leadership is behind it is what is so deeply disturbing. Rosenberg seems to think that all will be well as soon as we have a Dem in the Oval Office again.  But if the Dems are not going to do anything now to staunch the bleeding, why should we expect them to do it next year? And that Obama is collaborating with this is not something we should just shrug off and say, "Wait 'til January."  No it's all about putting pressure on these guys now to counter the pressure they feel from the other side.

Obama knows what's at stake here, and he's playing it safe. He's playing 'prevent defense', and as I've written here before, that's a losing strategy. You have to keep the other side on its heels. I thought Obama understood that. I am convinced that most Americans will applaud the candidate that fights for what he believes in--it is starved for such a candidate.  Americans are sick of these calculating, triangulating robo pols, and it's precisely in Obama's representation of himself as an alternative to that that makes him so appealling. It's as if he's stopped believing in what has got him this far.

The Pelosi/Bush deal here is so wrong for so many reasons--but mainly for the way it shreds the fourth amendment.  If constitutional lawyer Obama misses this important opportunity to show what he's made of, he will have badly blundered--it will be as big a blunder as Kerry's or Clinton's vote to approve the war--probably worse.  He needs to stay aggressive and keep the other guys on defense.

UPDATE: P.M. Carpenter takes a similar line to Rosenberg:

In short, progressives should get off Obama's back. He is, as Polman correctly noted, "simply doing what it takes to win." Progressives should follow suit and swallow their vocal idealism -- precisely as they did on public financing -- until the prize is won. Then they can hammer him leftward -- although he's already there and is only trying to strategically hide it as best he can.

My point is that (1) this is bad strategy because it's old prevent-defense thinking, and (2) that you don't play politics with constitutional fundamentals. His decision about public financing and his decision about this Bush/Pelosi deal are in two different realms of importance.  The fundamental mistake here is to see them both through a purely political tactical lens.

And it's fundamentally wrong to frame this as a left/right issue.  Any principled conservative is as upset about this as Glenn Greenwald is.  Watch this interview with Reagan conservative Bruce Fein. This YouTube is from October, but the essential of his critique then are as relevant now.

UPDATE 2: Greenwald on New Republic Syndrome:

The reason these posts are worth noting is because they so perfectly capture the mindset that needs to be undermined more than any other. It's this mentality that has destroyed the concept of checks and limits in our political system; it's why we have no real opposition party; and it's why the history of the Democrats over the last seven years has been to ignore and then endorse one extremist Bush policy after the next. It's because even as The New Republic Syndrome has been proven to be false and destructive over and over -- even its practitioners have been forced to recognize that -- it continues to be the guiding operating principle of the party's leadership.

The defining beliefs of this Syndrome are depressingly familiar, and incomparably destructive: Anything other than tiny, marginal opposition to the Right's agenda is un-Serious and radical. Objections to the demolition of core constitutional protections is shrill and hysterical. Protests against lawbreaking by our high government officials and corporations are disrespectful and disruptive. Challenging the Right's national security premises is too scary and politically costly. Those campaigning against Democratic politicians who endorse and enable the worst aspects of Bush extremism are "nuts," "need to have their heads examined," and are "exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s." Those who oppose totally unprovoked and illegal wars are guilty of "abject pacifism."

It's exactly that mentality that has brought us to where we are as a country and a political system today. It's not at all surprising -- and wouldn't have surprised the Founders in the least -- that a radical and corrupt political faction (the Bush-led Right) has been able to take over parts of the Government and sought to consolidate political power. The expectation was that this would happen, and the solution was to devise a litany of checks -- the Congress, the media, opposition parties -- that would stand up to and vigorously oppose that faction and prevent it from running rampant.

New Republic Syndrome is another way of describing the strategies developed by insiders who have been already defeated in spirit.  Again it's about changing the mindset.  I'll vote for Obama no matter what because the alternative is grotesquely awful.  But he will cease to intererst me as a politician and a man  if he succumbs to the Beltway mindset he said he aims to change.

Comments

[MJ Rosenberg]

Well-said! I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I just have faith in this guy!

[Matt Zemek]

Simply stated, what is the value of power on a moral level if you're going to exercise it in such a way as to deny greater social, economic and global goods to your constituency?

Power can't be the end; it has to be a means of helping, healing and improving the lives of the downtrodden.

We shouldn't have to be saying these kinds of things with respect to Obama.

That we are is a sobering, sobering statement about Barack in a larger context.

[Jack Whelan]

Matt--

I don't think Obama's statement is that surprising. He's just acting like a conventional politician. I still feel good about Obama's candidacy; it's just disappointing that he doesn't see this issue as an opportunity to go on offense and push back. He's playing it safe as a strategy to get elected. I think it's a stupid strategy and that it isn't going to help him.

But the way he seems to be playing politics with the constitution concerns me more. He needs to be called on that one, and it's good that there has been such an outcry. I don't know if it will change his mind, but it might.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this idea that the point of power is to help the downtrodden. I don't like the top-downism implied in that formulation--and, I would argue, neither would Jean Vanier. (Did you hear his talk last night at St. James? He was very good.) There is an implied paternalism in it that is precisely the thing Vanier seeks to deconstruct.

The job for men and women of good will, no matter how much or little power they might have, is to enter into a relationship with those who are at the margins. And certainly as in any relationship to be open to the natural experience of compassion if such a person is suffering. Compassion does not in every instance demand that action be taken to fix a problem or alleviate the suffering. Sometimes there is no fix, and even if there is a fix, sometimes people don't want it.

But if in the context of such a relationship an opportunity arises when another asks for a helping hand, obviously it should be offered. All of us need it at one time or another--it's not about the powerful doing something for the less powerful--it's about a human being extending a hand to another. It's a normal human interaction between two vulnerable equals. Nothing more nothing less.

Nothing much good ever comes from the powerful going on a crusade to fix the downtrodden's or anyone else's problems. And using the power of the state is the absolute last resort. The state is devoid of compassion--it's metier is justice, and that's all we can expect from it--and it's quite enough. Justice is in its essence about maintaining social balance and redressing social imbalances.

The difference between being a subsidiarist and being a socialist lies in the latter relying too much on the state to solve social problems--the subsidiarist sees the state as necessary for maintaining justice and as the agent of last resort for solving problems that cannot be solved without it. For the subsidiarist, state power is always a mean substitute for solutions to problems that should otherwise be effected on a more human, interpersonal level.

Power is simply what everybody has some of to get things done. The state's role is, in my view, mainly to insure that it is not distributed in an unbalanced way. Injustice is always rooted in such power imbalances--power becomes a problem for justice when some people get too much of it and others have too little of it. Our system was designed with the objective to prevent that kind of imbalance from getting out of hand, and it's precisely the corrosion of the integrity of this system that is being promoted by deals like this FISA/Telecom immunity bill.

So we might be saying the same thing, but I would say that the role of the state is not to help the downtrodden, but to prevent injustice. If it does that effectively, it's up to the rest of us in the cultural sphere , the sphere of interpersonal relationships, to work out solutions to other kinds of human problems.

[Matt Zemek]

Jack,

I accept your construct/framing of these issues and tensions.

The maintenance/creation of justice is, of course, inherently connected to an awareness that the downtrodden suffer the very imblance of power (or merely access to power) that indeed characterizes injustice. Moreover, the very lack of the downtrodden at the national bargaining table, if you will, means that standing up for justice is indeed entering into relationship with the downtrodden.

You and I know what it means--and what it would look like--for a national political figure to stand with disadvantaged constituencies in the name of the justice that governments ought to deliver.

Obama isn't doing this at all... he, like McCain, is engaging in a series of moves that are embracing New Republic Syndrome positions that protect the Beltway establishment.

I was never star-struck by Obama the way some of my relatives are/have been, but I did recognize his luminescent potential.

Ever since Jeremiah Wright, though, I think we've witnessed a demonstrable chilling effect on Obama's campaign and its trajectory in terms of both style and substance.

I'm going all over the place, so I'll wrap this up with one final word on power: while it must be used to protect/ensure justice and not to launch state-based social engineering (or anything like that), it must be exercised with the mindset of a servant, not a master.

Servant leadership is what we call this. Jesus referred to this when speaking to James and John about lording authority over others. Real power emerges when leaders are willing to do as much as they ask; when they're willing to give their power away so that the populace can be both inspired and trusting; so that the poor will feel connected and related to those in high places, with a strong sense that they do have a place at the table.

Perhaps this is all a larger way of saying that while serving the downtrodden is not INHERENT to power or its nature, the real-world application/exercise of power will almost invariably demand some powerful form of intimacy--emotional, spiritual, holistic--with the downtrodden, given that the existence of (more than a few) downtrodden people can be readily and directly connected to the presence of the injustices that power, used well, will seek to curb.

[Jack Whelan]

Bottom line: the downtrodden, which might be most of us soon enough, need to get organized to exert pressure to counterbalance the pressure pols feel from big money and other concetrated power centers. Obama's a decent enough guy, and I believe he wants to do the right thing, but he has to deal with political realities, and that means dealing with big money and big power. Obama's potential will be realized to the degree that the broad American electorate gives him a power base to stand on. What he has to stand on now is mush.

[Rob Melly]

Matt,

I'm going to have to quibble with your analysis of power here. I think there is a fundamental flaw in thinking that servant leadership has any sort of widespread appeal or instantiation. To be clear, I think that it is the best possible form power can take (we could use more leaders like Cincinnatus), I just think that it occurs on the basis of personal virtue and not due to anything inherent in the nature of power. (Also, claims that those in power ought to exercise it are decidedly moral claims.) The genius of the Constitution seems to rest in its apparently successful effort to form a governing body that would be self-regulating in the face of each branch acting in its own interest. A monarchy or dictatorship might need to lean heavily on servant leadership to avoid becoming a tyranny, but ours shouldn't have to.
Moreover, drawing a distinction between power and real power seems analogous to the distinction between Scotsmen and true Scotsmen; i.e. non-existent. Power is what it is; it is rearely used well and it is often corrupt. To set it against itself (as with checks and balances) is to curb it, hence allowing for justice, but I don't see how any such system could generate mercy.