Barack Obama has received considerable criticism for changing his positions on public financing (will now not use it in his campaign), and on FISA (supports the bill passed by the House). A few disappointed supporters have said he's therefore no different from John McCain, who changed his position on Bush's tax cuts (McCain now supports them), etc.
I think this misses the point, which is: what counts most is not whether a candidate changes positions, but whether the change is for the better or the worse. Let's look at the candidates and the issues:
Obama on public financing: I frankly never liked public financing of Presidential campaigns in the first place. Designed to prevent wealthy donors from dominating an election, public financing laws also get in the way of all Americans contributing to campaigns. Further, in the Bush/Kerry election of 2004, loopholes allowed millions of dollars to be spent on ads that swiftboated Kerry. And, worst of all, public financing gives the government too much power. It is illogical and dangerous to democracy to have the government that is up for election also determine who gets public financing for the election, and how much.
This year, Obama would have received $84.5 million from the US Treasury for his campaign, would have been unable to accept any private contributions, and would have been prohibited from spending more than the $84.5 million. Given that Obama took in $95 million in private contributions in just March and April, and more than 90% of his donations were under $100 (according to Obama's communications director, as reported in The New York Times), Obama's acceptance of public financing would not only have made no financial sense, but would have been a slap in the face of democracy. His opting out - even though he had previously said he wanted to work with public financing - was the right thing to do.
Obama on FISA: The Bush's administration's wiretaps after September 2001 were a direct violation of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) provisions that a special court has to approve or warrant the wiretaps (Bush's wiretaps were not approved by the FISA court). The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is intended, in part, to make sure that does not happen again. A sticking point is what to do about telecom companies - AT&T, Verizon, etc - which permitted the illegal wiretaps. Many Republicans want to give them immunity from invasion of privacy suits. Many Democrats do not.
Back in February, Obama said he would not support a FISA Amendment Act which did not hold the telecom companies accountable. Last week, Obama said he would support the FISA Amendments Act which passed in the House, even though that Act does provide immunity for the telecom companies.
Here is why Obama's change of position makes sense: 1. We need a strong statement from Congress that FISA must be respected from now on. Delaying or defeating the FISA Amendments Act would work against that. 2. According to Keith Olbermann quoting John Dean on Countdown last night, the immunity in the Act pertains only to civil suits - the telecom companies could still be held liable for criminal proceedings (as would the Bush administration). See the video clip below.
McCain on Bush tax cuts: As just one example of the kinds of changes in position McCain has been offering, consider that he correctly denounced Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, and now endorses Bush's taxes. I can see nothing positive or useful in McCain's reversal of positions - unless we agree with Bush that the ultra-rich were paying too high a tax.
===========
In sum, then: Not all modifications of positions are equal. In the case of Obama's change of positions on public financing, and on FISA, they make sense. We might reasonably have wanted Obama to have come to these positions sooner, but by far the more important point is that he has the right, or best possible position, now. If this is in part a result of being attuned to the political climate, that's not necessarily bad - part of being a successful public servant is being flexible, and attuned to changing circumstances.
In the case of McCain, no circumstances regarding Bush's tax cuts have changed - it was wrong to punish the less wealthy then, and it's wrong now.
7 comments:
Get excited for class tonight professor. thats all I'm sayin.
:) oh yeah ... lots of great stuff to talk and argue about!
McCain still stands by his original position on the Bush tax cuts, but now says that he doesn't favor raising taxes during a recessionary economy. A perfectly sensible position, one that an Obama apologist like Dr. Levinson refuses to acknowledge.
Not sensible at all, Barry - raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires, who wouldn't even feel it, would have no aggravating effect on the recession.
Meanwhile, here's a little free advice for you - try not to be insulting in your comments. You'll find that people will pay much more attention to what you say, if you disagree with them without name calling, or characterizing them in trite ways.
There's been virtually nothing sensible about John McCain since 2000. He's basically turned into the worst kind of political opportunist there is. That is, he's a late 20th century Republican. They're one and the same.
Republicanism has never been my choice of ice cream flavors, but at least there was room for a respectable debate about concrete issues at one point in time. Nixonian/Rovian strategery changed all of that, and the employment of the Big Lie combined with the cozying up to convenient voting blocks with high GOTV capabilities turned that party into a successful political machine of power grabbing rather than governing.
Say what you will about Obama, but the worst you can say is that he's found a way to be better at power grabbing than the Rethugs that hijacked the GOP. If Obama is doing anything, it's that he's helping the good variety of Republicans find stronger footing in our government again to kick out the right wing yahoos. If he's running to the center now and giving on some issues that upset the left, it's like a spoonful of medicine that will eventually help us to bring about a progressive legislature with a fairer government for all of us.
He's smarter than all of us put together, and so are his handlers. They've taken him this far and he's playing the game into a landslide electoral victory. If he has any coattails, the Senate will approach a filibuster-proof majority and you'll really seem some action. People who listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity think he's going to turn us into a communist state of radical Islamic terrorists, but what he'll do with a broad mandate is push the country back on track with a fairer globalized economy, a modernized workforce, better healthcare in line with every other industrialized democracy in the world, and maybe even strengthen the military by restructuring the resources and personnel in a more sensible and conservative way.
He's not about to take away anyone's guns or spit on the flag. He's actually helping to broaden the faith-based initiatives that the Bush administration played at but never really supported strongly enough to make a difference. Obama isn't going to govern as a liberal activist. He's going to be a pragmatist, which will upset people on both sides, but it will get something done for the first time in this country since God knows when.
By the way, hello to all of you in Dr. Levinson's class if he's showing this to you (which I'm sure he is). ;)
:) I let the class go at about 8:30pm, Mike - great class, by the way - and we did, of course, look at this post...
I'll make sure your comment gets seen, next time...
Post a Comment