It's true: nobody's perfect. But there is an even more important reason not to hyperventilate about the latest statement or vote Barack Obama may have made that is not fully in keeping with our vision of progressive politics and electoral strategy. That reason is the Overton Window.
For those unfamiliar with it from my previous writings and from my panel on the subject at last year's YearlyKos, the Overton Window is a method for shifting public policy that takes a universe of policy outcomes on a certain topic, lists them in order from progressive to conservative, assesses the political acceptability of each, and deliberately encourages friendly think tanks and media organizations to promote the solutions that fall just outside current acceptability in order to "shift the window" in the public discourse.
The right wing has been using this strategy successfully for many years, using their media empire to shift the political debate ever rightward. To quote my first diary on the subject:
This is something that the Democrats still do not understand. You win policy debates by crafting arguments for extreme positions--and then shifting the entire window of debate. You do not win by trying to figure out which position is most popular among Americans right now.
When Concerned Women for America does its thing, that's exactly what they're doing. They're taking some heat today, in preparation for tomorrow's very real policy battle. They're priming the public to even talk about the idea of eliminating birth control. And far from turning off moderate voters, they're going to sway them. They're going to WIN moderate voters by playing to their base. But playing to it with careful calculation.
But, of course, this does not mean that an entire Party and all of its operatives can run headlong off the cliff of public opinion in one day: in fact, failure to understand this is just one of the many failures of the Bush Administration. From a purely Machiavellian, process point of view, the biggest reason that Bush's social security privatization push failed was that their media organizations had failed to adequately prime the American Public for the idea before trying to shove it down their throats.
In fact, it is the job of the most visible and important members of a Party to remain in the middle or just slightly askew of the most popular policy positions in the Overton Window of each issue--while explaining their stance in the framing and terms of debate that most favors their ideological orientation. By contrast, it is the job of lesser politicians and the shadowy media Left/Right Wing Conspiracies to push that window by making arguments that defy public consensus and acceptability.
As I wrote way back in 2006 talking about the new Democratic Congress:
Remember that, in the overall scheme of things, it is THEIR job to be "moderate" and push no-brainer policies that the American people will approve of: raising the minimum wage, doing something coherent about immigration, giving tuition tax credits to the middle class, funding stem cell research, etc.
And it is OUR job to push the envelope for more progressive policies and shift the very terms of debate in the country--but without stabbing our own guys in the back. We're the vanguard, and they're the rearguard--intentionally. That's how it works.
So take heart--and do not be overly disappointed in our Leadership. The job of MOVING that Overton Window is up to US. The job of the Leadership is to make sure that they stand squarely in the CENTER of that Window by turning the "Popular" and the "Sensible" into "Policy", as we shift it left by turning the "Radical" and "Unthinkable" into the "Acceptable" and the "Sensible."
The HARD work falls to us to do what we must. As does the need for us to be PATIENT as the Leadership does what THEY must.
Together, we can shift this thing back to the Left--where it belongs.
The same thing goes for Barack Obama. Right now, he is doing what he believes he must to win the presidency: he's got just a few short months to do just that. And so far, his political instincts have been sharp as a tack.
I disagree completely with his approach on FISA: I do not believe that there is political downside to opposing telecom amnesty.
On the Wesley Clark comments, however, it is clear to me at least that in order to remain true to his "politics of change" brand, he cannot afford to condone or support comments that feel to many Americans uncomfortably close to the 2004 swift-boating of John Kerry. Obama is right to reject this line of attack for himself personally. But that doesn't mean WE should refrain from such attacks--and posts such as that of John Aravosis are perfect in terms of pushing the window on McCain's military record without discrediting our national campaign or damaging Obama's brand.
And in fact, we should expect the Obama campaign to dismiss us when we make these kinds of arguments. Which is just fine--because when he comes out to reject them, those statements once again get catapulted into the news cycle and the public consciousness. This is how the right-wing operates their politics, and it has been extremely successful for them for the past 30 years. Their only problem has been driving the country too far to the right for their own good--which is a problem that would actually be nice to have, for a change, and a problem that we're not even close to having right now.
So hold Obama accountable, and hold his feet to the fire. I approve of Olbermann's Special Comment efforts on Obama and FISA. Markos' carrot and stick approach is just fine. That conflict is good, especially for the short period of the heated election season: it makes sure that our politicians don't head into DLC territory, while propagating our memes and making our candidates reasonable by contrast.
Remember that this is a process, and everybody has their own role--just like on a sports team, except one where some intra-team conflict is not just expected but encouraged as long as it remains productive and well-managed.
If we all do our jobs and don't let our passions run too hot, we'll win this thing by being team players, and understanding our roles on the team--even if it does come with a wink, a nod, and a public denunciation.