Ever since he became a major contender for the Democratic nomination, I have been skeptical of Obama's platform, or lack thereof. Kevin Drum expressed my sentiments perfectly:
I've been voting for three decades now. I've heard lots of politicians take up the "bold truthteller" meme.... Maybe this is one reason that I'm not quite as taken by Obama as a lot of people: I've seen it before.
I too questioned whether saying the word "change" an inordinate number of times was enough to actually get anything accomplished. The country may be desperate for change, but that doesn't mean you get a free pass on the substance just because you look different from the last 43 presidents.
Kevin, however, posted today about Obama's effort in Illinois to protect the rights of defendants in criminal cases, and I was genuinely impressed. Obama should not only be ready to defend his record, he should be openly promoting it as proof that he is more than just a slogan.
Barack Obama took issue with the fact that a high number of confessions in the state were being obtained by the police through physically coercive tactics (if you'll excuse the euphemism) . He therefore proposed that all interrogations and confessions be videotaped. This was a revolutionary idea at the time, and like most revolutionary ideas, faced massive opposition from many groups. Defendants' rights seems to be one of those areas that very few elected officials in modern politics is willing to touch. The reasons for this are easy to understand: no one wants to be seen as cozying up to criminals. Never mind the obvious fact that people who are accused of crimes are exactly that: accused. They are innocent until proven guilty, so protecting the rights of the accused is not equivalent to coddling criminals. Republicans are naturally opposed to defendants' rights because it is part of their general chauvinistic tendency to need to be "tough" about nearly everything (except white collar crime). Furthermore, the accused tend to be poor minorities, so throwing the book at them as hard as physically possible doesn't exactly cost them votes.
Democrats are a different story. We pride ourselves on being the voice of the voiceless and protectors of the Constitution, and yet even elected Democratics seem to have a difficult time standing up for the rights of the accused. Democrats in Illinois were also opposed to Obama's plan to videotape interrogations because it would make them appear "soft on crime." This isn't entirely surprising: Democrats approved the Iraq authorization and the Patriot Act so as to not look soft on terrorism. There should, however, be even less ambiguity in the protection of domestic defendants' rights. The Bill of Rights goes to great lengths to ensure that the accused are protected against the mighty power of the State. Still, the politics of fear have for the most part buried all concern for these fundamental rights.
Obama was in the unenvious position of not only having Democrats and Republicans in the Illinois Senate against his proposal, but also facing opposition from the police and the Democratic governor. Somehow, Obama was able to convince both houses of the Illinois legislature to pass this bill and get the governor to sign it into law, making Illinois the first state to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions. I'm not exactly sure how he did it, but Charles Peters described it this way:
By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.
Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
This is a pretty vague explanation, but the important thing is he used his "let's all get along" method to get extremely important legislation passed in spite of the fact that there was vehement opposition from all sides at the outset. Peters's statement that Obama helped "pass other legislation they wanted" is a little unsettling; one wonders what exactly he had to give up to the police (more funding, weaker regulation of searches, etc.) to get them on his side. Still, this story encourages this cynical skeptic to have a little more faith in Obama's ability to promote this kind of reconciliation.
Obama should not be afraid to talk about victories such as this one in debates and speeches. They show he can "work" for change as well as anyone. He must be prepared, however, for the inevitable backlash he will face for his record, and it may not be coming from the direction he expected:
Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.
Along the same lines, ABC reported that Clinton aides gave the network various examples, of Obama's controversial stands. The aides cited Obama's past assertion that he would support ending mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, pointing to a 2004 statement at an NAACP-sponsored debate: "Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges."
This is a truly despicable attack from the Clinton campaign. The clear intent is to show that she stands a better chance in the general election. You know what, I am sick and tired of compromising our basic values, which, by the way, are the basic values America shares, for the sole purpose of appeasing this fictional conservative majority and a small group of tough-talking Republicans who don't have the slightest clue what is best for America. When was the last time you saw Bush attend an ACLU conference or a union rally? And yet there are Democrats who feel the need to introduce legislation blatantly impinging on free speech for the purpose of appearing "moderate" and/or "electable."
Furthermore, Hillary's criticism of Obama for opposing the federal mandatory minimum sentences does not take into account the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 7-2 that federal judges may impose lighter sentences in crack cases than what the federal guidelines require. Justice Ginsburg held:
In making that determination, the judge may consider the disparity between the Guidelines' treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses. Kimbrough v. U.S., 128 S.Ct. 558, 564 (U.S. 2007)
The fact that blacks, while comprising just 40% of crack users, are the subject of over 80% of crack arrests, does not seem to bother Hillary Clinton. Nor does the fact that the sentencing guidelines place small-time street dealers and users at a huge disadvantage compared to more nefarious traffickers due to their limited ability to use information as a bargaining chip for a lighter sentence. Obama's stand against the federal sentencing guidelines was bold and admirable. If he can adequately defend and promote his positions in public, I (and maybe Kevin Drum as well) will feel more comfortable entrusting him with the presidency. Defending the abolition of mandatory sentencing guidelines against Republican attacks will not be easy, but I cannot imagine that convincing the Illinois police to videotape interrogations was a walk in the park either. The media too often downplay significant accomplishment made by public officials at the state and local level. Barack Obama should not make this same mistake.