During the primary I supported Barack Obama despite the fact that his views on some issues were not as progressive as my own. What concerns me now is the fact that he is backing down from his own positions (on FISA and NAFTA) and cowering in the face of the Right Wing Noise machine (vis a vi Gen. Clark) whose smears he once fought. His earlier positions and tactics garnered him support, not just from left-wing Democrats but also from independents, and I believe he is risking that support now.
It is true that "consistency in the hobgoblin of little minds" and "politics is the art of compromise". But an essential element of the "the art of compromise" is knowing when to compromise and when not to; compromise is not a virtue in and of itself. When the facts prove him wrong, or he loses the support of the public, then it is necessary and good for a leader to compromise on his positions. But the "facts" of the race have not changed since the primary, nor is there public support for Obama's new positions on FISA and NAFTA.
The only difference between then and now is the fact that then he was running a primary campaign and now he is running a general election campaign. As Obama recently admitted while backing away from his pledge to re-negotiate NAFTA, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified", indicating that it is campaign dynamics which are determining his positions. Moreover, there was no shift in public opinion that required his change of position on NAFTA or FISA. Quite the opposite in fact, his new positions are less popular with the general public than his old ones. So Obama appears to be compromising for compromising's sake, which leaves his supporters in an untenable position.
This kind of reversal of position leaves his supporters with an awkward choice. They must decide if he was lying to them then, or if he is lying to them now. The problem is that either way he was lying at some point, and that perception of cynical dishonesty is extremely dangerous when dealing with voters.
It is rare for any voter to support a Politician on every issue. Voting is most often a trade-off. A voter will support a candidate whose position on issue A they disagree with because they agree with him on issues B and C. Nowhere is this political calculus more important then with independent voters, who are not moved by party loyalty. But when a politician changes his positions, without clear reason, he invalidates that calculus and leaves a linger doubt in the minds of voters that the electoral trade-off they were considering is no-longer an honest bargain.
This is the irony and the peril of Obama's recent moves. By shifting his positions in the hope of appealing to independents and centrists he is in fact simply signaling them that he can't be trusted to remain consistent and therefore the political calculus of voting for him is a gamble, rather than an honest bargain. My fear is that when this impression hits the media-myth of "John McCain the straight-talking maverick" it will cost Obama votes and weaken his mandate (I don't believe it will cost him the election; McCain needs a miracle).
One must remember that McCain is actually quite conservative. He appeals to independents, not because they agree with him, but because they think they know where they stand with him. Obama should be trying to cultivate that same confidence by building a reputation for consistency, rather than undermining it by dismissing his own rhetoric and making unnecessary changes in his political positions.
Which do you honestly think is more appealing to an independent voter?
McCain: I'm "a straight-talker"
Obama: My "rhetoric gets overheated and amplified"