In the Primary contest, not everyone had believed that Obama, with such pragmatic advisors like Goolsbee and Leibman,and campaign strategists like Axelroad who had gone through the rough and tumble Chicago politics, would remain a NAFTA bashing, anti-war liberal he seemed to be then.The right turn was expected.
For a foreigner like me who lives in a developing country like Ethiopia, the fact that Obama softened his attitude towards free trade is the right move. I had sold bread on the streets, earning less than 10 cents a day, when I was as young as eight. My siblings and I helped our poor family. Had it not been for our strength, the family wouldn't have survived the harsh economic condition then. Now my sister is one of the most recognized radiologists in Ethiopia. My brother works as a geophysicist for a US company; and I am a lawyer and journalist in Addis Ababa. Despite my liberal views, I am less intimidated by the perceived evils of global capitalism; the stories of sweetshops and child labor in Naomi Klein's No Logo. I would have happily worked for an American company which paid two dollars a day. Free trade is good for countries like Ethiopia. What we need is more free trade(less subsidies for American and European farmers and manufacturers). I know these views maynot go well in the dailykos community. The interest of an American liberal may not always be the same as an Ethiopian liberal.
But we can definitely agree on the moral and political problems of a big brother state. I am as dismayed as most Dailykos readers about Obama's pandering to the right in the FISA case. Several writers here have offered the reason why Obama's change of position (a) is dangerous as it shows that he can easily abandon some of the principles progressives consider so dear; (b)may hurt him in November as he appears to be the same old politician he accuses others of; or (C) may not be as much help electorally as he and his advisors supposed it to be. What happened recently in Britain shows the arguments aren't that far off the mark.
Three weeks ago, the Brown government bullied backbenchers to vote for its counter-terrorism bill which extends the maximum period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects from 28 to 42 days. The Tories opposed the bill. Mr Brown and his Labor government hoped that opposing the bill which according to polls was supported by as many as 60% of Britons would politically damage the Tories who had been in the ascendancy since September. That hope was misplaced. Several Polls which were published after the bill was passed have shown that the tories have significant double digit leads over Labour. The same polls have also shown Britons' confidence on the Tories ability to handle national security issues hasn't declined.
One of the reasons for the results is that Mr Brown has such a low popularity a single legislation wouldn't change voters' minds. The other is that the Tories have rightly convinced the public that some of Labour's messes in Iraq and elsewhere have made it less qualified to handle national security issues.
This is a huge lesson for Obama. Rather than pandering to the right, he should show the public that the Republicans have made a messy job of handling US national security. Whatever voters feel about a single bill, they usually consider candidates' proposals and record in totality. Obama has underestimated them.