During this Iowa Caucus process, a lot of us have fallen into a media/blog narrative that Edwards is the fighter and Obama is the consensus builder (or spun negatively, Edwards is all about warfare and Obama is a compromising chicken). The candidates themselves have helped spread this narrative about themselves and the others, and the media and bloggers and all of us have followed along.
I think these narratives are too constricting for both these candidates. I'm sure that Edwards would seek consensus when need be -- it's the nature of our political system. On the flip side, Senator Barack Obama will absolutely fight for progressive principles. To be sure, he has expressly told us that he believes that consensus building can be a strong ally to the progressive cause. However, he's also shown us through his actions that he won't turn to compromise, that he will fight, when the progressive cause calls for a fighter.
Example #1: The Iraq War
Before Illinois state representative Barack Obama announced his Senate run, he was speaking out in opposition to the invasion of Iraq. He wasn't calling for compromise or consensus. He was saying things like this:
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
And this:
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
A single state senator, at a time when support for invasion was running high and opposition was unpopular for politicians, did what he could. He unequivocally and forcefully declared his opposition to the War and called on the President to direct America's focus on progressive causes.
Of course, as a Senator, Obama continues to fight for withdrawal, both through his words and his actions.
Example #2: Social Security fight
Much has been said about Obama's stance on Social Security during this campaign -- as if his use of the word "crisis" (once) was some sort of giant concession. But that discussion obscures how strongly Obama stood against the GOP's privatization push of 2005. Obama gave a number of strong statements, including this speech as Congressional hearings began on the president's plan:
Obama talked about the origins of Social Security as a safety net for retirees who had nothing. It was intended to be the minimum, not the maximum, and never to take the place of regular savings and other investments. It was a way, said Obama, for people to share -- and minimize -- risk.
"Since Social Security was first signed in to law, almost 70 years ago, by James' grandfather, at a time when FDR's opponents were calling it a hoax that would never work and that some likened to communism,'' said Obama, "there has been movement, there has been movement after movement, to get rid of the program for purely ideological reasons.
"Because some still believe that we can't solve the problems we face as one American community, they think this country works better when we're left to face fate by ourselves."
The irony, said Obama, of this "all-out assault against every existing form of social insurance is that these safety nets are exactly what encourages each of us to be risk-takers, what encourages entrepreneurship, what allows us to pursue our individual ambitions."
In the same speech, Obama nailed the president for this "manufacture panic" and declared that Democrats "will save Social Security from privatization this year .... [a]nd in doing so, we will affirm our belief that we are all connected as one people - ready to share life's risks and rewards for the benefit of each and the good of all."
Indeed, there was no compromise talk from Obama, even on the President's framing: "I fundamentally disagree with the central premise of what this president has termed the ownership society." Knowing that progressives couldn't cede an inch on privatization, Obama didn't look for consensus or giving the other side a seat at the table. He fought.
And this wasn't the only time he challenged the President. He called Bush's racial spin on privatization "offensive," called that plan "gambling ... in the stock market," and one that "risked] the stability of the Social Security system.
Example #3: Voting rights
Obama isn't talking about how Democrats need to respect the (bogus) arguments about voter fraud and whatnot. No, Obama has fought hard to help preserve voting rights for Americans. For example, he's introduced bills to [outlaw deceptive anti-turnout efforts . He demanded that John Tanner be fired, not just shuffled around the administration. And he blocked the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to the FEC.
Hans von Spakovsky is not the right person for this job, and I strongly oppose his nomination. From 2001 to 2005, von Spakovsky served as an official at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division where he amassed a record of undermining voting rights, creating restrictions that would make it harder for poor and minority communities to vote, and putting partisan politics above upholding our civil rights.
There little room for compromise when it comes to voting rights. Obama has fought hard for the progressive principles of democratic representation.
Example #4: Global warming
On this issue, Obama has shown that seeking consensus (like introducing a bi-partisan bill on fuel efficiency standards) can certainly be coupled with fighting for the cause when he walked into a room of auto industry executives and told them exactly what they didn't want to hear in that famous speech in Detroit last May:
"Here in Detroit, three giants of American industry are hemorrhaging jobs and profits as foreign competitors answer the rising global demand for fuel-efficient cars," he said. "The need to drastically change our energy policy is no longer a debatable proposition. It is not a question of whether, but how; not a question of if, but when. For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time."
Obama is not only fighting against the entrenched interests, he's expressly declaring against compromise on a core principle, declaring some things that cannot be debated. Indeed Matt Yglesis (quoting Brad Plummer) found this to be an example that contradicts the "Obama isn't a fighter" meme:
"The knock against Obama is that he often shies away from confrontation, but yesterday he did waltz into a room full of Detroit businessmen and lecture them about the need for stricter fuel-economy standards. (The speech itself was pretty harsh, and he didn't exactly draw applause with lines like this: "Even as [automakers] shed thousands of jobs... over the last few years, they've continued to reward failure with lucrative bonuses for CEOs.")
Good for him. The US auto companies are sort of sitting ducks for criticism at this point, but the car industry is probably the toughest one for a Democrat to take on thanks to the UAW and the general swinginess of Michigan.
Again, in the progressive fight against global warming, Obama did the difficult: he walked into a room full of corporate interests and told them (and even potential labor supporters) what they didn't want to hear. Now that's as fighter.
Conclusion
There are certainly many other examples (and I invite anyone to list them in the comments). From ethics reform to relief for Katrina victims, from Darfur to veterans care, Obama has fought for progressive principles.
Having a philosophy of seeking consensus when it furthers the progressive cause is not mutually exclusive of a philosophy of fighting for progressivism when the time calls for a fight. Take together, Obama's philosophy is one where he will push for change using the best approach for the circumstance. Sometimes, he will seek consensus because this approach will be superior for progress than others. And often, compromise will have to give way to battle. In the end, the progressive cause will move forward by convincing more people to change their minds and by showing the strength to stand firm on our principles.
As Obama has told us, he does believe in consensus building. As he has shown us, he will fight for our values as well.