First he does the hawkish thing before AIPAC. Then he does the "let's hire someone from the Chicago school of insane-onomics" thing. And now he does the "security trumps freedom" thing over FISA. It's been a strangely disconcerting time to observe Mr. Obama's post-primary drift for an admirer across the pond.
I should say first that I'd like to think of myself as someone who is not naive about Obama or the political system in which he is involved. He is a politician who wants to win. No one really buys all that stuff about a self-sacrificing "calling" to become POTUS, do they? He's running because he desperately wants to be President.
This desire for victory would be the orthodoyx way to contextualize the post-primary drift to what would be called, in that horribly anaemic way, the centre ground.
I spent the whole winter telling my leftist friends and sparring partners, most of whom were initially sceptical, that Obama would bring real change, a chance for "peace abroad and justice at home", to borrow a phrase. Some were sympathetic and the number grew in the course of the bumper coverage of the primary process. That number has dwindled in the weeks since his victory over Clinton, for a few reasons.
The speech to AIPAC has been the primary demotivating factor. The timing of it, one day after he clinched the nomination, made it look incredibly self-serving and desperate. The language of it was worse. Let's be clear: the position he staked out on Israel-Palestine is worse than the current international consensus. It's worse than the position of the Bush State Department. An "undivided Jerusalem" could be brought about - but only after violence, ethnic cleansing and catastrophe. Jerusalem is a city divided along demographic lines - one side Israeli, the other side Arab/Palestinian. To change this would involve population displacement. No one, apart from the more extreme elements of the Likud Party and, apparently, AIPAC and Senator Obama, think that an "undivided" Jerusalem is possible nevermind desirable.
Justice? Apparently not for the Palestinians? Sorry.
Secondly, Naomi Klein (who has a great following here) tells us that he's hired some Doctors of Letting the Poor Eat Mud from UC. This was particularly upsetting for those of us who had read Ms. Klein's latest book, the Shock Doctrine, which detailed how the first experiment in Friedmanite economics took place in Chile in the aftermath of a fascist coup. There's a link between monetarism and fascism that's not only intellectual but practical. Visit the football stadiums in Chile where the "dissenters" were tortured, see the blood stains clinging to the walls and you'll see it, you'll smell it. Now, this is not to say that all disciples of Friedman and the 'Chicago Boys" are horrible or have absolutely to contribute. But if you believe in a reasonable mixed economy with a balance of investment, public spending, progressive taxation and redistribution, there are people with better ideas than those that have led the U.S goverment's policies for the past few decades.
The debate over FISA is one, I have to say, I don't fully understand. I won't pretend to know enough about the legislation, how it relates to pass legislation or the Bush wiretapping controversy in order to comment fully on Obama's support for the bill about to go before the Senate. All I will say is that the statement yesterday was lame, weak-willed, wishy-washy and yellow. It looked like it had been drafted by a stenographer too hazy and mawkish to a get a job working at the White House.
The debate over civil liberties Versus Security is one we're having in Britain just now. Our Parliament just passed a law to allow terror suspects to be detained without charge for 42 days (longer than any other period in Western society). It's politically difficult, obviously. But as many have pointed out, if Obama really wants to lead, he has to lead. Supporting the latest re-written version of the constituon emanating from the White House because it has "URGENT NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE: WE WILL ALL DIE IF THIS BILL FAILS" written on it isn't the kind of thing likely to inspire hope, or lead to change.
I still desperately hope that Obama wins, but what I will say is this. It's up to people in the grassroots movement to make sure that he keeps his promise to build a progressive and peaceloving America. What we learned in Britain with Tony Blair and the horrible "New" Labour government is that if you let them away with it, if you simply concede that he's "just saying this stuff to get elected", it will only ever get worse. You have to stand now, before, during and after the election in order to force your representatives to truly represent you.