There's a depressing diaryon the rec list right now. It applauds Obama's support of the FISA "compromise" because it will prevent the media and the right-wing from portraying him as weak.
Not too long ago (as recently as last week), it seemed that everyone in the netroots agreed that we shouldn't let fear of our political opponents dictate important choices on national security.
The diary in question is relieved that with Obama's retreat on FISA, we won't see
t-shirt sales at RedState that read "Obama is a Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey." Oh, and many nasty news cycles about how he's weak.
Obama's support of the compromise isn't going to prevent Redstate from making those t-shirts. For years Democrats have moved to the right on national security in the hope that they might finally stop those big GOP meanies from calling them soft. But guess what? Barack Obama could personally ride a nuclear bomb into Tehran, and the GOP would still call him soft.
Okay, okay, the diarist's point is that Obama's vote on FISA will stop the GOP and the media from successfully portraying him as weak. Oh, dear, let's go hide under our beds. Obama could have used the same justification to back away from his commitment to speak to our enemies. Instead, he went on offense, wondering aloud why McCain was scared of talking to foreign leaders. You can imagine a similar argument to explain opposition to the FISA compromise: It's disturbing that McCain is so scared of terrorists that he's willing to trample on our constitution.
Indeed, fear of the GOP response can be used to rationalize any weak position. It was fear of the GOP that led so many Democrats to support the invasion of Iraq.
As soon as you give in to fear, you've lost. You dispirit your base. You project insecurity. You embolden the GOP. You're forced to be insincere. Your opponents smell weakness and everyone else smells bullshit. Perhaps most important, you lose the issue at hand, and this particular issue is a big one. The FISA bill, even without telecom immunity, codifies large chunks of President Bush's power-grab.
This is not a call for purity. The truth is, Obama is no raging lefty on foreign policy, and I'm willing to accept his hawkishness in part because I think it's not only political necessary, to a degree, but sincere. His support of the FISA compromise, however, strikes me as neither necessary nor sincere. I can't help but conclude that fear is a large factor in his decision, and that's just not acceptable, not when fear-driven Democrats have failed so often, not when the sphere itself rose in response to Democratic cowardice, not when McCain looks like a weak candidate and the incumbent president has approval ratings in the Hitler range, not when such an important principle is at stake, not when Obama claims to offer relief from such fear.
To be sure, Obama is no coward. He's a black man running for president in the face of who-knows-how-many death threats. He faced down the Clinton machine with poise. If courage is, as Hemmingway said, grace under pressure, then Obama is courageous indeed.
Now, he needs to employ a dose of that courage in the Senate chamber. I sense that Obama feels it's so important that he win that he's tightening up. We've seen this before. Every four years, afraid to lose, the Democratic candidate runs scared. Caution, not the GOP, has killed most Democratic campaigns.
Fortunately, he doesn't have to choose between losing and doing the right thing. Indeed, his chance of victory will rise if he steps into the chamber on Thursday and shows courage. It could be the moment that, once and for all, sets the Democratic Party free.