Get Past The FISA Obsession

Obama is a mainstream Democrat. This might come as a surprise to some, who might have mistaken him for some kind of Leftie. Still others pretend to be shocked-shocked!- that Obama is planning on winning the GE. Then there are the single issue crusaders who, in their sole focus on constitutional rights, are reminiscent  the NRA   than Democrats. Add to this the opportunists who see a cause they can ride to National Fame. May be even a media career as commentator on a MSM publication.

If a Liberal supports Obama it is not news. Dog Bites Man. Big Deal. If a Liberal attacks Obama it is news. It feeds into what NYTimes, CNN, WSJ, FOX and others are looking for. Man Bites Dog.

Obama is the first Presidential candidate to use modern technology to let dissenting  supporters tell him what they think. And we should take advantage of that. But who is being helped when  that medium and blogs such as this are used to attack Obama relentlessly day after day?

The concern over the FISA Bill is genuine. Obama shares that concern. But the FISA debate has been taken over by a handful of bloggers and their low information followers who obsess over it to the exclusion of everything else.

Like the war itself. Torture. McCain's flip-flops. Obama's speech on Patriotism. Lobbyists in Mcacin's campaign still.

To look at the Rec List and the Front Page of DKos the last few days you would think that FISA is the only thing going on in this world. One hears puffery  like

If we don't stand up for the Constitution who will?

I once heard an Operation Rescue volunteer ask

If we don't protect the life of the unborn who will?

Whether you are waving the Constitution, the Flag or the Bible, slogans are no substitute for rational thought. Blathering on about constitutional violations is a specialty of the NRA. Liberals ought to have more sense than to adopt the slogans and tactics of the Right Wing unconsciously. Every right has its limitations.

Nothing flatters the ego like single issue advocacy. Once that single thought takes over your mind, you are the most important person in the world. The very fact others have a multitude of thoughts and ideas is proof that you are the only true Patriot/Christian/Environmentalist..whatever. The single issue advocate is the ultimate low information voter. But ironically, passion for that one  issue  can give  a sense of superiority. Here is an example of the sort of puffery that it leads to:

Because Joe Sixpack  is a low information American is all the more reason we must contiue talking about these issues of Constitutional importance. He is distracted by the misery in his everyday life, but has no idea how much worse things will get if his 4th Amendment rights disappear.

You cannot win a political argument by declaring that you are smarter than the American people. Even if you  believe so fervently, it is up to you to come  up with a different reason for your cause than that. Or, politicians will just let you talk until  you become irrelevant. Which you will become if you talk down to people. It is a very effective political strategy to get single issue advocates to talk and talk until the average voter gets sick of them.  Have you heard from a Gold Standrad Nut recently? They were quite voluble in the eighties.

To get back to my main point. Obama is a mainstream Democrat. As I have diaried elsewhere, he has deftly avoided being owned by any one constituency. He recoiled when the DLC tried to co-opt him as a Senate candidate. He put Daily Kos in its place as well ( sorry guys and gals) when some here  tried to demagogue the nomination of Judge Roberts (which he voted against BTW). The truth is, elected officials have to balance many constituencies and issues every day. The best of them have a respect for the people they represent, and can differentiate between them and  advocates for causes:

Barack Obama said in his diary on DKos

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party.  They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda.  In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise,  drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people.  From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon.  They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs.  They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

(Emphasis mine.)

Obama never pretended to be a Liberal. The above was written in 2005.  He presents himself as a thinking man in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. I don't agree with him on  the highlighted points above. I do think that Democrats need to show backbone. I am much more suspicious of corporations than him. I think Americans fall for labels all too often.

But I respect Obama's  reasoning. His point is that if you go into politics with the attitude that Democrats who work with the Right wing should be driven out, you will fail totally. You will become the Tom Delay of the Democrats. Obama is more sophisticated than many of us  on that. That is why he will be President next year and not any of us. Obama  succeeded in a Primary against tough opponents without getting labeled. So he was right on that too, it looks like. And no President can be effective by alienating corporations. Not when so many in  the country works for them. How could they all be  evil?

Obama makes you think.  Obama has an ability to work with people he does not fully agree with, he wins us over with his intelligence and the respect he has for our intelligence. He is able to balance multiple issues. And he knows when not to follow the advice  a single issue advocacy group while still  listening  to them. He is closer to what I want in a leader than anyone else in National Politics.

On FISA too, Obama is reasonable,   although I disagree with him. Think about that. It is possible for him to be reasonable (have reasons, have rational thoughts, a coherent position) and still not agree with me. Political reasoning is not like mathematics. It does not always lead to unique answers. In a world of partial information, sometimes reasonable people arrive at different conclusions.  To insist on a single conclusion in the face of conflicting facts is the kind of certainty W. looked for as President  and did not get. Obama offers us something different.

What are the undisputed (among Democrats) facts  of the FISA issue? The Bush administration violated our constitutional rights. They got some but not all TELCOs to go along in this violation. Congress looked the other way. (Obama was not in Congress at the time of the worst abuses).

So what should be done about it? Amend the law and insist that from now on warrants are required for
listening to people's communications.  Punish the TELCOs who co-operated with Bush. Ideally impeach Bush and Cheney . And try them as war criminals for the much worse violation of starting a war and causing thousands of unneeded deaths and torture of innocents. I am all for this, especially for  trying them as war criminals.

But what can be accomplished realistically? We are at  war (granted,   started illegally by warmongers) . The Govt. does need some powers, subject to oversight by the FISA court, to listen in on some of us. It is not a violation unless it is done en masse and without authorization.

Can the TELCOs be held accountable? I think so. Obama will try to. But it is not as important as many other issues. The Senate will concede some ground. The passion is real. They know it.  But the Bill adopted will be bad. The President will have too much authority. This is important. But not to the exclusion of other issues.

Why not get exercised over torture and not who is listening in on you? I can't think of a worse violation than torture.  I would like to see Bush and Cheney rot in jail for what they did on torture. But a Truth Commission may be the best we will get. We take what we can get within the existing realities of politics. Like Presidential pardons.

Nothing will get done unless Obama gets elected. Even with him in power,only a fraction of what I want will be done. That is life. I am not going to stop eating or taking  a nap or reading over it. I am not going to obsess over it endlessly on blogs.

People are not stupid. There is no anger outside of blogs over who is listening to whom. Or even over torture. There is anger over the price of gas. Over a mismanaged war. Over mortgages. Economy. Jobs. Those issues will drive the election. They matter to Americans.

We are in the middle of an election. Think who gains by your actions.

I would like to see many more attacks on McCain and fewer on Obama . At least on the Rec List and the Front Page,  there are way too many anti-Obama screeds.