Here is something that happened on Sunday:
The central tenets of the Beltway religion -- particularly when a Democrat is in the White House -- have long been "centrism" and "bipartisanship." The only good Democrats are the ones who scorn their "left-wing" base while embracing Republicans. In Beltway lingo, that's what "pragmatism" and good "post-partisanship" mean: a Democrat whose primary goal is to prove he's not one of those leftists. The Washington Post's David Ignatius today lavishes praise on Barack Obama for his allegiance to these Beltway pieties -- and actually seems to believe that there is something new and innovative about this approach:
The impatient freshman senator is about to become president, but he hasn't lost his distaste for Washington politics as usual. And as the inauguration approaches, Obama is doing something quite remarkable: Rather than settling into the normal partisan governing stance, he is breaking with it -- moving toward the center in a way that upsets some of his liberal allies but offers the promise of broad national support.
Obama talked during the campaign about creating a new kind of post-partisan politics -- and dissolving the country's cultural and racial and ideological boundaries. Given Obama's limited record as a centrist politician, it was hard to know if he really meant it. . . .
It turns out that Obama was serious. Since Election Day, he has taken a series of steps to co-opt his opponents and fashion a new governing majority. It's an admirable strategy but also a high-risk one, since the "center," however attractive it may be in principle, is often a nebulous political never-never land.
Whatever else one might want to say about this "centrist" approach, the absolute last thing one can say about it is that there's anything "new" or "remarkable" about it. The notion that Democrats must spurn their left-wing base and move to the "non-ideological" center is the most conventional of conventional Beltway wisdom (which is why Ignatius, the most conventional of Beltway pundits, is preaching it). That's how Democrats earn their Seriousness credentials, and it's been that way for decades.
Several weeks ago, I documented that this was the exact approach that fueled Bill Clinton's candidacy and the Clinton Presidency. That's what Clinton's widely-celebrated Sister Souljah moment and his Dick-Morris-designed "triangulation" were all about: "moving toward the center in a way that upsets some of his liberal allies," as Ignatius put it today as though it's some brand new Obama invention. Clinton's approach even resulted in his own GOP Defense Secretary. And, during the Bush era of the last eight years, moving to the Center and spurning their base was about the only "principle" that ever animated Congressional Democrats.
That's why it's been so bizarre listening to Beltway pundits, along with some of the hardest-core Obama followers, acting as though they've discovered some brand new exotic elixir -- the most important discovery since the Fountain of Youth -- with all of these tired buzzphrases about centrism, post-partisan transcendence, and "competence over ideology." These are the same things Democrats have been saying and doing since the early 1980s. This is from some random, typical 1998 Democratic Leadership Council document about "The Third Way":
The Democratic Leadership Council, and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute, have been catalysts for modernizing politics and government. From their political analysis and policy innovations has emerged a progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism. . . .
The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of the information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.
"The worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism." And even before Clinton and the DLC, here was the centerpiece of Michael Dukakis' 1988 Democratic Convention acceptance speech:
It’s time to understand that the greatest threat to our national security in this hemisphere is not the Sandinistas—it’s the avalanche of drugs that is pouring into this country and poisoning our children.
I don’t think I have to tell any of you how much we Americans expect of ourselves or how much we have a right to expect from those we elect to public office.
Because this election isn’t about ideology. It’s about competence. It’s not about overthrowing governments in Central America. It’s about creating good jobs in middle America.
It’s not about insider trading on Wall Street; it’s about creating opportunity on Main Street.
"This election isn’t about ideology. It’s about competence." That was Michael Dukakis' battle-cry more than 20 years ago in order to prove that he wasn't beholden to those dreaded leftist ideologues in his party, that he was instead devoted to pragmatic solutions, to "whatever works." Yet Beltway centrist fetishists like Ignatius and some Obama supporters genuflect to those clichés -- Competence, Not Ideology! -- as though they're some kind of revolutionary, transformative dogma that the world has never heard before and that therefore serves as an all-purpose justifying instrument for whatever Obama does.
The mere fact that these ideas aren't remotely new doesn't prove that they're wrong. Old ideas can be valid. And it may be that Obama, once he's inaugurated, will do other things differently (Andrew Sullivan and Greg Sargent, in response to my last post on this topic, both described what they think will be new about Obama's approach). It's also possible that Obama's undeniable political talent, or the shifting political mindset of the country, will mean that Obama will succeed politically more than anyone else has in implementing these approaches.
But whatever else is true, what Ignatius and others are celebrating as "remarkable" -- that a national Democratic politician is alienating "the Left" and embracing the center-right in the name of transcending ideological and partisan conflicts -- is about the least new dynamic that one can imagine. That's what the most trite Beltway mavens -- from David Broder and Mickey Kaus to Joe Klein and The New Republic -- have been demanding since forever, and it's what Democratic leaders have done for as long as one can remember.
* * * * *
I've been saying since the election that it makes little sense to try to guess what Obama is going to do until he actually does it. That's especially true now, since we'll all have the actual evidence very shortly, and trying to speculate by divining the predictive meaning of his appointments or prior statements seems fruitless. Moreover, anonymous reports about what Obama is "likely" to do are particularly unreliable. I still believe that, but Obama's interview today with George Stephanopoulos provides the most compelling -- and most alarming -- evidence yet that all of the "centrist" and "post-partisan" chatter from Obama's supporters will mean what it typically means: devotion, first and foremost, to perpetuating rather than challenging how the Washington establishment functions.
As Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt documents, Obama today rather clearly stated that he will not close Guantanamo in the first 100 days of his presidency. He recited the standard Jack Goldsmith/Brookings Institution condescending excuse that closing Guantanamo is "more difficult than people realize." Specifically, Obama argued, we cannot release detainees whom we're unable to convict in a court of law because the evidence against them is "tainted" as a result of our having tortured them, and therefore need some new system -- most likely a so-called new "national security court" -- that "relaxes" due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people indefinitely even though we're unable to obtain an actual conviction in an actual court of law.
Worst of all, Obama (in response to Stephanopoulos' asking him about the number one highest-voted question on Change.gov, first submitted by Bob Fertik) all but said that he does not want to pursue prosecutions for high-level lawbreakers in the Bush administration, twice repeating the standard Beltway mantra that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" and "my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing." Obama didn't categorically rule out prosecutions -- he paid passing lip service to the pretty idea that "nobody is above the law," implied Eric Holder would have some role in making these decisions, and said "we're going to be looking at past practices" -- but he clearly intended to convey his emphatic view that he opposes "past-looking" investigations. In the U.S., high political officials aren't investigated, let alone held accountable, for lawbreaking, and that is rather clearly something Obama has no intention of changing.
In fairness, Obama has long made clear that this is the approach he intends to take to governing. After all, this is someone who, upon arriving in the Senate, sought out Joe Lieberman as his mentor, supported Lieberman over Ned Lamont in the primary, campaigned for Blue Dogs against progressive challengers, and has long paid homage to the Beltway centrism and post-partisan religion. And you can't very well place someone in a high-ranking position who explicitly advocates rendition and enhanced interrogation tactics and then simultaneously lead the way in criminally investigating those who authorized those same tactics.
So Obama can't be fairly criticized for hiding his devotion to this approach. But whatever else one wants to say about it, one cannot call it "new." This is what Democrats have been told for decades they must do and they've spent decades enthusiastically complying.
UPDATE: Let's emphasize what Obama is actually saying about why he can't close Guantanamo right away. Here is his answer when asked if he'd close Guantanamo in the first 100 days:
It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.
What he's saying is quite clear. There are detainees who the U.S. may not be able to convict in a court of law. Why not? Because the evidence that we believe establishes their guilt was obtained by torture, and it is therefore likely inadmissible in our courts (torture-obtained evidence is inadmissible in all courts in the civilized world; one might say it's a defining attribute of being civilized). But Obama wants to detain them anyway -- even though we can't convict them of anything in our courts of law. So before he can close Guantanamo, he wants a new, special court to be created -- presumably by an act of Congress -- where evidence obtained by torture (confessions and the like) can be used to justify someone's detention and where, presumably, other safeguards are abolished. That's what he means when he refers to "creating a process."
Amazingly, when discussing the same topic, Obama vowed that "we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values." How? By creating a new court just for accused Islamic radicals that allows us to use confessions and other evidence that we obtained through torture? That sounds like exactly the same "message about our values" that we've been sending.
UPDATE II: Regarding Obama's apparent desire to have a new process created where torture-obtained evidence can be used (and/or where the standards of proof are lowered), the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1935 case of Brown v. Mississippi, addressed the question of whether the U.S. Constitution allowed the State of Mississippi to use a confession obtained by beatings and other forms of coercion to convict African-American defendants of murder (h/t lennonist). The Court invalidated the convictions because they were secured by coerced confessions and said (emphasis added):
In Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 134, 110 So. 361, 365, the court said: 'Coercing the supposed state's criminals into confessions and using such confessions so coerced from them against them in trials has been the curse of all countries. It was the chief iniquity, the crowning infamy of the Star Chamber, and the Inquisition, and other similar institutions. The Constitution recognized the evils that lay behind these practices and prohibited them in this country. . . . The duty of maintaining constitutional rights of a person on trial for his life rises above mere rules of procedure, and wherever the court is clearly satisfied that such violations exist, it will refuse to sanction such violations and will apply the corrective.'
There's absolutely no good reason for Obama not to close Guantanamo immediately and simply try the detainees in our already-extant courts of law. That's how we've convicted all sorts of accused terrorists in the past. The only reason not to do so is a desire to disregard -- violate -- these long-standing American principles and instead create a new process that allows torture-obtained evidence to be used.
UPDATE III: Read Digby on this same issue. She focuses on the cover story in this week's Newsweek by supreme torture apologist Stuart Taylor and Evan Thomas, which argues that Obama is going to have to be like Dick Cheney if he wants to keep us all safe. It urges that "the new crowd would do well to listen to Jack Goldsmith, formerly a Bush Justice Department official." The Newsweek cover touts the article with this caption: "What Would Dick Do?" That's the new motto that the Beltway has for instructing Obama as to what he must ask if he is to keep us safe (h/t sysprog):
That's Beltway centrism: Obama must ask "What Would Dick Do"? It's not only, as I said above, among the oldest and most tired platitudes in Washington. It's also as far from being "non-ideological" as it gets.
UPDATE IV: The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer and Ben Wizner, in an excellent Salon article last month, addressed exactly the argument made today by Obama when, last month, it was advanced by the Brookings Institution's Benjamin Wittes: namely, that because evidence against Guantanamo detainees (such as alleged 20th hijacker Mohamed Al Qahtani) is "tainted" because it was obtained by torture, we must now change the rules of our legal system -- or create a new court -- to allow its use:
In short, Qahtani was a victim of what the United States once undoubtedly would have prosecuted as war crimes -- the distinction being that in this instance, those crimes were authorized by the secretary of defense and implemented by Guantánamo's commanding general. . . .
Assuming, as Wittes does, that there is no evidence of Qahtani's involvement in criminal conduct that is untainted by the government's criminal conduct toward him -- something that is by no means clear -- his case squarely presents the question whether we are prepared to change our laws in order to avoid the consequences of the Bush administration's criminal embrace of torture. Wittes' argument can be summarized succinctly as follows: 1) We brutally tortured Qahtani; 2) thus, our evidence of his criminality is "tainted," rendering his prosecution impracticable; 3) therefore, we must amend our laws to allow for Qahtani's indefinite detention without charge or trial. Thus does the Bush administration's catastrophic insistence that an entirely new legal regime was necessary become, in the hands of a liberal scholar, a self-fulfilling prophecy. . . .
But perhaps the most salient flaw in the current crop of detention proposals is that they are solutions in search of a problem. The class of people who cannot be prosecuted but are too dangerous to let go is either very small or nonexistent. To the extent that it exists at all, it is a class that was created by the administration's torture policies. To build a system of detention without trial in order to accommodate those torture policies would be a legal and moral catastrophe, a mistake of historic proportions.
How an Obama administration chooses to tackle these issues will determine, in large part, the legal legacy of the last eight years. Even the clearest renunciation of torture will be an empty gesture if we simultaneously construct a new detention regime meant to permit prosecutors to rely on torture's fruits. That our justice system prohibits the imprisonment of human beings on the basis of evidence that was beaten, burned, frozen or drowned out of them is evidence of its strength, not its weakness. It is why we call it a "justice system" in the first place.
It is possible, though unlikely, that one consequence of the Bush administration's criminal embrace of torture is that the United States will be compelled to release an individual who might otherwise have been prosecutable for terrorism. Were this to occur, it would not be the first time that our commitment to the rule of law has required that we let a potentially dangerous person walk free. We can accept this risk as an inherent cost of freedom, or we can diminish that freedom in a misguided -- and shortsighted -- attempt to reduce that risk. The choice we make will not determine the nation's survival. It will, however, shape its identity.
Creating a new and separate justice system designed to accommodate the Bush administration's torture regime, as Jaffer and Wizner compellingly argue, would be to undermine every goal Obama claimed he intended to achieve in this area.
And then today, magically:
Barack Obama's announced intentions on ABC News this Sunday regarding Guantanamo sparked substantial objections from civil liberties and human rights advocates. The result of those objections? From today's New York Times:
President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.
Not only did Obama advisers quickly leak that Obama planned to do that -- something he made no mention of on ABC or at any time before that -- but they also made known that they have all but rejected the principal plan urged by the pro-war, anti-civil-liberties Brookings Institution and like-minded comrades (such as former Bush official Jack Goldsmith) for a Congressionally-authorized scheme of preventive detention to empower the President to indefinitely detain Terrorists inside the U.S. without having to charge them with any crimes:
In addition, people who have conferred with transition officials said the incoming administration appeared to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. . . .
In formulating their policy in recent weeks, Obama transition officials have consulted with a variety of authorities on legal and human rights and with military experts. Several of those experts said the officials had expressed great interest in alternatives to the military commission system, like trying detainees in federal courts, and appeared to have grown hostile to proposals like an indefinite detention law.
Why did Obama advisers rush forth on Monday to ensure publication of articles like this one with new announcements for Obama's plans for closing Guantanamo? The reason seems rather obvious, but in case it isn't, the NYT spells it out:
The president-elect drew criticism from some human rights groups Monday who said his remarks suggested that closing Guantánamo was not among the new administration’s highest priorities. . . . .
Several said the officials appeared concerned that a proposal for a new law authorizing indefinite detention would bring the new administration much of the criticism that has been directed at the Bush administration over Guantánamo. A former military official who was part of a series of briefings at the transition headquarters in Washington said the officials had spoken about the indefinite detention proposal as a way of creating a “new Guantanámo someplace else.”
There are still many vital details left unaddressed, beginning with what Obama meant in the interview when he spoke of the need for authority -- what he called a new "process" -- to detain accused Terrorists even when the evidence against them is "tainted." Critically, the NYT article does not indicate what Obama's views are regarding the largest concern prompted by his Sunday comments: namely, whether he favors the commonly advocated policy (also urged by Brookings/Goldsmith) to create, upon the closing of Guantanamo, a new so-called "national security court" or other type of judicial process that allows "tainted" evidence (including torture-induced confessions) to be introduced, whereby the "new court" would -- as Brookings/Goldsmith euphemistically put it -- "reduce the burdens on and dangers to ordinary civilian courts and employ nimbler evidentiary and classification rules."
As the ACLU's Anthony Romero is quoted as pointing out in this morning's NYT article:
The devil is in the details. Just like we need specifics on an economic recovery package, we need specifics on a justice recovery package.
For those reasons, these new Guantanamo announcements are very far from a guarantee that Obama will do the right thing here. Still, these leaked responses to Sunday's criticisms are an important step forward, and they underscore the reasons why it is so vital to express criticism of Obama when he deserves it.
* * * * *
Politicians, by definition, respond to political pressure. Those who decide that it's best to keep quiet and simply trust in the goodness and just nature of their leader are certain to have their political goals ignored. It's always better -- far better -- for a politician to know that he's being scrutinized closely and will be praised and supported only when his actions warrant that, and will be criticized and opposed when they don't.
Right this moment, there are enormous pressures being exerted on Obama not to make significant changes in the areas of civil liberties, intelligence policy and foreign affairs. That pressure is being exerted by the intelligence community, by the permanent Pentagon structures, by status-quo-loving leaders of both political parties, by authority-worshipping Beltway "journalists" and pundits (such as the ones who wrote the wretched though illustrative "What Would Dick Do?" cover story for this week's Newsweek).
If those who want fundamental reform in these areas adopt the view that they will not criticize Barack Obama because to do so is to "help Republicans," or because he deserves more time, or because criticisms are unnecessary because we can trust in him to do the right thing, or because criticizing him is to "tear him down" or "create a circular firing squad" or "be a Naderite purist" or any of those other empty platitudes, then they are ceding the field to the very powerful factions who are going to fight vehemently against any changes. Do you think that those who want the CIA to retain "robust" interrogation powers and who want the federal surveillance state maintained, or want a hard-line towards Iran and a continuation of our Middle East policies, or who want to maintain corporate-lobbyist-domination of Washington, are sitting back saying: "it's not right to pressure Obama too much right now; give him some time"?
It's critical that Obama -- and the rest of the political establishment -- hear loud objections, not reverential silence, when he flirts with ideas like the ones he suggested on Sunday. This dynamic prevails with all political issues. Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is the side that wins -- period.
* * * * *
We just witnessed the results of that dynamic with the ugly spectacle last week of a virtually unanimous Congress approving a completely one-sided Israel/Gaza Resolution. That Middle East war is an issue which, whatever else one might want to say about it, generates intense controversy, division and passion around the world. But not in the U.S. Congress. There, virtually the entire Congress (510 of the 535 members) -- from the furthest left precincts of the Democratic Party to the furthest right-wing of the Republican Party, from all four corners of the U.S. and everywhere in between -- looked at this war and just-so-happened to reach the same exact conclusion: not only is Israel 100% in the right, but the U.S. should involve itself publicly and squarely on Israel's side.
Does anyone actually believe that, in the absence of extremely effective political pressure, 510 ideologically diverse members of Congress -- at exactly the moment when worldwide opposition to the Israeli assault is growing in response to documented civilian horrors -- would all have jointly decided that Israel was right to bomb and invade Gaza and that it is in America's interests to insinuate itself on Israel's side? Even Governors, such as Democrat Martin O'Malley of Maryland, ludicrously popped up to follow the pro-Israel script.
That happens for one clear reason: because one side of the debate (the AIPAC faction) is strong and aggressive in its criticisms and pressure tactics and the other side (the faction wanting an even-handed U.S. approach) is not. Over the weekend, Juan Cole described this dynamic perfectly:
Europe has ceded dealing with the Israelis to the United States.
The people of the United States have ceded dealing with the Israelis to the US Congress.
The US Congress generally abdicates its responsibilities when faced with large powerful single-issue lobbies such as the National Rifle Association, the Cuban-American pro-boycott organizations, and the Israel lobbies.
So Congress has ceded Israel, and indeed, most Middle East, policy to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its myriad organizational supporters, from the Southern Baptist churches to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. The Israel lobbies take their cue on what is good policy from the Israeli government and the Likud Party.
So, US Israel policy is driven by . . . the Israeli rightwing. That is why Congress voted 309 to five to support Israel's war on the people of Gaza, with 22 abstaining.
If those who get angry whenever Obama is criticized have their way -- and as anyone who writes about political issues knows, there is a small though quite substantial and vocal minority who get angry when they read criticisms of Obama -- the Israel dynamic that Cole describes will drive every issue.
Just as Congressional Democrats have known for the last eight years, Obama will know that there is only a price to pay when he acts contrary to the Republican and Beltway "centrist" agenda, but no price to pay when he acts contrary to the agenda of his most ardent supporters (because they won't criticize him, because to do is to "tear him down," "help Republicans," act like a Naderite purist, etc. etc. etc.). That meek and deferential attitude -- aside from being a wildly inappropriate and even dangerous way to treat a political leader -- also ensures that one is irrelevant and taken for granted and one's views easily ignored.
When Obama does things that warrant praise -- when he appoints someone like Dawn Johnsen as OLC Chief, or defies Beltway demands by going outside of the intelligence community to find his CIA Director -- he should be praised. When he does things that warrant criticism -- such as going on national television to talk about the need for a special process to allow the use of "tainted" evidence against Guantanamo detainees, or when he openly contemplates naming someone as CIA Director who supports rendition and torture, or when he votes in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- he should be vigorously criticized. When he makes statements without any apparent basis -- such as Sunday's assertion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons -- he ought to be made to account for that claim and show evidence for it. That's just basic accountability for a political official.
Like all politicians, Obama is not intrinsically good. Good things don't happen by virtue of the mere existence of his presidency. His presidency will be good only and exactly to the extent that he does good things. Pressure and criticisms make his doing those good things more likely (there is a quote from FDR, which I cannot find but am certain commenters will quickly cite, where FDR privately instructed his supporters to publicly criticize him for not doing X so that he would be able to do X more easily).
Obama is about to become one of the world's most powerful political leaders, if not the single most powerful. He begins with sky-high approval ratings, his political party in control of Congress by a large margin, and enjoys reverence so intense from certain quarters that such a loyal following hasn't been seen since the imperial glow around George Bush circa 2002. He's not going to crumble or melt away like the Wicked Witch if he's pressured or criticized. The far more substantial danger is that he won't be pressured or criticized enough by those who are eager to see meaningful changes in Washington, and then -- either by desire or necessity -- those are the voices he will ignore most easily.
UPDATE: The benefits of having a very smart, informed and active comment section can't be overstated. The very first commenter here points to this:
FDR was, of course, a consummate political leader. In one situation, a group came to him urging specific actions in support of a cause in which they deeply believed. He replied: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
Those who adopt the "stop-criticizing-Obama" mentality renounce that vital instrument for influencing the outcome of political events.
UPDATE II: At The Washington Monthly, Hilzoy amply documents why the one issue left unresolved by the Obama/Guantanamo leaks to the NYT -- namely: whether to create a special, new process to allow use of "tainted evidence" against Guantanamo detainees -- may be the most important issue of all. She argues eloquently why doing so would be a catastrophic decision. Obama, as reflected by his Sunday comments, is clearly contemplating something like that, and it's because of issues like this one that it's so vital that pressure on Obama be maintained, criticisms of him be voiced when merited, and praise be expressed only when earned.
There are no shortage of blogs and websites devoted to giddy cheerleading and constructing hagiographies for Obama, and those who dislike being exposed to criticisms of Obama will, in just eight short days, have still another ideal website to frequent. By contrast, this won't be a very good place to visit for those seeking that.
UPDATE III: John Cole points to a really extreme -- and quite amazing -- example of what happens when only one side of a political debate is organized, engaged and aggressive.
Conversely, in comments, El Cid points to an important historical example illustrating the real benefits that come from a President's supporters applying intense and adversarial pressure to ensure that their political priorities are heeded.
