Color Me Unconvinced

Remember Serenity Now? No, I’m not talking about the infamous World of Warcraft funeral raid. I’m talking about the episode of Seinfeld where the characters start repeating the meaningless pop psychology phrase as some kind of soothing mantra, but ultimately go berserk with eruptions of repressed rage.

That’s what I think of when the pro-Obama forces try to respond to “liberal” critics of the Great Hope. One of the things that propelled Obama to front-runner status was that he cut through all of the triangulation and mushy side-stepping that are hallmarks of modern politicians. It wasn’t that Americans had never heard soaring rhetoric of hope before. It was that it was refreshing to hear someone stand up against the war and not try to waffle for fear of being labeled “anti-troops.” He tread onto policy ground that others feared to tread upon without Hillary-esque DNC-style focus group testing. I was reminded of this boldness even during his recent speech in Berlin, where he talked about a “nuclear free world.” I was refreshed to hear a major political candidate talk in public about the possibilities of disarm.

But that sort of utopian talk about eliminating America’s nuclear arsenal is not only so far off as to be fanciful and virtually meaningless (see also any number of NPT-related speeches), but it is also increasingly the exception to the rule with Obama. Hell, the peacenik disarm talk may well be the last thing we hear him say that would irritate the Pentagon (as if the U.S. military is worried about a President Obama actually pushing for a major defense rollback).

It’s fascinating that Obama’s patented “Era of Change” is to be marked by a continued (simply ‘more effective’) War on Terror. Does anybody really think there will be an Iraq free of American occupation under an Obama presidency? Does anything really feel all that revolutionary about someone who just spent the past few weeks praising the troop surge in Iraq and the American mission in Afghanistan? Incidentally, is there anything more depressing than the fact that the major issue in the presidential campaign at this moment appears to be marked by the media attempting to understand the difference between the candidates as the difference between whether a one-time boost in troop numbers was good or bad? If doddering old McCain weren’t such a bumbling, incompetent and racist woman-hating Bob Dole knockoff, there might even be a competitive election in November.

Which brings us back to the oft-hashed-over topic of Obama and the FISA. I think everyone should read the Concurring Opinions piece on Obama’s spinelessness here. When we are dealing with a world in which the Bush administration is one of the most ruthless and lawless assemblies of religious nuts, duplicitous scumbags and calculating murderers in the history of American government, perhaps we critics of Obama’s move to the right can be forgiven for not wanting the next president to be staking his policy stances on catering to the Wal-Mart shoppers who think it’s hilarious to call the Democratic nominee “Osama.” And if that’s an unfair characterization, let’s hear the rationale for voting to give telecoms immunity for law breaking. Legal superstar Cass Sunstein tries to give Obama’s side of the story and simply gets crushed here.

We are in a world where the Choctaw have been butchered down in the state of Alabama to a single group (which has a website that can be visited here). We are in a world, as George Carlin said, where politicians hide behind three things: the Bible, the flag and children. So spare me the “this is how democracy works” rationalization of a “liberal” politician’s rush to the center. Maybe it feels good to jettison policy stances in the name of “realistic calculations over idealism.” I just don’t think someone should be lauded as a populist for indulging that narcotic effect. And I certainly don’t think it’s objectionable for critics to point out that the “candidate of change” is engaging in “politics as usual,” which is to say DNC-style moderation, troop hugging, flag waving, criminal bashing and industry pandering.

I wouldn’t object if every single one of my friends simply stopped talking about the election. Obama is better than McCain. Game over. Case closed. What else is there to say on the subject? Shut up and make it happen in November. Any further discussion is a waste of air that could be spent talking about local issues like school boards or zoning or whatever is happening in the world where you are.

But then there’s the perspective that says that it is worth it to call Obama out on these moves to the right in order to keep him honest, to keep the public discussion about his policies focused on the details where the devils live. And maybe that’s the true watchdog function that people can provide by watching the campaign into the Fall — forcing him to avoid taking the easy way out on issues like the war and torture and domestic spying.

Besides, it’s not as if Obama gives a damn about you. You think you are in the same club as him and McCain? You eat in the same restaurants? Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he did wash your car. Maybe he spent an afternoon helping you set up your wireless router. Maybe Obama is your new bicycle. Or, perhaps somewhat more likely, maybe he’s going to pander to Israel, promising unwavering support for America’s largest recipient of foreign aid. And maybe he’ll act like ethanol is going to save America from its own energy demands. Maybe the courts will continue to erode various Constitutional protections and we’ll all just keep buying cell phones that make pancakes.

Yes We Can!

Serenity Now!