Minimizing FISA

While I see the need to elect Obama over McCain, I'm getting tired of toe-the-line Democrats who are deriding Glenn Greenwalk and others for making an issue of FISA. No, we're not children. yes, we understand that "politics is the art of the possible." Yes, we know that no candidate will ever 100% match our beliefs and ideals.

But we're not talking about a failure to declare Lucky Charms the national breakfast cereal. We're talking about the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. Obama's compromise on a pillar of the Bill of Rights speaks badly about the candidate's commitment to liberty. It makes progressives wonder: if he's willing to compromise on that, what else is he willing to compromise on?

That said, I recognize that Obama is more to the left than, say, Bill Clinton was. That's come about because progressive activists have helped mainstream leftist positions on marriage equality, health care, Iraq, social security, and a host of other issues. Think about that the next time you feel tempted to take a swing at the "ideological purists" on the left.

Progressives Must Keep Pressure - But Not Just on Obama

Good thoughts from Alternet's Kathy G on the work that progressives need to perform in order to drag Obama back to their side of the issues:

This is where we, as liberals, progressives, lefties, activists, whatever-you-want-to-call-us, come in. I do not believe that our interests are best served by the kind of cheap electioneering we saw over the primary campaign. What would be far more effective would be an independent movement that makes strategic alliances with various political candidates but is also distinctly separate from them.

Instead of shilling for Barack, or Hillary, or whoever, we should have been pressuring the candidates to work for our votes. We should have been pressing them to take firm, non-negotiable positions in favor of things like no immunity for the telecoms, or immediate withdrawal from Iraq with no residual troops. Instead, we were really cheap dates. And when you act like suckers, don't be surprised when something like Obama's support for the FISA compromise comes back and bites you in the ass.

If we want real change in this country, the place to look for it is not in our so-called leaders, but in ourselves. What we need, in short, is a movement. Without such a movement, President Obama is not going to be able to achieve a whole lot more than President Clinton or President Carter did. But with such a movement, we may actually get somewhere. FDR was able to achieve great things because he had the strong support of a powerful labor movement. Similarly, the civil rights movement was the wind at LBJ's back. But I ask you, what will President Obama have?

Sam Stein covers some of the same ground in his article "Serenity Lost: Obama and The Netroots".

One might argue that this is all empty rhetoric if there are zero consequences for not listening to the progressive cause. But the one time there were real consequences at the presidential level was in 2000, when disaffected progressives backed Ralph Nader and the Green Party. The result was eight years of an imperialist presidency that has steadily eroded our freedoms. No honest progressive, as upset as they may be with Obama's General Election moves, wants to open the floodgates to a third Bush term. Nader is wrong: there is virtue in electing the "least worst" candidate.

The key term there is "at the presidential level." Supporting Obama as the best presidential candidate (which he is) doesn't preclude fighting for just causes when his leadership veers off track. A lot more action on issues such as FISA can be taken at the level of individual Senators and Representatives. A great example: the robocalls being run in House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's district by local activist Rev. Lenox Yearwood, lambasting Hoyer's FISA compromise. And you can bet that progressive activists will remember FISA when Hoyer's re-election comes due.

Greenwald: Don't Give Obama Pass on FISA Compromise

What he said.

FISA is bad law, even if (big IF at the moment) the telecom amnesty provision gets gutted.

As Greenwald and others note, what's so frustrating about this is not just that it's an example of Democrats caving to the right, but that it's Obama doing it. He's shown in spades that he can vigorously reject Republican framing when the need arises, and turn the tables on his opponents. (Cf. his evisceration of Giuliani et. al. over 9/11.) But when it came to defending our constitutional rights, Obama not only chose not to reject the framing, he embraced it. Greenwald:

Obama has embraced a bill that is not only redolent of many of the excesses of
Bush's executive power theories and surveillance state expansions, but worse,
has done so by embracing the underlying rationale of "Be-scared-and-give-up-your-rights." Note that the very first line of Obama's statement warns us that we face what he calls "grave threats," and that therefore, we must accept that our Leader needs more unlimited power, and the best we can do is trust that he will use it for our Good.

Obama Backs "Compromise" (Read: Cave-In) on FISA

Let the excuse-making begin.

The presumptive Democratic nominee says he'll fight the telco amnesty provision in the Senate, so there's still hope that America's corporations won't get away scot-free with working hand in glove with the Bush police state. Once amnesty passes, that's all she wrote.

It's times like this that I consider why we have no viable parties outside of the Big Two in the United States. Ralph Nader and the Greens came close to having one in 2000 - but then we all dumped on them for "costing" Al Gore the election, effectively putting that movement to the sword. (The same folks should blame Gore instead for his schizophrenic performance in the GE.) Neither Ron Paul nor Bob Barr appear poised to make a true dent on the right (although Paul came the closest).

I like Obama, who does his best given the constraints of the system. But I wouldn't mind having richer political subdivisions than we have today. My preference would be to belong to a party where we spent more time defending principles, and less time justifying their compromise.