pacificpelican.us posts

[photo via barackobama.com]

As I noted in my latest podcast, I know that Barack Obama is going to try to win as many votes as possible, and since at least the 1950s the conventional wisdom in American politics has been to try to appeal to the median voter on the left-right scale, that magical “+1″ of the fifty percent plus one that is needed to take a majority of the popular vote. Of course this is a simplified way of looking at things, and watching “undecided” voters ask questions at public forums often reminds one of the stupidity and confusion of many people who participate in the process. But this is how the two-party-duopoly system works, and Obama is playing the game as well as he knows how. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t going to offer liberals some good things.

The recent uproar in the blogosphere about the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that passed the Senate with Obama’s help seems to have crystallized the view that the candidate is moving remorselessly to the “political center,” that snake pit long populated by loud-mouthed opportunists like Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Chuck Hagel. But before everyone in the Democratic coalition panics and prepares to throw Barack overboard, let’s first remember that the alternative (in this 2-party system) is considerably worse, a son of a bitch that shouldn’t even be allowed to greet at Wal-Mart let alone decide whether to strike with nuclear weapons. And let’s also look at some of the nuances of the FISA debate.

Okay, maybe Barack Obama should have waged a high-profile campaign of grandstanding against the FISA bill, as Chris Dodd did, but it wouldn’t have made the difference that was needed anyway. So maybe he was better off picking a different battle.

Besides, the vocal opposition to the bill from many quarters masks this basic problem–the anti-FISA coalition would never be able to agree on an alternative course. The more intelligent, liberty-minded faction of this anti-new-FISA-bill group might have railed against any FISA at all, and in favor of repealing the entire 1978 law and all its successors and amendments. Fourth Amendment should mean 4th Amendment, after all.

But it seems that many of the people opposing this bill take the squishy position that yes, there is such an enormous threat from those Men in Caves that we need some to give up privacy for some sort of surveillance, some sort of FISA revision, but this particular bill is not the right way. A good example of this “oh yeah there are sooo many terrorists and they are soooo scary but you need to make the new law just the way I want it it” attitude can be found in this Glenn Greenwald passage:

“It is theoretically possible that there are modifications to the FISA warrant process that are justifiable, but the administration has left no doubt that this is not their true objective.”

The position that accepts that the old FISA is okay (it is not–it is a secret court that is no way accountable to the public, a complete end-run around Article III, and it was run not long ago by that stupid judge that let Microsoft off the hook [with Bush's encouragement] for being held accountable after being convicted of illegal anti-competitive behavior) and that maybe even more onerous laws could “theoretically” be needed is almost as disingenuous as that of the people supporting the bill.

And as far as telecom immunity, what exactly can be done about this? Companies that rely on government rents via regulation are totally captive to the system. I appreciate the idea of getting a foot in the door for forcing accountability on the government’s part with those lawsuits, but the only reason that this is important is that courts have consistently denied standing to those being spied on again and again with the bizarre catch-22 of having to prove that the secret spying is happening, and then even when they do prove it, they’re told that they cannot use classified information in courts. But that’s not the fault of the telecommunications companies.

This is not to say that George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping was not an enormous violation of federal law, for which that dim-witted Texas oil industry puppet should be prosecuted and imprisoned. A court decision just this month made this fairly clear. Also, many of the telecommunications companies did commit a series of ethical lapses in supporting the eavesdropping program. And Barack Obama probably should have voted against the new FISA bill. But it’s not enough to make me forswear support for Obama.

The debate about the bill has become bogged down in ridiculous rhetoric. Bloggers’ outrage and indignity over it is getting a little old, and starting to lose a sense of proportion. Dave Winer provides a good example:

“If you recall our country was founded in revolution. The problem is we don’t recall. Some of us hoped (there’s that word again) that Obama would lead us some place worth going.”

Please spare us–the ideals and habits of liberty were already well-enshrined in British society when America declared independence in 1776. The revolution was fought by two liberal countries over money and power. Maybe it’s good we that we “don’t recall” perfectly and instead make up our own myths about it.

It’s hard to even measure the astronomical proportions of what people are expecting of Obama. Perhaps “some of us” were hoping for a utopia to rise up from the wreckage of the “ownership society.”

Well, we’ve all got different expectations. Mine is just to get Barack Obama elected so the broad direction of the country’s policies moves back toward that of a functioning modern democracy. We’ve got a long way to go for that, and Obama probably won’t get us the whole way there. For now, even he’s got to play the electoral game. But hey, he’s already changed the system to some extent, and we should wait and see if he can really be a game changer.

I know I don’t have influence of any sort, and it really doesn’t matter, but I’m still an Obama supporter.