In the last two weeks, there has been a flurry of stories that has tried to portray criticism of Barack Obama's recent stands as the sole province of disenchanted members of "the left" -- also referred to as "the far left" (New York Times), "left-winger bloggers" (also New York Times), "the liberal blogosphere" (USA Today, Christian Science Monitor), and "left-wing supporters" (The Telegraph).
And many of these stories have cited my urging Obama not to water down his brand and tack to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters as examples of the "fire from the left."
Actually, I am not offended that Obama isn't marching in lockstep with progressives. I'd be worried if he was marching in lockstep with anyone. Other than himself. My problem isn't that Barack Obama doesn't always agree with me. My problem is that Barack Obama has started to disagree with himself -- falling prey instead to the Conventional Wisdom sirens.
Obama doesn't need to go down a checklist of progressive issues and mark "yes" next to each one. His job is not to please the disaffected voter profiled in the New York Times who has decided to vote for the Green Party candidate, or Bob Fertik of Democrats.com, who has raised over $101,000 for Obama -- but has put it in an escrow account, payable once Obama demonstrates "a firm commitment to progressive
values."
He needs to remain true to himself -- and, above all, to make it clear that he will not lead by sticking his finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing.
In the 1950s, Jacques Soustelle, a close aide to President Charles DeGaulle, returned from Algiers, where he had taken an informal poll, and told the president that all his friends were bitterly opposed to his policies. "Changez vos amis" (change your friends), DeGaulle replied.
In 1977, when President Anwar Sadat went to Israel, he did so despite fierce opposition even from within his own cabinet. A real leader lights the way for others. That's why I respect the leadership of Chuck Hagel -- even though we disagree on more issues than we agree on. But on the seminal issue of our time -- Iraq -- he followed his heart and his gut and his principles and stood up to his own party. That's leadership. And it's why I respected the leadership of John McCain in 2000 -- again, even though I disagreed with him on many issues -- and why I am so troubled by his transformation from maverick to panderer.
This isn't to suggest that leaders should never change their minds. Of course they should -- when they are confronted with new evidence and new facts on the ground. Just imagine how different the world would be if George Bush had done that.
|
