Perspective, please: Obama is not an establishment centrist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In a couple of recent posts -- here and here -- I have defended Obama against charges that he is not, and is not being during the transition, progressive enough. While I never considered him to be the sort of radical some took him to be, I continue to believe that, while more progressive on some issues and less on others, he is a

Much of this criticism is coming from the left, from likes of Chris Bowers, Jane Hamsher, Digby, and David Sirota. And I have been critical myself, particularly of Obama's support for Lieberman and of his still-unofficial decision to keep Gates at the Pentagon. As Obama is far more pragmatist than ideologue, though, and building a diverse, dynamic team around him, the criticism is coming from all sides. Too liberal for some, too centrist for others, it depends so much on perspective. Is he progressive? Not progressive enough? Yes to both questions. It depends on the issue, it depends on expectations, and it depends on individual preferences and biases.

On Sunday, Glenn Greenwald wrote a post on "progressive complaints about Obama's appointments." I've been stewing over it ever since. It's not that I disagree entirely with Greenwald's assessment, just that I think Obama is being misrepresented by some on the left.

Essentially, Greenwald's view is that progressive shouldn't be disappointed or surprised that Obama has proven, thus far, to be, well, less than progressive:

So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes. But it wasn't Obama who misled them. It was their own desires, their eagerness to see what they wanted to see rather than what reality offered...

Barack Obama is a centrist, establishment politician. That is what he has been since he's been in the Senate, and more importantly, it's what he made clear -- both explicitly and through his actions -- that he intended to be as President. Even in the primary, he paid no price whatsoever for that in terms of progressive support. As is true for the national Democratic Party generally, he has no good reason to believe he needs to accommodate liberal objections to what he is doing. The Joe Lieberman fiasco should have made that as conclusively clear as it gets.

I certainly agree that the Democratic Party often ignores liberal-progressive "objections." Nationally, the party is very much part of the anti-progressive, right-tilting Beltway establishment. And there are certainly issues on which Obama himself is something of a "centrist." But what he has proven himself to be is not really an establishment politician but a simultaneously cautious and ambitious one. And, to be sure, many of his appointments so far, and certainly to his economic team, have been products of stay-the-course caution.

Now, I think it is true, as Greenwald notes, that "the vast majority of Obama supporters were perfectly clear-eyed about what he is and voted for him for the standard unremarkable reasons -- that they perceived him as better than the alternatives." (This is the point Creature made the other day.) I also think it is also true that many of his supporters were misled by "their own desires."

But I do not think Obama is a "centrist" or that he will govern from the center or center-right, as some have been suggesting. His support for Lieberman is not nearly as meaningful as Greenwald suggests it is. Indeed, while I may have opposed it, I think it was a reflection not just of Obama's desire to be inclusive (and to have Lieberman's vote) but of his strength. Reaching out to one's foes, after all, is not necessarily an indication that one agrees with them. On the contrary, it can be an indication of magnanimous leadership. Instead of moving to the right, I would argue that Obama is actually trying to pull the country left -- and that he is doing so by reaching out to the center, as well as to the right.

(I do understand, of course, that some progressives feel that Obama has been ignoring them, especially over the whole Lieberman saga, but I think it's imperative that we give Obama the benefit of the doubt -- again, because I don't think he's an establishment centrist but rather a cautious liberal who knows that he can't go too far too fast -- and appreciate his calculations. Just as he was careful not to come across as an "angry black man" during the campaign, both primary and general, lest he feed and be devoured by that noxious stereotype, so is he taking care during the transition not to come across as anything but

Furthermore, there are positive signs Obama could actually be a progressive president, perhaps even a genuinely transformational one. There will be some foreign and military policy hawks around him, but, given his positions on health care, energy, and global warming, his respect for the rule of law, his emphasis on diplomacy and rebuilding America's image around the world, and his activist response to the economic and financial crisis, I simply do not think he will govern as a "centrist," let alone a right-leaning one.

All of which is to say, there will much for liberals and progressives to like, even if some of his appointments so far admittedly warrant concern. As BooMan put it in response to Greenwald:

Obama's agenda is farther to the left than anything we've seen since at least Lyndon Johnson, and Congress has never in its history seen a Democratic Party so united in its leftward tilt. It doesn't matter whether Obama has centrists and moderate Republicans as part of his coalition. What matters is if he can unite (enough of) this country behind a common purpose to get things done.

And I think he can.

**********

Let me quote John Cole in response to Obama's appointment of his economic team. I think it captures some of what I'm getting at here:

[W]hile I have little clue who most of them are, I feel duty bound as a blogger to express my shock that his choices are not progressive/moderate/conservative enough, and I will do my best to write a hysterical 2,000 word post saying that if he would only listen to me, things would be better. Also, I will, without irony, note that he is appointing too many Clinton re-treads, failing to acknowledge that if Obama had not won, Clinton would have, and probably would have appointed more… Clinton people. Finally, I will whinge incessantly that I was misled during the election. I thought he would be much more progressive/moderate/conservative than he is acting now, and I wish I had voted for the alternative (the crazy old man McCain).

Why oh why will he just not listen to me?

Oh yes. I forgot. He also has not fixed the economy, brought our troops home, or closed Gitmo yet. I read in the WSJ thast one of his many advisors has a different opinion than me on one of those issues, so I reserve this space to freak out about that, too.

I do not want to suggest that my progressive friends are just moaning and groaning and whining and whinging, but I do think that what is needed is some perspective. Obama hasn't even taken office yet. It's far too early to make judgements as to how he will govern other than to note that some appointments may be better than others. And I certainly do not think that his appointments prove he is a centrist and will govern as a centrist.

Give him time. He may just turn out to be far more progressive than progressives think.