The New Republic

Do you remember when conservatives used to speak warmly, and
sometimes rapturously, about Barack Obama? That was back when they
were certain that the Clinton voodoo magic would make Hillary the
nominee, and Obama her sympathetic roadkill. Since then, the right
has made the horrifying discoveries that Obama is, successively, a
left-wing ideologue, a coddler of anti- Americanism, a wine-sipping
elitist, and, now, a shameless flip-flopper. The man will say
anything, discard any position, in order to win the election.If such a tragic tarnishing of the reputation could happen to a
fresh-faced reformer like Obama, it could happen to anybody. And,
in fact, it has--at least to anybody who has happened to attain the
Democratic presidential nomination at any point over the last five
election cycles. John Kerry, as everybody remembers, came to be
defined almost exclusively as a flip-flopper. (A 2004 Wall Street
Journal news article described him as "a politician with a
troublesome reputation for trying to have it both ways.")

Al Gore was relentlessly attacked by Republicans for his alleged
waffling. ("Mr. Gore has a bit of a reputation for flip-flopping
and corner-cutting," reported The New York Times in 2000.) Bill
Clinton was attacked by George H.W. Bush for "turn[ing] the White
House into a Waffle House" and the subject of a famous Time cover
story titled, "Why Voters Don't Trust Bill Clinton."

It was true: Voters didn't trust Clinton--or Gore, or Kerry. In all
of those elections, polls showed the Democratic nominee scoring
higher on most of the issues, but the Republican nominee scoring
higher on honesty and other personal qualities. Either this is
because the Democratic Party keeps nominating weasels for
president, time and time again, or else there's something systemic
that makes Republicans (and the press) portray them as such. I'm
going with explanation number two.

Here's my systemic explanation. In the late 1980s, the popular
revolt against government that had bubbled up in the mid-'60s began
to peter out, sapping the power of straightforward anti-government
appeals. And, starting in 1992, Democrats ruthlessly purged nearly
all their political liabilities by embracing anti-crime measures,
welfare reform, and middle-class tax cuts, and, more recently, by
abandoning gun control. What's left is a political terrain
generally favorable to Democrats, which has, in turn, forced
Republicans to emphasize the personal virtue of their nominees.

And so, every four years, we have a Democratic candidate campaigning
on health care, the minimum wage, education, Medicare, or Social
Security, and a Republican candidate campaigning on themes like
Trust, Courage, and so forth. President Bush in 2004 was explicit
about his elevation of character over issues: "Even when we don't
agree," he would say, "at least you know what I believe and where I
stand."

The details of the Republican character narrative vary a bit from
campaign to campaign. (In 1992, 1996, and 2008, Republicans waxed
rhapsodic about the moral virtues inherent in military service; in
2000 and 2004, they played them down.) The alleged flip-floppiness
of the Democratic nominee, though, is a hardy perennial.
Flip-flopping is a simple accusation that campaign reporters can
sink their teeth into. Moreover, there's always grist for the
accusation, because getting to the position of running for
president without changing your stance on a few issues is
essentially impossible.

And, so, whatever two or three issues the Democratic nominee has
changed his emphasis on are inevitably blown up into a devastating
character indictment. The Charles Krauthammers and Sean Hannitys of
the world can be counted on to whip themselves into a moralistic
frenzy against the feckless Democrat. And news reporters will
stroke their chins and ponder, because the question is being asked:
Just who is Obama (Kerry/Gore/Clinton), anyway? Yes, he may have a
detailed platform on domestic and foreign policy, but do we really
know anything about this man?

If one needs any final proof of the ridiculousness of this
quadrennial exercise, it is the fact that John McCain has embraced
the flip-flopper attack. John McCain! I've said this before, I'll
say it again: This is a man who, in his quest to make himself an
acceptable GOP nominee, reversed his political philosophy
(crusading anti-business progressive in the Teddy Roosevelt mode);
his political orientation (frequently siding with, and nearly
joining, Senate Democrats); and almost every particular
undergirding it (taxes, the Lieberman- Warner climate change bill,
his own immigration bill, etc.). But if you actually think that
flip-flopping is a sign of flawed character, and not just a handy
partisan cudgel, then, sure, Obama might be slightly cynical, but
McCain must be a dangerous sociopath.

Now, allegedly Obama can be held to a higher standard because he has
loftily set himself above ordinary politicians. (McCain has, too,
but never mind.) The operating theory here is that Obama represents
a New Politics of the purest and most innocent sort, and to expose
him as a mere politician is to destroy the very rationale of his
candidacy. Obama's "flip-flopping," writes Krauthammer, proves he's
"just a politician." His "dash to the center," mourns National
Review editor Rich Lowry, "falsifies the very essence of his
candidacy."

It is no doubt true that some liberal Obamaphiles interpreted his
disdain for "politics as usual" as a pledge to abstain from all
political maneuvering and lead a campaign of monkish purity. Those
people have had their eyes opened and should not vote for Obama or,
for that matter, anybody.

However, there's a more likely, and less suicidal, interpretation of
the "different kind of politics" Obama has practiced. First, he
uses a more elevated, professorial, and less demagogic brand of
rhetoric than most politicians. Second, Obama believes in the
necessity of mobilizing his supporters as a counterweight against
the power of organized special interests. This belief flows from
his background as a community organizer, and requires active and
continued participation from his supporters.

But, yes, he's just a politician--which is to say, he's willing to
make some compromises to win. And, if Obama doesn't win, the
Democrats will find a new nominee in four years--a shameless
flip-flopper, no doubt.

share this article on facebook or twitter print this article