Obama, The Democratic Party, and the "Move to the Center" Problem

Glenn Greenwald takes the Obama campaign and the Democratic party in general to task for clinging to the view, despite all the recent evidence to the contrary, that Democrats need to "move to the center" (i.e. move closer to the Bush/Cheney position) on terrorism and national security-related issues in order to prevail in November. He writes:

In the 2006 midterm election, Karl Rove repeatedly made clear that the GOP strategy rested on making two National Security issues front and center in the midterm campaign: Democrats' opposition to warrantless eavesdropping and their opposition to "enhanced interrogation techniques" against Terrorists. Not only did the Democrats swat away those tactics, taking away control of both houses of Congress in 2006, but more unusually, not a single Democratic incumbent in either the House or Senate -- not one -- lost an election.

With Rove's National Security, Terrorist-fear-mongering campaign, huge numbers of GOP incumbents were removed from office and replaced with Democratic newcomers. Voters were simply impervious to claims that Democrats should be denied power because their opposition to eavesdropping and torture made them Soft on Terror. Earlier this year, Bill Foster made opposition to the Iraq War a centerpiece of his campaign -- and emphatically opposed both warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity -- and then won a special election to replace Denny Hastert in his bright red Illinois district.

He continues:

So what, then, is the basis for the almost-unanimously held Beltway conventional view that Democrats generally, and Barack Obama particularly, will be politically endangered unless they adopt the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and National Security, which -- for some reason -- is called "moving to the Center"? There doesn't appear to be any basis for that view. It's just an unexamined relic from past times, the immovable, uncritical assumption of Beltway strategists and pundits who can't accept that it isn't 1972 anymore -- or even 2002.

Beyond its obsolescence, this "move-to-the-center" cliché ignores the extraordinary political climate prevailing in this country, in which more than 8 out of 10 Americans believe the Government is fundamentally on the wrong track and the current President is one of the most unpopular in American history, if not the most unpopular. The very idea that Bush/Cheney policies are the "center," or that one must move towards their approach in order to succeed, ignores the extreme shifts in public opinion generally regarding how our country has been governed over the last seven years.

I agree with all of this, but I think there's an element to the political equation that's missing here. I agree with Glenn that there is no reason the Democratic party should, in the current climate, feel the need to align its security policies more closely with the current administration. Indeed, if the Democrats were to stand up and run in full-throated opposition to the current policies, they'd probably do quite well in November.

I'm not sure the same thing is true of individual Democrats, however, particularly those running for national office. For instance, while I'm not going to defend Obama's capitulation on FISA, I think it nevertheless is true that he is in a very difficult position politically and that opposing the bill might well hurt him in November. But the reason it might hurt him has nothing to do with the substantive merits of the bill or public opinion on issues like FISA reform and telecom immunity. The reason it might hurt him is because his party wouldn't have his back. With over two thirds of the members of his own party prepared to vote in favor of the bill, he has no political cover. If he opposes the bill, the question posed to him by every reporter and debate moderator would be: if the bill was so bad, why did over 2/3rds of the members of your own party think it was necessary to keep America safe?

The problem that national Democratic candidates like Obama face is one of collective action. The Democratic party is, as Glenn points out, filled with politicians who believe that the only way to be taken seriously is to "move to the center," wherever that center happens to be on any given day. As a result, it is very hard for a national Democrat to take a stand on any significant issue without looking like a fringe figure or someone far to the left of even his own party. Obama is already (thanks to the National Journal's widely-cited "analysis") described as the "most liberal Senator in the country." Were he to oppose a national security bill that is supported by 85% of the Senate, Republicans would likely be able to use that against him fairly effectively this fall.

Again, I say this not to defend Obama's capitulation, but to point out that his actions are not as politically irrational as Glenn's analysis would at first suggest. To put it another way, so long as Democrats in Congress continue en masse to seek out the mythical political center, national Democratic candidates must choose to do the same or risk looking completely out of touch with even their own party.

Now some will argue that Obama, as the new de facto leader of the Democratic party, has the ability to change the political calculus by convincing Democrats to hold firm and oppose bills like this. That's true to some extent. But it only goes so far. If Obama was an incumbent president, he might have a little more sway over individual members of Congress, but as of now, his powers of persuasion are limited. If, for instance, he decided to throw his entire political weight behind killing the FISA bill, he might be able to do it, but there would probably be some significant breaking of the ranks, both among members of Congress and among the liberal pundit class.

The problem is, of course, that the Democratic party isn't very good at acting like a party. Republican members of Congress (and conservative pundits) are much less inclined to break ranks and seek to be seen as centrists. As a result, Republican candidates have a lot more political cover when it comes to national elections. They're not forced to rush to the center to avoid being seen as representing fringe views.

The Democrats need to learn to hold their ground as a group. If they don't, they'll continue to make it politically infeasible for their national candidates to stand up proudly and resolutely for Democratic positions.

All that said, I think Glenn is right about one more thing. Given the choice between sticking to a long held position (and thereby looking "too liberal") and clumsily changing positions to appear more "centrist," Obama and future Democratic presidential candidates should choose the former. Presidential contests are just as much about character as about issues, and Republicans have had great success over the years using candidates' changing positions to attack their character.