Obama, FISA, and history

A lot of people in the Netroots are very upset that Senator Obama will apparently support the FISA "compromise."

The bill not only gives the Bush Administration everything it wants, but gives the phone companies immunity for doing it, which means they can't be forced to testify about the war crimes the Bush Administration perpetrated. So write people of goodwill like Jane Hamsher and Digby (right).

I think they're right on the merits. But...

The Netroots today finds itself in the same curious historical position as abolitionists did in 1860 and big government liberals did in 1932. We're on the cusp of being given power but because we've defined ourselves in stark opposition we're seen as extreme. There's nothing extreme today about being anti-slavery or for debt financing, but there was then. As a result Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt worked hard to define themselves as brakes against this radicalism.

They weren't. Not really. When push came to shove they delivered. But push did not come to shove before they were elected. It didn't come to shove until after their inaugurations.

The same was true, to a lesser degree, of McKinley and Nixon. McKinley didn't run as a progressive, and Nixon didn't run as a far-right extremist. They were made into these things by subsequent events, and had they run  overtly as what they turned out to be they wouldn't have gotten closer to the White House than I will. Or Digby, for that matter.

Instead of railing against their every disappointment with Barack Obama, the Netroots would be much better served, at this time, in laying out a detailed progressive agenda, in identifying academics and other experts who can turn that agenda into policy, and in seeing that these worthies are heard inside the Obama Administration. They will be needed, because the problems of our time will not bend to the "yea-but" ideals of the Clinton Era. They just won't.

Finding solutions to the problems of our time, making this election count for real change, means more than supporting a particular candidate or standing aloof from him on questions of policy. It means seeking solutions, building movements that will press those solutions, and making certain they're available when needed.

To use a sports metaphor, Barack Obama isn't going to start the progressive movement. He's going to start veterans that people feel comfortable with. But there will be progressives on his bench, a lot of them. If progressives are right on the merits, he's going to need to get them into the game. And if he has the wisdom I think he does, he's going to figure that out soon after next January 20.

The world the Democrats will inherit is going to be a lot worse than anyone imagines right now. We're talking about the American equivalent of a Mugabe Administration. There are evil, ruthless people in Washington. They will not go quietly. And if we're to succeed in turning this nation around progressives are going to have to become a much more powerful, disciplined policy force than we are now, no matter how powerful we think we are.

Don't let perfection become the enemy of the good. That's the lesson of history. It's the lesson of every American crisis before this. It's the first principle. Violate it and no matter how pure your motivation later generations will not forgive you.

Comments

[drinkof]

Well stated.

The Netroots need to start to methodically select, then support, solid primary challengers to Bush-style democrats, as soon as this election cycle is over. That will have an immediate effect on their behavior, and there are many districts where an outstanding candidate can actually push out a Bush enabler over time.

2010 will also be a time when we won't be faced with an 'oh my God, all D incumbents have to be protected!' mantra, as the majority will probably be safe. We can afford good, solid primary runs against the worst of them.

[al-Scooter]

The last step in every con job is a function called "cooling the mark". Its purpose is to discourage the victim from taking action by calling the police or seeking restitution more directly. Heckuva job, Dana.

[Doug Lain]

What you say might be true if people were pushing for something new, however what we are pushing for is that the current constitution be upheld. This is, in fact, the job description of the President and the Congress.
When did upholding the constitution become radical?

[Zane Safrit]

You write well. You write convincingly. But the last sentence of the last commenter says it all

"When did upholding the constitution become radical?"

I'd add "When did it become acceptable to compromise our Constitution?"

Or "Why's my constitutional right to protection against illegal searches a campaign throwaway...by the same guy who promised to filibuster against that very thing?"

I think we're far down a slippery slope already.