*
The short answer is "no." One weakness of the Obama campaign has been its failure to pick battles to fight more judiciously. Hence, it floundered in responding to every provocation emanating from the Clinton camp. Perhaps he has learned a lesson. It is not a winning or worthwhile proposition to reject free trade as the potential president of a capitalist economy. As Claus Offe pointed out long ago, government policies that give an incentive to corporations to disinvest are self-defeating when one wants to simultaneously impact areas such as poverty or health care reform. On the Supreme Court's 2nd amendment decision, why stir the hornet's nest of the NRA needlessly. Let the sleeping lunatics lie. FISA is a bit tougher sell for me. However, as President, Obama can seek to use the powers it authorizes more judiciously; in other words, he can submit his own use of FISA to more oversight than Dick Cheney could stomach. Finally, on 'faith based initiatives,' this is very understandable: Obama's community organizing background undoubtedly brought him into contact with 'progressive' churches (such as the one he recently abandoned) which don't seek government funds only for the purpose of imposing evangelical morality on the people whom they help.
*
All of these moves are reasonable from a person who seeks to run a truly national campaign (not the typical presidential campaign that focuses on a few swing states to the neglect of all others). Obama is hunting on McCain's expected safe territory; finally, a Democrat is not simply conceding Red States and religious fundamentalists. If Obama can actually co-opt the Fundies (especially those under 30), he will have broken the stranglehold of the legacy of the Moral Majority, which would be an accomplishment equal to getting the USA out of Iraq in a timely manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment