What Would Obama Die For?

By David Paul Kuhn
Friday, July 18, 2008

Since securing the Democratic Party's nomination in June, Barack Obama has been busy redefining himself.

He has come out for a government surveillance bill he once opposed. He's expressed support for funding religious programs with tax dollars. He reversed his stance on accepting public financing. He reversed his view of the D.C. gun ban. And he hinted that he will "refine" his position on Iraq, only to push back against himself this week and reiterate his Iraq withdrawal plan.

Mr. Obama's position shifts are clumsy and ill-timed. He has built his franchise on the concept that he is a new kind of politician. But of late, he has become the reincarnation of Clintonian triangulation.

That does not mean his repositioning is wholly foolish. The timing is foolish. At some point the most liberal Democratic nominee since at least 1984 had to consider the center. Too bad for Mr. Obama that he waited until it appeared politically expedient.

Mr. Obama's moves may test his base as much as the candidate himself. Recall Hubert Humphrey, a pioneer on civil rights in 1948. Two decades later, Humphrey would not repudiate Lyndon Johnson. Humphrey's past liberal stances were forgotten. To some liberals he was on the wrong side of Vietnam, so many in the antiwar base called him no liberal at all. Today's antiwar Democratic base will have to decide how much slack it can offer Mr. Obama when he returns from Iraq.

Mr. Obama would have been braver and shrewder if he shifted to the center on some issues months ago. As early as mid-February he had the electoral math to assure the nomination. He could have then taken one big and bold stance that would have irked and even infuriated some liberals. If he had done so, he would have remained politically alive, offered evidence he was larger than liberalism and thus improved his general election positioning. He would also look brave. After all, despite John McCain's shifts on issues like taxes, Mr. Obama has long known he would face the man who built his franchise on grit.

Yet Democrats are not pragmatic these days. About one in 10 Democratic primary voters said that the quality that mattered most to them was that their candidate "has the best chance to win in November."

For the general election some pragmatism, not at the sacrifice of principle, is a prerequisite. Since the massive Democratic year of 2006 there have been clues for Mr. Obama that rural, exurban, or red America had not suddenly fallen in love with the Democrats' left wing as much as out of love with George W. Bush's Republicanism – and at some point Mr. Obama would be compelled to break with liberalism to expand the electoral map.

There was much ado about the May special election victories of Democratic Reps. Don Cazayoux in Louisiana and Travis Childers in Mississippi. Both ran in districts Republicans had held for decades. The political class viewed their victories as harbingers of the ascendant Democratic Party. Less noticed was that both candidates ran as conservatives on cultural issues, opposing legalized abortion and gun-control measures. Mr. Cazayoux backed Mr. Obama but ran as a "John Breaux' Democrat." Mr. Childers has not endorsed Mr. Obama.

These Democratic wins were akin to the Senate victories in 2006 by Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania and John Tester in Montana. Both men broke with the party's platform to make inroads with base-Republican voters – white men, for example.

The Obama campaign seems only superficially in touch with the lessons of these victories. Last month Mr. Obama skipped the Democratic Leadership Council's annual gathering, though it was held a block from his national headquarters in Chicago. It was the DLC that made Bill Clinton. While no group perfectly represents moderate or Blue Dog Democrats, Mr. Obama's no-show could easily be seen as a brash statement that he is not substantively concerned with moderate or conservative Democratic ideas or their voters.

Now Mr. Obama is acting the centrist. But by coming this late in the process, his shift appears to be purely political. Democrats like Messrs. Casey, Tester, Cazayoux and Childers have moderate biographies because they have both conservative and liberal beliefs. They have stances to testify to those beliefs.

We're just getting to know Mr. Obama. Perhaps, he needs to better know himself.

A couple years ago Norman Mailer and I were talking about character and Democratic troubles with men. Exit polling shows more white men than women and minorities vote on character. "The one trouble with [Mr.] Clinton," Mailer said, "You could say there was not a single political idea he was willing to die for."

Mr. Obama has to stand firm for controversial beliefs. He also must heed the center. The two only conflict when the stance repudiates the politician. Mr. Obama needs a bold stand that will not contradict his past, but appear to be an outgrowth of it.

Today, however, Mr. Obama seems to be moving toward Mr. Clinton's center while moving away from his core self. Who is this new Mr. Obama? If he does not answer that question, Republicans will.