My previous column on Sen. Obama, D-Ill, started with a remark on the rhetorical wizard’s spell on the public. But fear not, for I recently came across a counter-spell, an article by Matt Gonzalez of Beyond Chron, an alternative news source in California. It is now clear to me Obama has been mislabeled as a progressive liberal candidate because he has historically flip-flopped on many critical issues.
Let’s examine Obama’s trademark stand on the Iraq war. He repeatedly mentions he was opposed to it from the start. His record in the Illinois legislature actually proves that. However, his opposition to the war flipped when he was running for Congress. In fact, he went on record saying, "There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute," according to the July 27, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune. At that time public support for the Iraq war happened to be at its peak. Clearly he was saying what the American people wanted to hear. Ideals and doing the right thing be damned.
Unlike Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Obama cannot claim to have made a naive mistake since he knew enough to be opposed to the war in the beginning. Today his position has flopped back to his previous stance because he is free riding the public-opinion wave against it. Furthermore, Gonzalez points out that the Illinois senator’s record in the Senate proves his anti-progressive streak: he has voted for every war appropriation bill and even voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Gonzalez hits the nail on the head when he says, "Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation."
Obama has created an illusion of himself as a champion of civil liberties and the middle class. And he has been successful since his supporters don’t see the reality of his history. He voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act in July 2005 and voted against legislation that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.
Does Obama really care for students who suffer from hawkish interest rates designed to enslave their future potential to greedy bankers?
And what about gay rights? BarackObama.com does not list it under civil rights. In fact, the topic is entirely missing from his list of issues. One would expect candidates for change to clarify their position on controversial issues, thereby showing moral courage that is woefully absent amongst common politicians.
In a way, Obama has done that by expressly refusing to have his picture taken with San Francisco’s pro-gay rights Mayor, Gavin Newsom. Former Mayor Willie Brown is quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle saying, "I gave a fundraiser, at (Obama’s) request at the Waterfront restaurant. And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn’t get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin." Since then, Newsom has endorsed Clinton as the Democratic nominee.
Yet many Obama fans will be voting for what they believe to be change since they view Clinton as a Washington insider – as part of the system.
They see Obama as a candidate for change simply because he is a fresh face in the dirty waters of franchised politics. Yet he traversed those waters just like every other politician, snaking his way through the torrents of power. Obama is a clever new face of the system, working for the system, constructed by the system.
In the end, there is no vote for change in the federal government. By understanding that fact, voters can correct their expectation and hence not be misled by the next rhetorical wizard that comes along. That would be real change.
Ahmad, a political science senior, can be reached via [email protected].
