Sen. Barack Obama has made "change" the core of his bid for president, even calling for a new type of politics. Obama has stood a hard and fast rhetorical line against Washington lobbyists. This poses an important question; is it possible for a politician running for the highest office in the country to transcend modern politics and still have hope in November? Not a chance.
There are already signs that the nature of politics is forcing Obama to bend to political pressures and lobbyists.
Obama has been supporting a foreign policy that is open to unconditional negotiations with hostile nations and anti-American foreign leaders in hopes to bring about diplomatic solutions to international problems. He went so far in the CNN and YouTube debates to agree to meet with Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, without preconditions, in the first year of his presidency.
"Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to (the) Soviet Union. And the reason is, because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them," Obama said.
This stance showed signs of changing in Obama’s recent address to American Israel Public Affairs Committee, arguably one of the most powerful political lobbies in Washington. Obama said, "Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing – if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States."
Obama’s AIPAC address raises wider questions on other issues, one being the status of Jerusalem within the Middle East conflict. On May 5, Daniel Kurtzer, foreign policy advisor to Obama, said, "It will be impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table."
This stance was widely perceived as being reversed in Obama’s address to AIPAC, when he claimed that, for the security of Israel, there must be clearly-defined, defensible Israeli boarders. Obama also said, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." These statements created waves in Palestinian and moderate Israeli circles.
But this did not last long. Obama, during a June 6 interview with CNN, "clarified" that Jerusalem’s status will need to be negotiated in future peace talks.
The "altering" in policy continues. Obama pledged to Caucus4Priorities, a non-profit organization that aims to redirect defense spending to social programs, to cut spending on unproven missile defense systems. But at AIPAC, the tone was different, with Obama claiming both governments should engage in deeper cooperation on missile defense.
Obama is certainly walking a fine line between clarifying past statements to avoid criticism and the sticky label of a flip-flopper. What the AIPAC speech reveals is that Mr. Change himself is willing to change his tone, if not change his positions entirely, in order to ensure he gets the necessary support to do battle this November.
But can one really blame him? He is a politician and the nature of politics shows no sign of changing.
Gilson, a business sophomore, can be reached via [email protected].
