Tread Lightly on the Path of Least Resistance

Today’s visit to campus by both major presidential candidates provides an excellent opportunity to reflect on a summer of campaign activity. Liberals should be particularly troubled by Senator Obama’s various rightward policy shifts as he has transitioned from primary to general election candidate. These shifts are certainly nothing new—Senator Obama is simply the inheritor of a Democratic campaign strategy that has succeeded in promoting public indifference enough to cost the party the infinitely winnable 2000 and 2004 elections. This posturing is, however, remarkably stark when employed by a candidate whose hallmark is “the politics of change.”

Senator Obama pivoted on four policy issues in three weeks. First, he became the first general election candidate to opt out of the public financing system created in the wake of Watergate to limit the influence of special interests. Not only did this shift ignore a campaign promise to accept public funds, it also undermined the integrity of the public finance system. In defense of the decision, Senator Obama levied the argument that his backing is superior to public funding because his so-called “grassroots funding” serves to promote the interests of his diverse small donors. Never mind that under this finance “system,” the Obama campaign is relying on bundlers—prominently, those from the law, securities and investments, and real estate and entertainment industries—to raise a third of his projected $300 million campaign war chest and $180 million for the cost of the Democratic National Convention.

Next, Senator Obama weighed in on two high-profile Supreme Court decisions. First he positioned himself to the right of the conservative Roberts Court by disagreeing with its ruling against use of the death penalty for convicted child rapists. Two days later, he again altered his judicial philosophy, concurring with Justice Scalia’s 5-4 majority opinion that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, one of the areas of the country most maligned by violent crime. These statements were at odds with previous comments Senator Obama has made on the subjects, and also raise serious concerns about the issue with perhaps the highest stakes in the election—Supreme Court nominations.

Finally, immediately after the July 4 Senate recess, Senator Obama reneged on a campaign promise made before the Iowa caucuses to filibuster any Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill that included immunity for the telecommunications companies that forked over customers’ private information to the federal government without being served a warrant. This was the senator’s most disappointing capitulation during a very disappointing summer. He not only voted for a piece of legislation that undermines the rule of law and allows continued violations of civil liberties by sanctioning wiretapping with scant cause and no oversight, but he also provided cover for the dozens of timid Democrats—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi being the greatest culprit—who voted for the bill, hailing it as a victory in compromise.

Unquestionably, these developments have dulled my enthusiasm for Senator Obama’s candidacy. Nevertheless, I need not point out the vast range of issues at stake in this election to demonstrate the need for disenchanted liberals to not only vote but to actively campaign for Senator Obama. This election is vital, not because Democratic victory will prevent another four years of “McCain-Bush” policies, but because it will prevent 30 years of a Supreme Court benched by the bastard alter ego of the Warren Court. It will prevent another four years of inaction on the issue of Global Climate change. It will prevent engagement in additional wars with undefined timetables that Senator McCain’s bellicose rhetoric on Iran and Russia will surely bring about.

But I want to be a bona fide Obama supporter, not an Obama supporter for lack of better alternatives. As it stands now, Senator Obama is too fond of the path of least resistance for his policies to inspire in me the excitement that his speeches arouse. Say what you will about Senator McCain’s politics—and there is much to say, not much of it flattering—but he has never been a politician that adheres strictly to the path of least resistance. He has taken an unorthodox and risky path to the Republican nomination, and that is why he inspires so much admiration from Republicans and Democrats, despite his unpopular stances and regrettable campaign tactics.

To the activist community of Columbia University, let me say this: we have our work cut out for us. If Senator McCain is elected, our task is obvious. We must serve as a megaphone for public opinion so that the McCain administration does not get the false impression that a narrow victory translates into a mandate to govern from the far right. Under an Obama administration, the challenge is even greater. A path of mediocrity is only expedient if people fail to pave the path with obstacles. We must work to ensure that the perceived path of least resistance that Candidate Obama has tread during the general election is too politically treacherous for President Obama to venture. Presidents achieve greatness when they overcome great obstacles to produce progress. By loudly and convincingly speaking out against expedient but cowardly policy stances, activists can make bolder and greater initiatives more attractive to a pragmatic President. In the next two years at Columbia, I hope to join with campus activists to set a course that will enable Senator Obama to make the historical achievements that match the historic nature of his candidacy.

The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in political science and history. He was a lead activist for the College Democrats in 2007 and their Media Director from 2007-2008.