The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Conciliation
That sound you are not hearing is the roar of conservative activist groups enraged at the progressive in the White House. Other than a few buffoons like Limbaugh, right wing activists are demoralized, without a target to hit at.
The Globe
The arrival of a big-city liberal president backed by Democratic majorities in Congress should have given single-issue conservative interest groups concerned with guns, abortion, and religion a lot of new material. Yet only four months after taking office, Obama appears to have already fulfilled one of the murkiest pledges of his candidacy: to declare a cease-fire in the culture wars.
Rich Lowry is despondent that the new President is not waving the red flag at the conservative bulls:
Rhetorically, he is in the middle of any debate, perpetually surrounded by finger-pointing extremists who can’t get over their reflexive combativeness and ideological fixations to acknowledge his surpassing thoughtfulness and grace.
This is how Obama, whose position on abortion is indistinguishable from NARAL’s, can speechify on abortion at Notre Dame and come away sounding like a pitch-perfect centrist. It’s natural, then, that his speech at the National Archives on national security should superficially sound soothing, reasonable, and even a little put-upon (oh, what President Obama has to endure from all those finger-pointing extremists).
Many liberals also seem angry that Obama is not being more provocative. But that was Obama’s style all along.
Listen to him explain patiently to Rachel Maddow what works in politics, back in 2008. At about 1:40 in the following clip:
Tell you what though, Rachel, you notice, I think we are winning right now. So, maybe I am doing something right.
There it is. Activists get exercised over Obama’s speech on detentions; for signing a bill on credit card debt that also allows concealed weapons in National Parks; not ordering immediate prosecution of torturers and their overseers. But Obama has always had a consistent strategy to deal with his opponents. He smiles a lot. He co-opts their language. He allows that there might be some reason even in some of their extreme positions.He defuses their anger.
But anger is all that extremists in politics have going for them. Without it, when reason is applied, most of their positions look ridiculous. This allows Obama to be, as Lowry puts it, “President Above It All”. It allows him to actually do something about the problems the country faces instead of wasting energy on culture wars.
When Obama won the election, the Republican Party got 45.7% of the popular vote. Now barely 25% identify themselves as Republican. How did this happen? By not enraging the activists among his opponents he reduces their participation. By appearing moderate, he encourages moderate opponents to switch sides. Potential enemies can be enticed with plum positions they always dreamed about, like Ambassadorship to China in the case of Gov. Huntsman. The irreducible few opponents that remain are then marginalized. They become targets of ridicule.
It is important for this strategy to work that Obama is criticized by his own vocal supporters. They must be riled up just enough that Obama appear to be in the center, but not so much that they will organize against him.Ideologues on the left speak as if Obama is betraying some left wing cause of which he was the standard bearer. “We brung you to this dance”, they seem to be saying, “and now you are dancing with Bush instead of us”.
The truth is, Obama came to the dance on his own. He went out of his way to diss the DLC when it tried to co-opt him early in his career. During the primary campaign, he fought for months against the Clinton political machine. At first they ignored him, then they attacked him, then they tried to buy him off with an offer of the VP slot. Obama laughed off that last one, telling his supporters that they are being hood-winked.As soon as he got the nomination, he made peace with his Democratic opponents. To the dismay of some of his supporters, he appointed them to senior positions from which he can fire them if they do not do his bidding.
Now that he is in the White House he is being conciliatory to his Republican opponents. Obama is getting most of his agenda through. But he allows the opposition symbolic victories on issues that matter to very few people, when those few are very vocal about it. Such as the concealed gun permit in the National Parks. Millions need credit card reform, a few hundred at most care about some idiot who thinks he is Will Rogers during his weekend getaway.
Liberal commentators got all angry at Obama during the primary over his vote for the FISA bill. Glenn Greenwald hit the roof. But that vote took the issue off the table during the Presidential campaign. Obama knew that once he wins the Presidency, he would set the policy on wiretapping. Besides, why limit his options as President? Behind that dazzling smile, Obama is a calculating and ruthless politician. The Bush expansion of Presidential powers suits Obama’s current interests just fine. Oppose him if you must, but know what you are up against.
Now Greenwald and Maddow are upset about Obama wanting to detain a small number of POWs without trial. Surely these people are aware that in all wars, there are prisoners? Taking prisoners in a war is not illegal. Prisoners of War do not need to be convicted of anything. They are not being punished for any offense. They are simply being removed from the theater of war, so that their cause can be defeated. Which is why they should be treated humanely. Why they should be represented by lawyers, and international organizations allowed to inspect the facilities.
A crime is committed when they are abused. Torture of prisoners is so serious a crime under American law that it can carry even the death penalty. Such crimes should be investigated and the miscreants prosecuted. But there is simply no law against holding Prisoners of War without a trial. In every war since antiquity enemy combatants have been taken prisoner. Confusing them with criminals is an obfuscation by idealogues on the left who need a cause, any cause, to get angry about.
If you are still angry, remember what Obama told Rachel:
….we are winning right now. So, maybe I am doing something right.
Note
Does the Geneva Convention put a time limit on how long a POW can be detained? It only says that
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities
Read the passage in its context here
That is all Obama is proposing. There is no violation of the constitution or any law here.
Either Glennwald and Maddow are intentionally obfuscating the difference between POWs and criminals, or they are misinformed. The GC does not require a formal declaration of war. Nor that the combatants wear a uniform. Nor that the hostilities be against a country. Prisoners have rights. But they can be held as long as hostilities have not ceased.
That Obama acknowledges that there is a legal issue here is to his credit. It means he does not take the decision to detain anyone lightly. And you can argue the wisdom of the war we are fighting. But the fact is, the GC is legally binding on the US and it allows POWs to be detained as long as hostilities have not ceased.
Please subscribe to our RSS feed!
