Misreading Obama

Barack Obama has stated that those of us concerned (or upset, or infuriated) by his recent position shifts and actions have not been listening to him. That may be the case, but it takes two to communicate, and the senator’s statements do depend on his audience. The current flap over the candidate’s position on trade is a good case in point. While an upcoming article in Fortune magazine suggests that Obama has changed his mind on trade, the senator’s web site points out that he has always been a proponent of free trade, and that the article misrepresents his position. Additionally, the Huffington Post has published a critique of the Fortune interview that also highlights many of the senator’s positions on trade. So yes, Obama is not against free trade, he is against trade deals that don’t take workers’ rights and the environment into account.

Still, Obama wasn’t touting his free trade credentials prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries when he blasted Hillary Clinton for praising the North American Free Trade Agreement as one of her husband’s biggest successes. He, on the other hand, opposed NAFTA and always had. As he noted, “I don’t think NAFTA is good for America, and I never have”. Speaking in a state devastated by the effects of “free trade”, he must have known that the voting public might focus on his opposition to NAFTA, and not on his policy pronouncements on trade – policies he clearly enunciated to yet a different and somewhat less virulently anti-free-trade group of listeners at a meeting of the Alliance for American Manufacturing in April.

Obama expressed his strident opposition to NAFTA in trade-ravaged Ohio prior to the primary there, where economically devastated residents might equate his opposition to a particular trade pact with opposition to free trade in general. Was the public obtuse on trade, or was the senator exploiting vulnerabilities to gain votes. It certainly brings the Canadian Consulate flap into perspective.

On other issues, however, it is more difficult for the candidate to blame voters for misunderstanding him. Last October Obama was ready to filibuster the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act modernization bill that contained a provision immunizing the telecommunications companies that helped the Bush administration break the law from civil lawsuits. In February, prior to the “Potomac primaries”, Obama said:

“I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty.”

But now that Obama faces criticism from his Republican opponent on national security he has backtracked on his opposition to the legislation. His vote in favor of the FISA modernization bill handed immunity to yet another group of corporate lawbreakers, and legally sanctioned the ability of the current administration (and future ones as well) to spy on Americans. Calling the bill an imperfect compromise, he noted:

“Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.”

Clearly, whether on trade or illegal wiretapping, the candidate is trying to place himself in an advantageous political position. Senator Obama may be sincere in his determination to monitor, and as Russ Feingold has noted, correct, some of the more egregious aspects of the FISA legislation, but his vote has helped to legitimize yet another Bush administration illegal activity, and has denied aggrieved citizens their right to a day in court. Finally, should the Republican nominee prevail in November, we should expect no such close monitoring of executive power, especially as it pertains to the so-called war on terror.