Obama's cult of personality

As I flipped through the current issue of Harper's Weekly a few days ago, I was surprised to find a front page story expressly debunking the myth that Barack Obama can do no wrong. Progressives love Obama. His celebrity is unquestioned. For many-young activists, lefty bloggers, Oprah-he is the golden boy who will save America with his charisma, intellect and proven commitments to social justice.

I witnessed a typical exchange about the senator during class just earlier this week. A professor professed (as they tend to do) dismay at the unlikelihood of a black politician winning the American presidency anytime soon. A student interjected a name-"Barack Obama!"- and others nodded enthusiastically. The professor swooned, "Oh, if only...he's just wonderful."

I can personally attest to the effects Obama's presence has on a crowd. At a reproductive rights fundraiser given a few months after his senatorial win, his address sent some of the most serious grey-haired politicos into paroxysms of schoolgirl delight. The most cynical types-public interest lawyers, public health employees-listened to his speech with wet eyes, hands clasped in front of their chests. They looked, well, exceedingly hopeful. I had just re-read his famous speech at the Democratic National Convention, and besides finding him terribly attractive, was still flying high off his ideas. As he began to leave the stage, my friend turned to me, and with groupie glee whispered, "Come on-let's follow him. We've got to go talk to him."

But here's the rub, ya'll: a politician is a politician is a politician. Obama is no activist wildcard. His political career is being carefully calibrated and oiled to Washington standards by a staff that looks to the Clinton legacy for inspiration. Consider, for example, his position on Iraq. Hilary Clinton is widely derided by an increasing anti-war majority for her refusal to demand a timetable for pulling troops. Obama has followed this centrist stance to a tee. This is disappointing, considering his outspoken speech from a Chicago anti-war rally in 2002, quoted in Harper's, where he opposed members of an administration that would "shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the cost in lives lost and in hardships borne."

My first disappointment with Obama was around the time that Democrats hoisted Bob Casey, Jr.-a democrat who opposes gun control, Roe v. Wade, abolition of the death penalty and supported the nominations of the conservative Alito and Roberts-up to run against the (admittedly far worse) Republican Rick Santorum for the U.S. Senate. Instead of questioning the wisdom in supporting candidates who depart so strongly from the party's platform, both he and Senator Durbin co-chaired a fundraiser for him. Around the same time, Obama threw his support behind the ultimate joke of a Democrat, the conservative and pro-war Joe Lieberman, who mentored Obama in his first few months in the Senate. He actually supported Lieberman over Ned Lamont, an anti-war activist and the preferred candidate by those who tend to fawn over Obama.

Senator Obama has offered a response to those who criticize his broad compromises with Republicans and his alignment with the most moderate Democrats. In the Harper's interview, he defends his position, saying "...a polarized electorate plays to the advantage of those who want to dismantle government....Progressives have a harder job. They need a big enough majority to initiate bold proposals."

The question is, of course, whether Obama can really expect anything but a polarized electorate with the extreme positions now given both voice and power in the United States. And what, exactly, is his ultimate plan? The senator has always dismissed the idea that he would depart from his six-year commitment to follow any presidential aspirations. So, why is he hedging his bets? What's the worth in passing bills that get a bit of support from the Republican-controlled Congress but fail to follow through on his promise of invigorating progressive politics?

A commitment to justice is often not compatible with a consequentialist philosophy. Obama's legislation is, as he says, "more modest in its goals than it would be if I were in the majority party," but will move him up in rank, winning respect from lobbyists and financial backers who support moderates. This will, perhaps, offer him the chance to do more good in the end. It will also require sacrificing principle along the way.

Obama clearly understands that to succeed within the increasingly right-leaning Democratic Party, he must continue to offer inspirational speeches, but vote with caution and attention to prevailing trends in the conservative Congress. Those that look to Obama as the next great hope should be similarly committed to caution and attention, putting pressure on the senator to fulfill his hype.