THERE are two ways of looking at the direction Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has taken since he effectively secured the Democratic nomination early last month. One is that he is doing what it takes to get elected, and his pandering to conservative causes probably means he has, in the interests of pragmatism, temporarily relegated the relatively progressive ideals he previously espoused, rather than abandoned them altogether.

 

This approach can be excused on the grounds that the goal of reaching the White House must take precedence over all else, because without that none of the principled idealism can do anyone any good. Besides, a shuffle towards the centre is a common post-primaries tactic among Democratic and Republican candidates alike.

 

The second way of looking at it, which has proved attractive on both ends of the political spectrum, is that Obama’s quest for the most powerful post in the world is based on little more than cynical self-interest, and he is able to effortlessly switch positions on a range of issues because firm principles  are alien to his nature. Hee is willing to do what it takes, and is liklely to exhibit the same tendencies if elected.

 

The extremes of this school of thought’s right-wing branch are inhabited by particularly outlandish theories and suspicions, such as that Obama is a closet Muslim (which to most religious nuts of the Christian variety and to numerous secular ignoramuses is synonymous with Islamic fundamentalist) or that, if elected, he is likely to enslave the white race. On the left, meanwhile, there is talk of disillusionment, which makes a little more sense – although, as Norman Solomon aptly pointed out on ZNet last week, “The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is not to have illusions in the first place.”

 

Of course, some of these illusions were cultivated by the candidate himself. It is not unusual for presidential candidates to portray themselves as Washington outsiders – and the fact that this tactic invariably pays dividends  is an indictment of the American political system, as it points towards an abiding popular distrust of activities on and around Capitol Hill. As a first-term African-American senator with a reasonably liberal record, Obama found it easier than most people to convince voters that he was cast in a different mould.

 

The realisation that he is essentially a politician like all others appears to have caused some disappointment. But then, had it been otherwise, chances are Hillary Clinton would have made mincemeat out of him early on in the primary season. He may be an exceptionally astute politician, one who is very good at the game he plays, but that does not change his profession. As such, he knows he cannot restrict himself to the traditional Democratic vote base, part of which does not favour him anyhow. He needs to capture a majority of the independents and, to boot, make inroads into Republican terrain.

 

John McCain, once portrayed without adequate cause as a maverick, has for months now been trying to repair the damage caused by his reputation, chiefly by shamelessly wooing the GOP’s right flank (which, from any reasonable vantage point, essentially means the far right). But many of the evangelicals whose electoral support has hugely benefited George W. Bush remain unconvinced about McCain’s credentials, and Obama has been keen to fill the void.

 

He has promised to expand Bush’s controversial faith-based initiatives, talked at length about submitting to Christ’s will (after pointing out that his Kenyan father was an atheist), and taken various other steps that could conceivably appease this constituency, apart from appealing more broadly to conservatives in general. Among the most egregious of these was his Senate vote in favour of a bill that retrospectively indemnifies telecoms for collaborating with the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance of US citizens. He has also flirted with illiberal positions on issues ranging from gun control to the death penalty and fair trade.

 

Obama generally chooses his words carefully and tends to leave himself with wriggle room. He insists that his statement about refining his stance on Iraq after consultations with military leaders does not affect his determination to complete a withdrawal within 16 months. But there is talk, at the same time, of leaving some contingents in place, for training purposes and the like – generally a euphemism for permanent military bases.

 

Afghanistan continues to be seen as a war worth fighting, despite progressively more disastrous outcomes over nearly seven years. And the concept of dialogue with Iran has increasingly been replaced by robust rhetoric of a militarist variety. Besides, the customary kowtowing to the Israel lobby and the Cuban exiles in Miami has been attended to with no discernible attempt at nuanced enlightenment.

 

Earlier in the campaign, Obama made quite an impression by suggesting that he was determined to end not only the war in Iraq but also the mindset that leads the US into such wars. One can only hope that some vestiges of that potentially groundbreaking approach will accompany him into the White House next January.

 

The Obama campaign’s strategy appears to be based on the assumption that efforts should be concentrated on winning over conservatives, as progressive Americans will vote for him anyway, given that they have nowhere else to go (barring the handful who might opt for Ralph Nader). There is a certain logic in this approach, but also a degree of risk. The balancing act is difficult to sustain and if too many disenchanted liberals begin to feel that he isn’t really worth voting for, the consequence may well be a continuation of the Bush presidency under a different name, which would portend further disaster for the US and the world.

 

Concerns about Obama’s waywardness were underlined this month when the Reverend Jesse Jackson was overheard accusing him of talking down to blacks. In the heat of the moment, deploying a crudely nutty figure of speech, the civil rights veteran said that he would like to castrate the candidate – and spent the next day profusely apologizing for his outburst, after being castigated by his own son, who happens to be a co-chairman of the Obama campaign.

 

On its own, the episode is unlikely to seriously diminish Obama’s appeal, and may even enhance it among a certain section of the electorate. But he needs to be careful. He may see little point in going down as a principled loser, but ending up as an unprincipled also-ran would be considerably worse. Meanwhile, in the event of finding himself alone with Jackson, the candidate ought to keep his legs closely entwined. The rest of us should keep our fingers tightly crossed.

 

Email: [email protected]

---