Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:12:05 AM
We have a tendency as a society to place too much emphasis on what someone "really" believes, while ignoring actual deeds. It probably comes from our habit of trying to "understand" why people act the way they do, our habit of psychoanalyzing every act, but the cause really doesn't matter. What does matter is that this fascination with trying to read minds leads us often completely mistaken evaluations fo political figures.
Take, for example, Bill Clinton. Now Clinton, and his wife even more so, likely had very strong left wing beliefs.However, even before the 1994 Republican Revolution forced him to moderate his positions, Clinton was committed to a policy of triangulation. Whether he did it to ensure reelection, to maintain positive poll numbers, to ensure his party's victory in congressional elections, or just to ensure a positive legacy, it does not matter. What does matter is that, despite his overt statements, Clinton tended to rule from the center.
Yes, there were a number of leftward motions in his administration. His gutting of the military is the most obvious, as it has had the longest lasting and most disastrous consequences. But we must not forget, no matter how great the impact, that was really but a single act, and an aberrant one at that. Similarly, while Clinton did start a committee to look into national health care, it never really left the investigatory stage. As far as actual acts go, Clinton's presidency was remarkably centrist, not too different, if we are honest, from the present administration.
Yet, because Clinton was so fond of proclaiming his left leaning views, that image is the one that remains.Not only conservatives, but even some on the left, continue to remember an administration far to the left of the one that actually existed. In other words, the trappings of the administration, their statements, and a handful of truly left leaning policy decisions leave everyone with memories of an administration that did not exist.
Which brings me to our current Democrat nominees, specifically Obama. Obama's supporters are in many ways like those recalling the Clinton administration. They have accepted Obama's characterization of himself as a uniter, an agent for change, and a new politicians, while ignoring his senate record of unbroken far left votes, or his history as a successful politician in Chicago, a city not noted for its easy acceptance of "new politicians".
For the sake of argument, I will grant Obama's claims, I will believe that he really does see himself as a uniter, and that his involvement with all of these individuals on the political fringe was simply bad luck. But none of that changes what he has done. His record of solidly left wing voting shows a man who either was willing to vote the party or ideological line in order to advance himself or because he was weak willed enough that he could not resist pressures from his party. In either case, his record shows that he will likely never act on his belief in unity and rising above politics. If his past shows a man who votes the party line, there is no reason to believe he will break from it now, even if he says otherwise.
Yet I expect this will convince no one who already believes in Obama. As I said, we are a nation which believes in motives while ignoring history. His followers will continue to hear his claims while never once asking "then why didn't you act on those beliefs before now?" In fact, the question would never even occur to them. In their minds, he is committed to change, and that is all that matters. His record is meaningless, what he says is all that matters.