This from Fred Barnes (via Sullivan): "The tack to the middle has been mostly a fuzzy feint that didn't lock him into any new positions." Umm, yeah. Barnes says this like it's unchivalrous or something for Barack to have done, but I don't think Obama's done anything unfair. He's made some ingenious rhetorical feints that have made him appear to be more centrist without giving up anything. That's not unfair at all--it's called good politics.
Now, to be sure, this does bother a certain class of Democrat. Let's just say it's Paul Krugman. Krugman's a world-class economist, to be sure, but when he talks about politics he's so naive as to be practically unreadable, and his emphasis throughout the primaries was about being as combative as possible. With Krugman, it's all about partisanship instead of politics, and his desire toward combativeness is based primarily on a visceral loathing of Republicans rather than a deep commitment to liberalism. Not that I'm saying he's not got the latter as well, but I always wince when he complains about being mistaken for someone with Bush Derangement Syndrome. Mistaken?
But people like this don't really know much about politics. Let's look at this cynically. In politics, as in sports, the goal is to win. Not to beat the other team to a bloody pulp and annihilate their self-confidence. That's nice but not necessary. If it is possible to win with a message of conciliation--if that's the message that is the best suited to the election cycle--then that's what you play. Now, I don't believe Barack Obama is that cynical, but I do think he's the greatest intuitive presidential candidate since Richard Nixon. His message simply fits the times in which we find ourselves. Unity--especially after a divisive reign--is a powerful message. Maybe he'll deliver, maybe he won't, but it's a pretty darn smart thing to be saying. And that's why Obama's got a damn good chance of winning.
There will be plenty of bloodying-up of the Republicans this cycle, but the idea that the best way to win an election is by drawing sharp contrasts on every issue is a bad one because not everyone in this country is a hard-core liberal. People sense that Obama's a reasonable guy, and they sense he's liberal, and they still like him. So, in this way, Obama says something that makes people think he understands them. They hear it and say, he's not too bad, and overlook some of the policies they disagree with him on. In other words, people want to have their cake and eat it too. Which is not to say that Obama's policies are unpopular--just check the polling on the subject--but that the group who support his health care policy aren't the same as the group who support his environmental policies, and so on.
I guess this is all by way of saying that America is a nation of centrists. I don't think there's too much antipathy toward liberals these days, but Krugman's insulated world of center-left NYC elites causes him to extrapolate things that don't really hold in the real world.
