[Peace-discuss] Framing Obama

[Stuart Levy]

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 05:26:14PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> In the absence of an accurate analysis, the best will in the world can do the
> right thing only by accident. If I give first aid for drowning to someone
> suffering from burns, I probably won't be much help.  The goal of the brief
> news summaries that I've offered the AWARE meeting for the past half-dozen
> years has been to understand how and why the massive killing that we
> Americans have perpetrated has come about, in order to counter it.  Some
> effort toward that goal has seemed necessary because we all of us hear about
> the world through the filter of a huge industry devoted purposely to
> misrepresenting crucial political matters.
> 
> For the past two years or so one important question has been the real
> position of Barack Obama. Was he in fact an anti-war candidate?  The answer
> is now obvious, as he calls for an expanded military, more US and NATO troops
> for Afghanistan, and attacks on Pakistan, but it hasn't always been so.  Many
> good-hearted peace people, hoping against hope (to paraphrase the apostle),
> believed that he might become ‘the father of peace for many nations’ ... but
> he adopted only the motif.

Yes, as you've well pointed out, Obama can't call himself an anti-war candidate now.
But only a couple of years ago he was taking some real anti-war positions.
And more recently, for a while, Hillary and Obama even seemed to be
competing as to who would take the clearer antiwar stance.  Not so now.

The question of framing seems to be, How do we see this change?
Do we consider that the candidate is progressively revealing his intrinsic,
unalterable nature, which was previously kept hidden -- perhaps to gain
the support of (now disappointed) Progressives, without whose help he wouldn't
now be the Dem. nominee?

Or do we see the changes in Obama (and for that matter, in McCain)
as showing that their opinions are subject to change -- whether for
chasing political opportunity (hoping to please voters in general) or
political opportunity again (seeking support of the wealthy, which would
gain them more favorable news coverage), or personal persuasion, or what?

It makes a big difference, of course, whether changes reveal hidden facts
or reflect influence.    Because if candidates can be influenced,
we in the peace movement can help inflence them.  And if they can be
influenced and we do not push them, our opponents will still keep pulling
them to the right, and we'll be even more disappointed.

Here's a quote from a recent Naomi Klein article in The Nation,

     New Orleans: The City That Won't Be Ignored
     http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080922/klein
  (also at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/05 )

  [...]

    The problem is that by remaining virtually silent about the most dramatic
    domestic outrage in modern US history, Obama created a political vacuum. When
    Gustav hit, all McCain needed to do to fill it was show up. Sure, it was
    cynical for McCain to claim the hurricane zone as a campaign backdrop. But it
    was Obama who left that potent terrain as vacant as a lot in the Lower Ninth
    Ward.

    Until now, Obama's supporters have largely accepted the campaign's assessment
    of the compromises necessary to win, offering only gentle prodding. The fact
    that the Republicans have managed to turn New Orleans to their advantage should
    put a decisive end to this blind obedience.

    Republicans have a better attitude toward their candidate. When they don't like
    McCain's positions, they simply change them. Take the hottest-button issue of
    the campaign: offshore oil drilling. Just four months ago, it was not even on
    the radar. During the Republican primary, the issue barely came up, and when it
    did, McCain did not support it. None of this bothered former House Speaker Newt
    Gingrich and his newly minted American Solutions for Winning the Future.
    Gingrich waited patiently for what his party loves most: a crisis. It arrived
    in May, when oil approached $130 a barrel.

   [...]