Jacob Weisberg has offered an early, tentative assessment of Barack Obama as president. The first “theme” he isolates is that Obama “sees the middle ground as the high ground.”
Candidates who talk about bringing people together or changing the tone in Washington are usually blowing happy smoke. But Obama’s focus on reconciliation is clearly more than shtik. We saw this impulse at work when he made preemptive concessions on his stimulus package in an effort to win Republican support. We saw it when, at the G20 summit, he personally brokered a compromise between the French and Chinese presidents over international tax havens. Every few days, Obama tries for a “new beginning”—with Iran, Cuba, the Muslim world, Paul Krugman. Engaging with opponents animates him more than hanging with friends.
This is a wonderful instinct that is bettering America’s image and making domestic politics more civil. But listening, and seeking compromise, is not a moral stance. Elevating it to one merely highlights the question of what Obama really stands for. The consensus-seeker repudiates torture but doesn’t want to investigate it; he endorses gay equality but not in marriage or the military; he thinks government’s role is to do whatever works. I continue to suspect him of harboring deeper convictions.
Don’t we all. Take the torture issue. I’d like to think that, despite his public avowal that he has no intention of investigating, let alone prosecuting, those responsible for this stain on America’s conscience, Obama is quietly putting forces in motion to do just that. I assume the former law professor understands what it means when high-ranking government officials sanction activity that is clearly illegal, and also remembers he took an oath to uphold the constitution and laws of this country. But until we see some action, we would be entirely justified in thinking Obama is being true to his word, shrewdly calculating that, as long as his administration eschews torture, the public interest in investigating past abuses will fade with time.
My friend Thomas Nephew has been gathering information and commenting heavily on this issue. He eloquently expresses the misgivings many of us have about Obama’s approach—or, to all appearances, nonapproach—to all the transgressions committed in conducting the so-called war on terror (ignoring FISA and conducting warrantless wire- and wirelesstaps, denying habeas corpus at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere, subverting intelligence gathering and analysis, etc.), not just torture.
As Thomas points out, the president is the country’s chief law enforcement officer. “Yes, we can enforce the laws of the United States,” Obama seems to say. “But we won’t.” The president has said he wants to look forward, not back. But law enforcement is retrospective by nature. He needs to do his job. That’s the real high ground—not that mush in the “middle.”
When he does act, Obama seems intent on perpetuating the Bush-era cover-ups. For instance, after initially agreeing to release photos of torture at locations other than Abu Ghraib, which a judge had ordered in response to a FOIA request, Obama has backtracked and plans to block their release. Maybe this action is an ingenious “bargaining chip” in his relations with Republicans, the CIA, Rush Limbaugh—who knows? But for old times’ sake, Obama should reread his memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies on “Transparency and Open Government.” It’s really quite a fine piece of writing, like a beautiful dream my father once told me.
