Like Matt, I've been alternately irritated and bewildered by claims that Obama, now that he's elected, will not withdraw from Iraq or keep any number of other promises because actually governing as a liberal is untenable for [insert silly reason here].
This isn't to say that Obama is necessarily a reliably progressive voice, or even that he's particularly ideological, but he is fundamentally a liberal in public and private instinct. His pragmatism is enough to confuse the same people who thought that the thankfully short-lived Unity '08 movement was anything but a bunch of moderate liberal positions dressed up in David Broder drag. But you don't even need to agree with me that Obama is a liberal to think that Obama will follow through on his core campaign promises; it's just good politics. The only way for a politician to survive (electorally) a fundamental change in the policies that underwrite a campaign once he or she is in office is if the change happens in the context of a huge, perspective-shifting event, like, you guessed it, 9/11. Bush was able to change his foreign policy tune then, but he wasn't about to repeal the tax cuts he staked his campaign on.
This year, the economic crisis and the fundamentals of our national security situation have been constant throughout the most important part of the campaign season, the time when low-information voters are paying attention. Barring a huge change in the situation, Obama is going to work towards the policies he's promised, in spite of the horror of all the various "center-right nation" types who have convinced themselves that no reasonable person could support counter-cyclical spending during a recession or foreign policy based on our actual national interests.
--Tim Fernholz
