REPLIES TO THE CURRENT QUESTION

Our question last week was:

Why do you think Mr. Obama has chosen a relatively centrist national-security team, rather than a decidedly liberal team?

Here are your answers.  The name of a writer is included only if he or she actually placed a name at the end of the message.  Otherwise, we assume the writer wished anonymity and "name withheld" is inserted.

President elect Obama is not sailing so hard to port, now is he?  Wonder why?  
 
I suggest one think of Alexander the Great, or perhaps Chaka Khan the Zulu warrior chief as two examples of men who wanted to lead…and were determined to claw their way to the top of leadership and control so they could give us…and lead us to their vision of the world!
 
They assembled “true believer” followers (see Eric Hoffer for a super definition of this type) and others who could and would maintain power for the “chosen” one.  Also, if they showed any deviation from what the “gifted” one wanted, away they went into the dark, quiet fields of death!  
 
If we could call up the mind of Sigmund Freud to have some chats with Obama, don’t you think we’d get a much more complete picture of who this man really is?  I certainly think so.  But there are enough clues to point us all in the direction of where he intends to go and govern.
 
John Stuart Mill warned us decades ago on surrendering to government those components of a society that should never be controlled by this group, and foretold the disasters that would befall a society if such were to occur.  History is rich with such misgiven choices.
 
The biggest snake Obama has working for him is Tom Daschle…for healthcare.  If Clinton is picked, then for sure we will witness backroom games or the conclusions of such games sooner, rather than later.
 
Wait till Obama has to use American muscle, our troops killing others, to get a real sense of who he is.  This former community organizer now commands thousands to march into the arms of death…that’s real power folks!
 
It’s one thing to want something, it’s another to do something when you’ve won your dream and reality calls for action.
 
Narcissists are real trouble, always have been.  I don’t trust the man, he can’t seem to quit smoking!
 
R. Philips
Corrales, NM

To the point, when Hillary is held up as an example of "centrist" anything there is something amiss.  As a staunch conservative who in my younger days felt that Barry Goldwater was pretty liberal, I have drifted toward the "center" of the political spectrum as reality has chipped away at my staunchness.  My center and the "center" as implied in this question still seem to be polar opposites.  Viewing the political spectrum as a continuum from the far left to far right is a convenient device for labeling different political views.  It is fairly easy to identify the extremes in that continuum and it provides an easy label for politicians to identify those whose views are radically different than their own.  

There is a real problem, though in extending the analogy/metaphor to the middle of the line where most of us reside with more nuanced variations in our views.  Where exactly is the "center"?  In honesty, every person has their own view of its location.  It is easy for me to say that I am "right of center" on most issues.  How far right I am, though requires a clear definition of the term as it relates to the previously identified continuum.  In the current question, I assume that the term "centrist" simply means a team whose views are more conservative than those espoused by Mr. Obama during the campaign.  Since his "Kumbaya", "We are the World" campaign rhetoric sounded more like a Pete Seeger hootenanny than a serious foreign policy agenda, almost anyone could be viewed as a "centrist".  

We can't allow the Left to continue to surreptitiously shift the point that is truly the center of our democratic political process further to the left on the continuum.  If we do, before we know it we'll be talking about Hillary as a conservative and President-in-waiting Obama as a Moderate.  We can then all call ourselves by our new name, "Socialists."

Don Newell

I think in short, he wants two terms. I also think, and I am quite cynical here, that he thinks he can resurrect the economy of the Clinton era. The only difference: Clinton did little to change what was already an inherited booming economy. Obama has not inherited such an economy. So in four years, the Republican majority in Congress from 2010, will respond with another contract with America, and Obama will look like a hero. Democrats had a chance to keep our economy strong but cannot resist the partisanship required for DNC leadership. Hence, they destroyed Bush and our economy so 'W' wouldn't look good. I realize I am examining motives, an iffy practice, but "Not on my watch" is spoken much in dark Washington beer joints-and it isn't always an heroic statement.

Also, If you are rich, you know what really works economically. Or at least you have some idea. And perhaps Obama really is trying to do what is best for the nation. It could be that the left didn't know Obama any better than the anyone else did. And, I think the political picture in the U.S. has changed dramatically. During the campaign the median age voter was 22. Now that business has to be conducted, the 22 year olds have gone back to their video games and the adults are starting to have an impact. Bush is still in office though. I think January 21st will begin the real test of how centrist everybody is.

Michael A Smith
Seattle

• Is Mr. Obama a liberal?  Probably, but who knows?  He attended a radical, racist, anti-semitic church for 20 years; dropped out when the political heat was too intense; has not attended church since his election.  So, while his voting record is extremely liberal, there is pronounced lack of exhibited core values. One might even say he's a calculating cynic.
  
  
• He reads the polls.  He knows that despite his convincing victory, the electorate was punishing the Republicans more than embracing the liberal agenda.  This is still a centrist nation, albeit one that is somewhat less conservative now that economic times are a little harsher then they were 8 years ago.  The people don't want to be in Iraq but they they want victory more.
  
  
• Campaigning is different from governing.  Obama wants a second term.  If he governs in the center, he'll get it.  Move too far left too fast and he's toast in 2012.  He knows that.
  

Generally, conservatives are fools.  We give a sigh of relief because he's not appointing Bill Ayers SecDef or John Kerry SecState, but the leftist agenda is still in place.  Our freedoms are not going to be taken away all at once.  The liberal MO is to take a little bit away every time there is a crisis so that over time our freedom is eroded and most people won't notice until it's too late.

Alan Weick

This really intrigued me at first until someone pointed out that perhaps what was happening was that Obama was looking further down the road towards his second term in office.  If he governs from the center during his first term, he can set in motion his re-election with a large mandate in 2012 and will then use that to implement the programs he has sketched out – such as universal health care, etc.  Along that line – if he has a conservative foreign policy, then he can offset that with a more liberal domestic team (witness former Senator Daschle as head of HHS).
 
Robert Bush

I don't know, but I suspect it is due to at least some of the following:

1. Those top secret intelligence briefings he has been getting since he became President-elect Obama.

2.  The fact that he has either no, or very loosely held core values about governing, and few he is willing to hold to, if holding to them will make difficulties for him.  His "loyalty" to his centrist stars, should they fail him, will be as short-lived as his pandering to his far-left supporters during the recent election.

3.  His woeful lack of experience in government, accompanied by his desire not to fail or look bad (assisted by remarkable acting ability - he has a career in Hollywood waiting for him, should he fail in his role as President).

4.  He also has very little idea who's who, and/or what to do, and is very comfortable getting serious, experienced people to do it for him.

Mary Grodnik

I don't really know the answer, but I want to believe he takes
national security seriously and is building a sound team that will
serve him and the nation well.

Francis Drouillard
Novato, CA