Idealism v. Pragmatism

If anyone is surprised by this, they shouldn’t be.  The Obama administration seems set to reactivate the military commission system for prosecuting suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.  From the NY Times:

Officials who work on the Guantánamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies.

The Obama administration will certainly strive to provide more legal protections than the commissions did under the Bush administration.  But, to me, the point is clear.  There are certain talking points that resonate with people when a candidate is in opposition.  A candidate prevails by identifying a common thread in a large portion of the populace and tapping into it to win votes.  But when the candidate becomes the President and the  repercussions of policy choice fall squarely on the new administration, things take on a new context.

President Obama criticized the use of military commissions as a candidate and made the prosecution of suspected terrorists in either civilian courts or courts-martial part of his platform.  Now, with the challenge on his shoulders, the President is beginning to see the utility in the policies he previously criticized.  As one official put it: “The more they look at it, the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on January 20th.”

This is in no way meant to pick on the Obama administration.  I would much rather the President change his position for the better than stick to a problematic policy.  But it’s interesting to notice how the idealism of a campaign morphs into the pragmatism of a presidency.