NOTE: This was done originally as a Guest Voice but I’m switching this to a more traditional post where I can give my take on a few of the points raised. The points raised are in Obama’s principles, his skepticism, his pragmatism, and his game plan cross-posted from the blog The Scribe. It is of special interest to many of TMV’s moderate readers who are interested in the concept of the need to compromise in some cases in order for American politics to work.
The bottom line issue: Is Barack Obama political confused? Does he cave? Is he a wuss? Did he mislead his base giving signals all along that he was really a liberal?
Some of these points were discussed in “The President’s game plan: The philosophy and strategy behind Barack Obama’s decisions”: A discussion on public radio’s “Radio Times,” at WHYY. The show featured Harvard history professor JAMES KLOPPENBERG and Salon.com news editor STEVE KORNACKI, who agreed that the President’s vision is taking the country in the right direction. And the host was Marty Moss Coane.
Here are a few of Kloppenberg’s key comments worth pondering:
What struck me in reading his books was how clear he was about the need to compromise in order to make progress. As a law student and later as a professor of law, he talked about American law as a nation arguing with its conscience. He’s aware that Americans have always disagreed deeply on fundamental principles. When you have that kind of disagreement the only way you can make any progress is to compromise with those with whom you disagree.
So Obama’s political style has been mapped out…LONG before he took office. More:
His analysis of the Constitution is really quite remarkable, though perhaps for someone who taught Constitutional law that shouldn’t surprise us as much. He emphasizes the necessity of people changing their minds at the Constitutional Convention in order to get the final document. If everyone had simply dug in his heels in Philadelphia, there never would have been agreement. James Madison, who’s often credited with having been the architect of the Constitution, admitted afterwards that he didn’t get the Constitution he wanted and he didn’t think anybody else did! … In his discussions of American history and politics in “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama examines again and again the ways in which America has changed over time.
So how to you label him (pundits just looooove labels)?
I think labeling him in any way shortchanges him. But I think he was influenced by the American tradition of philosophical pragmatism in the writings of people like William James and John Dewey around the turn of the 20th century. They were opposed to the idea that you could find in dogmatic statements of principles answers to the problems we face as humans. Most philosophical problems are better approached through an experimental approach — see what the consequences of a particular hypothesis, a particular experiment, might be. I think that’s the sensibility Obama has brought with him to politics, rather than feeling that there are certain principles that absolutely, necessarily translate into Policy X or Policy Y. He can hold firm principles but be willing to talk with others about the best strategies for getting closer to those principles in compromise with people who disagree with him — if he thinks the compromise can advance the cause even a little bit.
And:
He is someone who, throughout his life, has been a mediator. He’s been someone who was able to bring people together who thought they had nothing in common….. Most of what we hear is stridently partisan. When someone speaks about the need to break down that partisanship, it tends to rile the people at both ends of the spectrum. But I think in addition to being mediator by nature, he also understands that opinion polls indicate that most Americans are with him.
There’s a LOT more so go to the original link.
My take? I’ve noted here, on my Twitter account and in my Cagle columns that Obama may be a different kind of political animal than we’ve seen so far in the Oval office. The tendency is to say he might be a one-term flop and “another Jimmy Carter” or triangulate and become “another Bill Clinton” or be “another Ronald Reagan.”
But perhaps what we are seeing now is a different type of approach that truly keeps an eye on the long game and tries not to be influenced by pundits, cable and radio talk, or the 24/7 raging on the Internet. On the other hand, some political bungles on the part of the administration indicate that they are indeed focused on the “chatter” and 24/7 rage industry’s sentiments.
But it could be that Obama is going to be “an Obama” — a phrase that…for better or worse…will be applied to a future President.
[This is cross posted from The Scribe. The program Radio Times clearly is a program with excellent content. To find out more about that program and listen to their podcasts GO HERE. We will add The Scribe and WHYY and Radio Times to the TMV blogroll under Other Voices. All three sites are strongly recommended.]
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.