The Visionary Minimalist
Cass Sunstein–who was a colleague of Sen. Barack Obama at the University of Chicago School of Law–offers an intriguing way of thinking about Obama’s distinctive approach to politics, which he describes as “visionary minimalism.” Here is a cite:
“Visionary minimalist” may sound like an oxymoron, but in fact–and this is the key point–Obama’s promise of change is credible in part because of his brand of minimalism. He is unifying, and therefore able to think ambitiously, because he insists that Americans are not different “types” who should see each other as adversaries engaged in some kind of culture war. Above all, Obama rejects identity politics. He participates in, and helps create, anti-identity politics. He does so by emphasizing that most people have diverse roles, loyalties, positions, and concerns, and that the familiar divisions are hopelessly inadequate ways of capturing people’s self-understandings, or their hopes for their nation. Insisting that ordinary Americans “don’t always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal,” Obama asks politicians “to catch up with them.” Many independents and Republicans have shown a keen interest in him precisely because he always sees, almost always respects, and not infrequently accepts their deepest commitments.
I finished Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope a couple of days ago. It provides additional detail about the kind of policies Obama would pursue as president and also some amusing stories about life as a U.S. senator. I don’t think it will win any Pulizters, but as books written by politicians go, I would rate it above average.
Kennedy’s book Profiles in Courage, written by Ted Sorensen, made a similar splash. Did the book inspire Kenney to bribe the Protestant Ministers in West Virginia to vote for him?
A similar spin is going on with Obama. Big Time. We will only know Obama when he starts answering (and taking) hard questions.
Blah, blah, blah. “Visionary minimalist.” Sounds like yet another entry in the End-of-Ideology-Can’t-We-All-Just-Get-Along Sweepstakes. Former contenders were “Pragmatic Idealist” (Mario Cuomo) and “I’m Pro-Business and Pro-Labor” (Bill Clinton). Combine incompatibles and presto! all contradictions are resolved, with help from the desperation of liberals.
Politics is adversarial — there’s no getting around that. What matters are the lines of contention, and the nature of the adversaries. That’s why “uniting not dividing” is such a silly and mystifying notion. And it’s no great “insight” to assert that politicians should “catch up” with the anti-ideological pablum of “ordinary Americans” who “don’t understand the arguments between right and left.” Shouldn’t people engaged in political life educate “ordinary Americans” that these arguments DO mean something? Do we really want political leaders as intellectually lazy as so many of the voters are? What if one of the problems is that “independents” don’t have any deep commitments?
Eugene,
Don’t forget “compassionate conservative.”
David: God how I try to forget it, but point taken.
Bill,Eugene
I can not believe what I am seeing from both of you. Don’t you know that effective and successful politics never has anythying at all to do with adversarial relationships, but rather it has everything to do with understanding and respecting positions contrary to one’s own. Compromise is the essence of successful politics.
Obama’s positive message of hope is exactly what we need now.The old politics of negativity espoused by Clinton and the Republicans is just more of the same nonproductive foolishness that we had for the past 20 years.All this adversarial divisness gets us nowhere and I, for one, think that there is substantial and perhaps decisive undercurrent within our voting population that sense that Obama or someone like him is the right answer.
Without endorsing Obama here, or anyone else, I agree with Charles Ladner. If there is any sense in talking about the common good, then lying behind disagreements about particular policies there has to be a shared sense that we’re all in this together. Granted that unanimity is not desirable as well as being a practical impossibility, the appropriate aim for political practice is to promote a fundamental unity that allows disagreements to remain within reasonable bounds.
So let me get this straight, Charles: The abolitionists should have sat down and reasoned with the plantation owners? The union organizers of the 1890s and the 1930s would have gotten more if they hadn’t done such adversarial things as, oh, striking? The civil rights marchers would have accomplished more if they’d politely asked for their rights from the white power elite?
Bernard, all of those above examples — and they could multiplied, from the past and from today — demonstrate that we’re NOT “all in this together.” I understand but certainly do not respect a lot of views “different from my own,” to wit: that already outrageously rich people should have more money, or that the United States shouldn’t be imposing its imperial will all over the planet. Exactly how are the top one-tenth of 1% of the population “in the same boat” with the poor, let along the struggling middle and working classes?
Oops, one correction: I don’t respect the view that the U.S. SHOULD be imposing its will on the planet. The spirit of William Kristol must have taken possession for a second.
Eugene:
I am delighted to be able to actually agree with your evaluation of all this warm and fuzzy “can’t we all just get along?” talk emanating from Obama. your rhetorical question,
“So let me get this straight, Charles: The abolitionists should have sat down and reasoned with the plantation owners? The union organizers of the 1890s and the 1930s would have gotten more if they hadn’t done such adversarial things as, oh, striking? The civil rights marchers would have accomplished more if they’d politely asked for their rights from the white power elite?”
is perfect. Although Obama is a superb speaker and has an appealing personality, I do not sense much substance. It’s a lot like cotton candy.
Finally, your statement,
“Politics is adversarial — there’s no getting around that. What matters are the lines of contention, and the nature of the adversaries. That’s why “uniting not dividing” is such a silly and mystifying notion….”
I can agree with 100%.
If Obama wins the presidency and both Democrats and Republicans are willing to compromise, then we’ll have bipartisanship. If Obama wins and Democrats are willing to compromise but Republicans aren’t, then at best it’s stalemate and at worst it’s “unilateral disarmament.”
If Obama wins the nomination, it will be interesting to see how he runs against the Republican nominee. If the Republican nominee says X, will Obama respond with how he would compromise with the Republicans regarding X?
People may be tired of “partisan bickering,” but when it gets down to specifics, how many want compromise on the issues they believe are important. I think the phenomenon will be something akin to “not in my back yard.” Everyone can agree that there must be compromise, but will everybody say, “Compromise on somebody else’s issues, but not mine”?
It never ceases to amaze me how often ‘issues’ people mischaracterize or misunderstand those for whom ‘tone’ is an important consideration. Fact: “visionary minimalism” of the sort that Obama exemplifies has very broad appeal. Instead of dismissing this appeal as so much cotton candy and writing off those of us drawn to it, political stalwarts might do well to understand this phenomenon since it may be the decisive factor in the very consequential election we face.
Where contrasts in policies are enormously salient to issues people, similarities in style may be equally salient to others. The former carve up the world into intellient/on target (think like me) and stupid/clueless (think like them). The latter are attentive to an entirely different dimension: open/tolerant (gets me) and closed/intolerant (contemptuous of me). From the first perspective, Kristol and Krugman are at opposite ends of the policy spectrum. From the second perspective, these guys may be at the same end of the tone spectum. In short, tone matters.
Eugene is right. Obama’s claim that he stands for a politics that is “uniting not dividing” is pure drivel. This soppish message will be appealing because it is well delivered by a man who is not only charismatic, but someone who seems genuinely sincere and committed. It will be appealing to those who tire of both the culture wars and ordinary politics.
But be forewarned: If one wants to remained confident in the persona of Obama as unifier, one had best not look too closely at his record in the Illinois senate. It’s not as if he stood on the sidelines quietly urging his colleagues to reason together. Rather, he took a partisan stand — one that I hope all Commonweal readers would find morally and politically reprehensible.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/01/09/obama_is_the_most_pro-abortion_candidate_ever
How about a vote fo divided government? President McCain and a solidly Democratic congress? Or President Obama and a GOP Senate, or one split 50-50 perhaps. The Clinton years made me something of a convert. But above all you need good politicians who know how to work together behind closed doors–which is where the divisiveness dies. GWBush is not that kind of guy.
Aren’t we talking the art of the deal here? Harry Reid doesn’t know how. Nancy Pellossi does but can’t because of Reid. GW doesnt’ know how, doesn’t want to know how, and won’t if he did. It is possible that both Obama and Clinton know how and what’s at issue between them is a “style” question.
And to allude to a previous post: Both MLK and LBJ knew the art of the deal and worked it like pros to the benefit of all of us.
Visionary minimalist???? sounds like a crock!
The argument about Obama being a uniter is specious. I mean we all want unity and a goverment without pettiness. Bill Clinton, unlike this present administration, worked with both parties. The problem is that party workers who want jobs and influence object. The Republican right longed for the power they had in the Reagan and Bush admininstrations while the Democrats wanted the booty for themselves.
At any rate, if you want action rather than rhetoric, the Clintons have worked toward unity better than any presidency in the last century.
Here are few paragraphs from a very interesting article by Jonathan Cohn entitled “Obama’s Clean Bill of Health,” in the January 30th New Republic. It seems quite related to the issues of this thread:
The full article is available to subscribers only (This is my first effort at posting a block quote, so if it fails, I apologize).
Sounds like a crock is right. But it is good copy.
John Breen–
Obama’s state legislature voting record on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act helped him achieve his 100% voting approval rating from Planned Parenthood, as did his vote to support public funding of embryonic stem cell research.
I doubt pro-life/pro-choice issues will be much of a factor in the primaries. After all, the Democratic candidates are all pro-choice, and except for Giuliani, all of the candidates on the Republican side are pro-life, including the flip-flopping former governor of Massachusetts. On NPR this morning, the comment was made that abortion is a single-issue decionmaker for but a small percentage of voters, but that 50% of voters are interested in a candidate’s position on abortion. It’s probably safe to say that Iraq and the economy are much more important issues for many voters than abortion/embryonic SCR is (I’m not among those voters), but it will be interesting to see to what extent abortion and embryonic SCR are in the general election.
“but it will be interesting to see to what extent abortion and embryonic SCR are issues in the general election.”
Of course I agree that a concern for the common good and a decent respect for one’s political opponents has hardly characterized recent political activity. All too much if it has been an exercise in either deceit or intimidation. Nonetheless, why should we accept this condition as either necessary or irremediable? I cannot square treating one’s political opponents as enemies to be subjugated with any reasonable of Catholic Social Principles. Or for that matter with any long-range political practice that claims to seek stability and freedom.
I grant that politics always involves a struggle for power. But if the sole or even the primary objective of political practice is to gain and hold power rather than to promote the well-being of the political society as a whole, then all talk of patriotism, or even of decency, is a sham.
Nothing that I say here is opposed to struggling hard for power. But it is incompatible with making that struggle the be-all and end-all of one’s political practice. Reasonable politics is always eager to find a habitable modus vivendi. It is not in the business of making some fellow citizens outcasts. Only political dogmatists could endorse reducing their opponents to complete political impotence.
If Barack is such a unifier, why did he lambast Hillary when she was the frontrunner? Why does he let his backers go after Hillary on the race issue while pretending to be above the frey himself? “you’re likable enough Hillary! Kennedy and King went after the opposition.
What nonsense are we allowing here?
Bernard:
No one said anything about making one’s opponents “outcasts.” And as for treating one’s opponents as enemies being contrary to “Catholic Social Principles” — the meaning of which is itself cotentious — I seem to recall a renowned Galilean saying that we should love our enemies, not deny that they are so. For example, Bill Gates is, in my view, a class enemy. I long for the day when his wealth will be expropriated and Microsoft becomes the property of the workers. But I certainly don’t hate him, and I don’t think that the way to attain this blissful denouement is to drag him out and shoot him.
What, exactly is a “habitable modus vivendi”? Habitable on whose terms? Who’s designing the habitation? And yes, there are certain groups — certain minorities, to be provocative — whom I would love to see reduced to “political impotence”: radical Islamists, white supremacists, the international corporate elite. Is that “dogmatism”? Put aside all this twaddle about “inclusiveness” — there are all sorts of insidious people and groups, with very pernicious ideas and ideals, whom all of us would like to see marginalized. The difficult political question for Christians, it seems to me, is how one conducts political struggle with charity — not how one labors to deny that one has no “enemies.”
Eugene, I feel sure that you and I would vote the same way on a great many issues and candidates. But obviously there’s some difference in what we see ourselves as being up to when we do vote ( or talk publicly etc.). Please let me tell you a short story.
About fifty years ago, there was a simple man in my small home town in Louisiana. He was a small time local politician. He had only been able to finish high school at night, had worked first in a lumber yard, then in a lard factory. Finally, through some political connections, he got a job as a clerk working on the New Orleans docks. Talking with him about how he campaigned for his small political office, he once told me something like this. ” When I campaign I always behave toward my opponent in such a way that, in the next election, I can go to him with a straight face and ask for his vote.” No effort to “neuter” his opponents.
This man was no sophisticate. and God knows he had faults, faults that would have made you and me sometimes oppose him vigorously.
Nonetheless, what he said and how he conducted his campaigns has my deep respect. He was my father. And I’m as proud of his view as I am of anything I’ve ever done.
Eugene,I have been away, but I hope that I am not too late in responding to your comments.
The examples that you gave – abolutionists, union organizers and civil rights marchers- were certainly of vital importance in publicizing their issues and providing inspirational guidance, but they were most definately not the people who made possible the solutions.That was done by the polititions in power.
In politics it takes deal making to get things done, not confrontational or adversarial relationships. As Clinton pointed out, LBJ is probably the best example of such a person.Can Obama fill such a role? I don’t know, but of the current set of Democratic candidates he is certainly best positioned to do so, because Clinton, who is on the payroll of the lobbyists, hedge fund guys and other big money interests, nor Edwards, who is a captive of the mass tort bar, are independent enough to ever accomplish anything at all.
Charles,
It is difficult to imagine two more different people than Obama and LBJ both in skills and personality. Johnson was able to make deals because he was a master of parliamentary manoevering, having been both a congressman and a senator. As a senator he served as democratic whip, miniority leader, and majority leader. He was crude, overbearing, ruthless, interested in power (often for its own sake), and not altogether honest. There’s just no comparison.
David
You are, of course, correct. As to the typeof person and the means by which they get things done, Obama and LBJ certainly are different people, but the question is not about means; it it about ends. And perhaps that. suggests the futility of the entire situation, because of the three principal Democratic hopefulls, only Obama is free of serious entanglements.The other two are hopeless. Their loyalty to the big money interests would inevitably prevent them from instituting the sort of tax reform necessary to fund meaningfull healthcare and other necessary programs.