Really. He can take it.
In some ways, the “How dare you criticize Obama!” people are the mirror image of the “I can’t believe Obama betrayed us!” people. Neither seem able to see him as first and foremost a politician.
Really. He can take it.
In some ways, the “How dare you criticize Obama!” people are the mirror image of the “I can’t believe Obama betrayed us!” people. Neither seem able to see him as first and foremost a politician.
Strangest thing I saw on my trip: a sidewalk pamphleteer handing out literature attacking President Obama’s “socialist” health care plan. In Canada.
Not a leftie, organic-arugala loving Obama administration, writes Tom Laskawy at Slate, but the constraints imposed by Mother Nature herself:
The one threat that Big Food hasn’t proven itself very adept at handling, however, is the multiheaded hydra of climate change, drought, and the shrinking supplies of various natural resources. The industry is not ignoring the political aspect of these threats. The farm lobby and its congressional allies were successful in excluding the agricultural sector from the climate bill currently before the House. Big Ag got exemptions for all its greenhouse gas emissions, which the EPA puts at 6 percent of total U.S. emissions (and which account for most of the country’s methane and nitrous oxide emissions, gases that have a far greater warming effect than carbon dioxide). And now, Rep. Collin Peterson, last seen ripping into the EPA for its recent ruling on how to measure the climate impact of corn ethanol, has threatened to derail the climate bill entirely unless he has the opportunity to rewrite it to Big Food’s liking.
If there are principled conservatives out there who actually acknowledge the existence of climate change and other environmental problems, this would seem to be a perfect issue for them: big government is subzidizing an environmentally-destructive, market-distorting industry to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars. And yet, you’re far more likely to read juvenille tirades against “elitist” proponents of sustainable food from most conservative outlets (with a few honorable exceptions).
A good essay by theologian-historian Gary Dorrien at “The Immanent Frame”:
today Niebuhr is back in public discussion because he symbolizes, notably to Barack Obama, the possibility of a progressive realism that defends America’s interests more prudently and advances the cause of social justice. Niebuhr, like Obama, blends liberal internationalist and realist motifs, contending that multilateral cooperation is compatible with the power-seeking clash of nations. The case for a strong international community has a realistic basis, that the benefits of cooperation outweigh the costs and risks of not working together. All parties are better off when the most powerful nations agree not to do everything that is in their power and nations work together to create new forms of collective security.
Dorrien emphasizes that Niebuhr’s views changed over the course of his life:
The early Niebuhr played up the irrelevance of Jesus’ love of perfectionism to politics, stressing that Jesus never talked about the realistic limits or consequences of social ethical choices. The later Niebuhr realized that the love ethic kept him and many others in the struggle, whether or not they succeeded. That was its political relevance. Justice could not be defined abstractly; it was a relational term that depended on the motive force of love. The meaning of justice could be determined only in the interaction of love and situation, through the mediation of Niebuhr’s three principles of justice—freedom, equality, and order.
He also makes the important point that “realism” unleavened by moral idealism quickly becomes corrupt. Too often Niebuhr’s thought has been understood as divorcing the two.
Michael Lind, who I always find worth reading, argues that Obama’s liberalism is timid, compared not only to FDR and LBJ, but to Eisenhower and Nixon. Why? Because those guys were in office before the neoliberal dogma took hold which demands that even public goods should be provided by the private sector. Instead of this faux-privatization (often favored by various conservative and libertarian think tanks), they thought that public goods should be provided by … the public sector!
It’s not necessary to nudge the Obama administration leftward until it arrives at socialism. When it comes to the public provision of public goods, Eisenhower Republicanism would be just fine.
Read the rest here.
I’m not sure I agree with all of Lind’s arguments, but surely, in light of some recent rhetoric from the Right, he’s correct about this:
Once upon a time in the United States, public goods — from retirement security and energy research to public roads — were provided by the government and paid for by taxes. As late as the Nixon administration, the provision of public goods by government was considered perfectly compatible with a robust market economy by so-called Modern Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon as well as New Deal Democrats like Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. In the intervening 40 years, however, free-market fundamentalists of the Chicago School have managed to change the debate, redefining “socialism” to mean not only public ownership of the means of production, but also public provision of public goods.
Conservatives have struggled mightily to depict pure laissez-faire as the only genuine alternative to a command economy. This seemed to be bolstered by the end of the Cold War, which, in the minds of many, permanently discredited “socialism,” and by the apparent success of neoliberal globalization. But for a long time, including during most of the Cold War, the consensus in the U.S. was more or less in favor of a mixed economy, with public provision of goods that people thought, for a variety of reasons, should be “de-commodified” (this could include not only public goods properly speaking, but retirement and welfare benefits, health care, etc.). It’s hard to see why events have discredited the mixed economy, or even its more left-wing cousin social democracy, and, if anything, they might be positioned for a resurgence.
That’s what it looks like anyway, based on Obama’s speech and the analysis I’ve seen. “Combat troops” will withdraw in 2010 with “residual” forces engaged in training and counter-terrorism activities (which, make no mistake, will involve at least some combat). But full withdrawal is supposed to occur by the end of 2011.
Not ideal, by any means, but a step in the right direction. But see Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo for an even more pessimistic take.
The “Center for Consumer Freedom” has a hysterical (in both senses of the word) article about the looming threat posed by “radical animal rights activist” Cass Sunstein in his new capacity as President Obama’s “regulatory czar” in the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
I knew but had forgotten that Sunstein had written some stuff in the area of animal rights. Here’s a paper on the topic that Sunstein wrote. He also co-edited, with philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a good anthology on the topic. Sunstein’s views are to the “left” of the public: he favors more stringent regulation of the use of animals in science, agriculture, and entertainment and has suggested that animals might have standing to sue (with humans as their representatives, of course). But none of this is particularly radical if you consider that most of the reforms Sunstein is talking about are nothing more than straightforward implications of views that most of us claim to hold (e.g., that animals shouldn’t be made to suffer unnecessarily or for trivial reasons). In fact, if existing standards for cruel treatment were applied to animals used in those industries, there would have to be significant changes. But for groups like CCF, any regulation of industry is to be opposed.
I don’t know enough about OIRA to know how important or influential Sunstein will be in his new position. But I doubt he’ll make animal rights a huge priority, though I’d be delighted if he did. See here for more.
Christopher makes an important point. To anyone who’s tempted to believe that the Bush years were a complete departure from an otherwise unbroken American tradition of “moral leadership” I’d recommend–for starters–getting acquainted with Andrew Bacevich’s The Limits of Power, which I blogged about here. Then we can move on to the collected works of Reinhold Niebuhr.
Bill Moyers’ Journal hosted an interesting discussion with Thomas Frank and David Sirota on the bailout, the economic stimulus, and what people can expect and/or hope for from Obama.
I think Sirota’s point (toward the end of the segment) about the longing some people feel for an “authoritarian capitalism” or a “czarist” model for fixing our problems is an important one. I think there’s a very legitimate concern that we’ll end up further centralizing power in essentially unaccountable hands for the sake of fixing the economy. As Sirota says, progress shouldn’t be in competition with democracy.
You can watch the segment here.
An open letter to the President from Mr. “Come Home, America” himself (via A Conservative Blog for Peace).