Obama Versus Politics
(Originally posted at Conservative Donnybrook)
James Poulos of Postmodern Conservative has endorsed Romney and Obama for the nominating constests. Poulos on Obama:
The best way to standardize respect in this country is to standardize citizenship, and return to citizens the ability to administer their shared affairs together face to face. For all his liberalism, Obama is unique in his ability to inspire the desire for that kind of respect and real political participation. … There is a profound desire in the culture today to escape from politics and citizenship — to enjoy the feeling of togetherness rather than do the hard work that makes togetherness worthwhile. Obama’s style and substance tempts and rewards this desire. But it also tempts and rewards its opposite. … Obama inspires people to not abandon politics to the experts, to recognize the goods of taking control of their own lives to common purpose. I may disagree with him on nearly all the issues, but I earnestly hope that the chance he presents, especially on the left, is seized before all the life of true citizen politics is drained away.
I see little evidence that Obama’s brand of governing would inspire such “true citizen politics.” Obama’s supposed ability to be a unifying figure, convincing people of all political stripes to get together at the table and put their differences aside to move the country forward, or something like that, seems to point to ideals that are, in fact, directly antithetical to the kind of “citizen politics” Poulos describes. The prospect of a national political process whose participants are unified behind a charismatic figure to enact a specific slate of ambitious policy goals is, in many ways, frightening. The only revival of “citizen politics” that is likely would be along the lines of CNN town hall meetings and Presidential responses to pre-screened questions posed via YouTube. Real face-to-face citizen politics, of course, can only take place at the local level. Getting a huge, multifarious citizenry to enact ambitious political goals requires the skilled manipulation of public opinion through personal charisma and the techniques of the public relations industry.
It all comes down to the inherent tension between the mechanisms of participatory self-government and the requirements of enacting an energetic national program. With true self-government, you don’t know what you’re going to get, because the outcomes are not pre-ordained. But it is only through the survival and vitality of deliberative institutions that true consensus can be achieved, and liberty preserved.
On the other hand, with charismatic national politics, the majority is either inspired or pacified by therapeutic or inspirational platitudes. The rest of us get the activist-managerial state rammed down our throats–well, rammed down our throats even further than it was already, I guess. Local and national deliberative institutions, meanwhile, are either useful and necessary tools of the Executive’s lawmaking and public-relations initiatives, or intransigent opponents to “progress” that must be subdued.
For a taste of what I’m talking about, here’s Obama on his healthcare plan from last night’s debate (I’m transcribing from video, so there may be errors):
That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors … and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are ’cause part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process, and overcoming the special interests, and their lobbyists … they will resist anything that we try to do. And the antidote to that is making the American people understand what is at stake …
What I want to do is increase trasnparency, and accountability, to offset the power of the special interests and lobbyists. … if the drug companies or a member of Congress who is carrying water for the drug companies wants to argue that we should not negotiate for the cheapest available price on drugs then I want them to make that argument in front of the American people and I will have experts who will explain that in fact … they are making outsized profits on the backs of senior citizens … and that is an argument that the American people have to be involved with, otherwise we’re not going to get any plan.
There’s nothing more participatory or open than demonizing opponents of your plans as shills for evil corporations and the enemies of senior citizens, and trotting out “experts” to make us all understand what the correct outcome is. Sounds less like deliberative government and more like “you’re either with us, or against us.” Putting it all up on C-SPAN ensures that the process is “open” and “transparent” enough to ensure that opponents to the plan are routed.
