Obama & The Politics of Dignity

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jul 19, 2009 at 09:00


Robert Fuller emailed me with a request to post the following diary, which is also available Huffington Post here.  Ordinarily I wouldn't do that.  I would reset his password and tell him to post it himself.  But asking me to do it for him gives me the opportunity to intervene and insert my own two cents, which in this case is something I very much want to do.

I think that Fuller is very right about one thing--his concept of dignitarianism is something we very much need to adopt, and the opposite concept--that of rankism--is something we need to become much more sensitive to and commited to rooted out.  Fuller's conception provides a common framework for encompassing all the struggles against forms of prejudice--racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, religious bigotry, etc.--as well as the far more various and diverse ways that systems of rank and power (both formal and informal) are subject to abuse.  And that's a very powerful unifying concept.

I also think that Fuller is half right about another thing--President Obama does have an intuitive dignitarian bent to him.  But I think Fuller sees more in Obama than Obama himself is aware of, or even committed to.  The exclusion of single-payer advocates from the health care debate is just one example of Obama "pulling rank" on a large segment of the base that helped elect him, as well as the American people generally, who at the very least deserve the opportunity for a full, free  and fair debate.

My way of making sense of Obama's relationship to the dignitarian philosophy that Fuller expounds is relatively simple: I think that Obama has a strong intuitive orientation toward dignitarian conduct, but that that he resists what is most needed, the open, explicit articulation of dignitarian principles, and the adoption of dignitarianism as an organizing framework, as context, as well as content.  Taking those steps would put him definitively at odds with Versailles, and that is a step that he is very loathe to take, to put it mildly.

That's my two cents.  Read Fuller's article, and let us know what you think.

President Obama's Politics of Dignity
Robert W. Fuller

America is broken. Even if we pull through the current economic crisis, recovery won't last absent an overhaul of our primary institutions.

• One out of ten Americans is now unemployed and the recovery is expected to be jobless.
• Fifty million Americans have no heath insurance; two million, no home.
• Two million Americans are in jail.
• Our public schools have fallen behind those of most developed nations.
• Higher education is priced out of reach of the middle class.
• Our infrastructure is in an advanced state of disrepair.
• We rank first in greenhouse gas emissions.
• Immigration, once our pride, is now our shame.
• We're living on credit and leaving the debt to our children.

The crisis is compounded by corruption of the democratic process. Politicians who owe their seats to private and corporate money are not easily persuaded to put the public interest over the special interests of their benefactors.

Paul Rosenberg :: Obama & The Politics of Dignity
If our predicament were one in which there was an emergent consensus about the proper remedy, President Obama might be able to orchestrate an epochal makeover -- as President Johnson did in the civil rights crisis. Most Americans knew then that African-Americans were victims of racism and that segregation was wrong. But today, reformers are themselves divided and many of the issues are of such complexity as to defy broad public comprehension.

Despite his formidable rhetorical gifts, President Obama has yet to tell us how to repair our broken institutions. But he may be doing something equally important. He may be showing us the way. America's problems run deep, and solutions will have to be grounded in a new politics--the politics of dignity.

President Obama is a herald of the politics of dignity. He's an instinctive dignitarian. Not libertarian, not egalitarian. Dignitarian. It matters not when and how he acquired his dignitarian manner, or that he may not conform to it one hundred percent of the time. What matters is that in his personal relations and political positions he sets an example of respecting human dignity, regardless of role or rank.

It was Obama's inclusiveness that first brought him to national attention. As the keynote speaker of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, then Illinois State Senator Obama struck a dignitarian note. In asking us to see ourselves not as citizens of red states or blue states, but rather as citizens of the United States, Obama gave us a preview of a new politics of dignity that can extricate us from our current crises. The dignitarian politics that seems to come naturally to President Obama represents not a compromise, but a synthesis of libertarian and egalitarian politics, and in doing so provides an analysis that reconciles conservatism and liberalism.

Dignity for whom? you ask. Dignity for all. For blacks and whites, for men and women, for gays and straights, for young and old, for rich and poor, for immigrants and the native-born, for conservatives and progressives. Obama is also trying to engage friend and foe alike in a global dignitarian dialogue. Dignity for all.

What is the politics of dignity that President Obama exemplifies? It goes far beyond good manners, respect, and civility, though it includes these. Dignity is achieved by methodically eliminating indignities -- interpersonal, institutional, societal, and international.

The American people know that indignities their nation has inflicted on the world have diminished America's stature. And, they know that the daily humiliations that they and their fellow citizens are enduring are incompatible with lives of dignity and signify institutional failure.

How could Obama's presidency address the indignities that manifest as unemployment, corporate corruption, failed schools, no health insurance, foreclosure, homelessness, recidivism, and the subversion of our democracy by moneyed special interests?

To combat indignity, we need to be clear about its cause. The cause of indignity is not power, nor is it power differences. It is rather the abuse of power. To oppose indignity, we do not have to eliminate differences in power, nor the differences in rank that merely reflect them. Persons of high rank who treat their subordinates with dignity are admired, if not loved.

Rank, in itself, is not the culprit. The problem is rank abuse, and it has grown to epidemic proportions. Abuses of rank have no place in a dignitarian world. Taking a page from the women's movement, if we are to combat rank abuse effectively, we must give it a distinctive name, preferably one that puts perpetrators on the defensive. By analogy with racism, sexism, and ageism, abuse of the power inherent in rank is rankism. Once you have a name for it, you see it everywhere.

The outrage over bonuses for failed Wall Street executives is indignation over rankism. The power of lobbyists to override the democratic will of the people is rankism. The deregulation of the financial industry, which made a virtue of self-aggrandizement and facilitated predatory loans and Ponzi schemes, led to the financial ruin of millions and created the worst recession in four score years.

As racism denigrated and disadvantaged blacks, and sexism disenfranchised and restricted women, so rankism marginalizes and exploits the working poor, keeping them in their place while their low pay effectively subsidizes everyone else. As class membranes become less permeable, resignation, cynicism, and indignation mount.

An America in which the American Dream has become a mirage is not an America worthy of the name. The achievability of that dream is what made this country the envy of the world and made us, its citizens, proud. Making that dream good again is a challenge comparable to overcoming the second-class citizenship that has limited blacks, women, gays, and others. Building a dignitarian society is democracy's next evolutionary step.

A dignitarian society will naturally conduct itself differently on the world stage. Nowhere is rankism more dangerous than in foreign relations. International terrorism has multiple, complex causes, but one factor over which we do have a say is rankism between nations. There is no fury like that borne of chronic humiliation. President Obama's demeanor suggests that he understands that a vital part of a strong defense is not giving offense in the first place. His speeches abroad have begun to restore good will toward the United States, and while good will alone does not constitute a national defense, it surely beats the ill- will that we have garnered in recent years.

President Johnson, following his personal instincts, led his fellow countrymen through an about-face on segregation. Much as overcoming a legacy of racism is the work of several generations, so too is the task of building a dignitarian society. President Obama knows that solutions won't arise out of politics as usual. His personification of dignitarian politics resonates not only with Americans but around the world. The next step is to turn from exemplifying the politics of dignity to enunciating its policy implications and molding them into a legislative agenda for a dignitarian America.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I know it's a one liner, but his comparison of his bowling scores to the (4.00 / 3)
Special Olympics is nonetheless revelatory, clearly showing him to be a man who has compromised what I would agree is probably an intuitive feel for dignitarianism. It was not a "gaffe." Either you think that way or you don't, and it was quite consistent with his synchronous Wall Street measures. It was a statement of philosophy, one which holds that those that are able to play the game, whatever game, better are inherently more worthwhile.

I don't think this is true (4.00 / 5)
"either you think that way or you don't"

Most people have low moments where mean things escape them that they know are unfair and hurtful to no good purpose.  Whether that explains Obama's comment or not, one mean spirited remark doesn't tell us he rejects dignitarianism.


[ Parent ]
Perhaps, but (4.00 / 5)
there's more than anecdotal evidence in his case that he believes he belongs in the same circles as Bernanke and Geithner, or Kissinger and Brzezinski, and we don't. Now that he's convinced them (has he really?) he no longer sees any need to convince us.

The self-made man in him is impressive mostly -- as Fuller points out -- for the remarkable absence of the usual ego-preening in people who rise so far above their origins. On the other hand, there absolutely is about him a sense that now that he's gotten where he is, he should be free to do what he wants, regardless of the carping from below.


[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
You can construct a stronger case for his problems with dignitarianism, and I too worry about the arrogant strain in him.  It served him very well in the campaign, in that he was able to avoid panicking when McCain suspended his campaign, or overreacting to some of the attacks, but it's a virtue that can become a vice when it turns into cocksure certitude and unwillingness to listen to good advice.


[ Parent ]
I Agree With Daniel (4.00 / 10)
I think it's a lot more telling that he's basically continuing Bush's policies with very little change when it comes to much of the war on terror.  Closing Guantanamo without closing anything else, for example.  Still looking for ways to keep everyone imprisoned they possibly can, but working harder to make it seem legal, rather than treating people with the level of dignity that our Constitution demands.  It's that sort of thing that I find much more indicative of his actual shortcomings in living up to a dignitarian ideal.

That's hardly the only area, of course.  What about all those folks losing their homes?  And all that "fierce advocacy" for teh gay?  I don't think the problem lies in his psyche so much as it lies in his political will.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
"Leave it to Uighurs" (N/T) (4.00 / 3)


[ Parent ]
Talk About "Not Ready For Prime Time" (0.00 / 0)
Sheesh!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
The post speaks of Obama as an "instinctive dignitarian." (4.00 / 2)
Most peoples' instincts are inconsistent and unreliable. Obama's certainly failed him in this instance. That is the reason we seek an analysis, a theory, that helps guide us toward consistency. The various doctrines of political correctness are just such: they guide us, help us unlearn old patterns and substitute new ones. My grandparents used the N-word; my parents repressed it; my brothers and I did not have to unlearn it; my kids dated inter-racially; my grandkids are multi-racial. Takes a half-dozen generations to reshape our instincts. But Obama is at least making a start, and getting it right more often than most. What my post is about is pointing towards the guidance that's available if we dig deeper -- to an analysis of the politics of dignity that, in time, will displace both the politics of liberty (libertarianism) and the politics of equality (egalitarianism). Dignitarian politics is a synthesis of the two old stand-bys, now locked in fatal embrace.

[ Parent ]
"Intuitive orientation"? Or just more projection? (4.00 / 8)
As Obama himself wrote:

I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views

As for example:


I think that Obama has a strong intuitive orientation toward dignitarian conduct, but that that he resists what is most needed, the open, explicit articulation of dignitarian principles, and the adoption of dignitarianism as an organizing framework, as context, as well as content.

Of course, since Obama isn't "open" about this -- a fancy way of saying there's no evidence available -- we're just seeing more projection ("I think").

And I find projection fundamentally.... Well, this is a family blog, so let's just say "dull, repetitious, and futile." And jejune.

It's the same style of thinking that allowed people to lead themselves to believe that Obama was a progressive. Why repeat it? Shouldn't we be training ourselves to avoid it? Projection is one of the sicknesses of celebrity culture that we really do need to get away from... Hegemony, and all that.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


Of Course Projection Is A Danger (4.00 / 3)
But, if you listen to folks who've known him a long time and are somewhat disappointed in him, I think it's rather plausible.  People tend to make compromises with power, and their rationalizations, more than the compromises themselves, tend to define them more and more going forward.

This has always seemed to describe most of an entire generation of such figures.  LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is the one I've seen most vividly close at hand, but there are scads of others, and Obama merely seems the most canny and charismatic of the lot.  And this sort of formulation seems to jibe with the political realties they've grown up adapting to as politicians--appeals to our better nature, sharply circumscribed by the sheer weight of special interest strangleholds on real political power.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Will William of Occam please pick up the white courtesy phone? (4.00 / 3)
Again, this strikes me as a very sophisticated variant of "If only the Czar knew...." "If only we backed Obama enough, he'd show himself a true progressive at heart...." Et cetera.

I don't see the need to build models of Obama's inner being. It's a waste of time. Look to power and interest, and build -- non-celebrity -- models of our own. Ask what he's doing, and make him do it if he's not doing the right thing.

And if Obama were a robot, programmed by others, as in Phillip K. Dick's Simulacra, surely our procedure would be exactly the same? There is no need to appeal to Obama's inner state...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
That's Not What I'm Up To (4.00 / 3)
This isn't primarily about Obama for me.  He's the focal point for a discussion, but the discussion is about (a) dignitarianism and (b) content vs. context and (c) predisposition vs. commitment.

A further point: There is a real danger of misreading the historical moment by being too cynical as well as by being too gullible.  Just because hundreds of millions may err in the latter direction, that's no reason to err in the former.  I've often compared Obama to JFK, and the comparison is instructive here.  Kennedy's charisma, the whole "Camelot" thing was a bit much for me as a kid growing up, even as I realized that it helped fuel an idealism that went way beyond where Kennedy himself was. But over time I came to think that I'd been too harsh.  Not objectively, perhaps, looking at how JFK had had to be pulled, kicking and screaming, into doing anything about civil rights.  But interactively, in terms of how the perception of him altered both others and him in ways that no simulacra would have been affected. The ultimate expression of this was captured in the 1999 book Black Camelot, which argues, in effect, that black culture heroes took up the mantel of Camelot after Kennedy's assassination.  

Anyway, the simuacra would probably be more like the ones in We Can Build You.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Also, look at how conservatives invoke Raygun (4.00 / 1)
They go waaaaay beyond what ol' Ronnie would ever have suggested (he did back off on the tax cuts, compromise on social security and sign SALT after all) but they always claim to be carrying his mantle as they do so. And they're right, if you picture toxic conservatism as a progression, rather than the set of ideas Reagan himself espoused.  

[ Parent ]
Now it's about Obama's instincts? (4.00 / 2)
I have no idea what Obama's intuitive orientation is...and, frankly, I really don't care.  

What I do care about is the lack of dignity experienced by those millions of Americans out of work: a 15-16% real unemployment rate is NOT dignitarian.  

Nothing dignified about losing your home either:  Wall Street-greasing policies that enrich the Goldman-ilk at the same time millions more American homeowners sink deeper under water are NOT dignitarian.

Fuller of course touches on this stuff, but then leaves it aside rather quickly to go back to Obama's demeanor and what he so wants to believe is the President's personification of dignity.  That all Obama needs to do next is carry his dignitarian orientation into action and..BAM...we have a dignitarian America.

Lambert is correct here about the projection and how destructive this is...and Paul is right too about the real issue being Obama's lack of political will.  

Choices--huge ones--already have been made and more seem to be on the way that are only deepening the gross indignity out there.  

Sorry.  But what Fuller peddles here is pretty worthless, unless of course the real purpose is to assuage the writer's own psyche and the psyche of others who still need to just believe.


[ Parent ]
Here's The Question (0.00 / 0)
I have no doubt that Fuller is projecting.  But is he only projecting?  My answer is "clearly no."  And I offer an explanation why.  I know some people don't like my explanation, and Lambert has pointed out potential parallels (which do not reflect the intention of my line of thinking), but no one, really, has directly taken on the heart of my argument, about the distinctions between context and content, and between commitment and inclination.

I think it's utter reprehensible that Obama has done so little for those who truly need help, and who did nothing to deserve the situations they are in.  But I differ in my analysis of why he acts as he does.  I believe he does have an inclination to do better, but not a commitment.  And I believe that properly locating where this breakdown is--whether I am correct or someone else is--is something worth getting right.  Not because I'm a fanboy trying to imagine myself in the life of my demigod hero, but because the mechanisms of Obama's reasoning are anything but peculiar to him.

In short, I am less interested in convincing you or anyone else that I am right than I am in convincing folks that there's something here we need to grapple with--not instead of anything else, but in addition to it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Hmm (4.00 / 4)
Lost in this discussion, it seems to me, are the basic matters of ideology and philosophy. I don't believe Obama is lacking because of an insignificant commitment but because of a commitment to the wrong things: neoliberalism at home, empire abroad. It's self-evident to people at Openleft that these policies aren't the best way to help people; unfortunately, most of the people who run the world, including Obama, don't agree. Now, because of Obama's intelligence and rhetorical gifts that allow him to distance himself from a school of thought even as he embraces it, we suspect despite ourselves that he knows better--that he would do the right things but for lack of will and passion and courage--but that illusion becomes harder and harder to maintain.

Now I'm going to contradict myself (somewhat) by saying that I don't think a president, by the time he is president, possesses beliefs in the same way you or I possess them. A president has internalized lessons about the way power (his power) is attained and expanded. He's a black man who became president in a white world and accomplished this by reassuring people--by not pissing people off, least of people who could do him political damage. He the Great Reassurer. He reassures black people that's he not too white and white people that he's not too black and corporate power that he's not populist and religious people that he digs God and Israelis that he's not anti-Israel and...Of course, he's willing to piss off the left while he's completely unwilling to piss of the establishment, because only the latter can do him serious harm. It's not a coincidence that his political ideology, neoliberalism, jibes with his political (and perhaps personal) need to keep Power content. You embrace the beliefs that will get you where you need to go.

That's not to say that these beliefs do not run deep. By this point they're very much part of him, and to expect or hope him to change is to ask him to become a different person. So at this time in history when banks have become a 4th branch of government and the US is fighting 2 wars, we have a president defined by his inability-unwillingness to confront Power. He's the wrong man for the moment.



[ Parent ]
Bravo. (4.00 / 1)
So at this time in history when banks have become a 4th branch of government and the US is fighting 2 wars, we have a president defined by his inability-unwillingness to confront Power. He's the wrong man for the moment.
 

[ Parent ]
Your Self-Contradiciton Is Where The Real Questions Lie, David (4.00 / 2)
And it's very perceptive of you to highlight your own contradictions. (For one thing, you've done my hardest work for me!) Because I think that that's precisely where legitimate confusion lies.  (Not that only legitimate confusion lies there, mind you!)

One thing I will say: I have repeatedly made the point that Obama does indeed have an ideology, and that his claim not to have an ideology is part of his ideology.  A rather depressing part, actually, since he's either fooling himself, fooling us, or both.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Ha (4.00 / 3)
Quite a thread, in which Paul Rosenberg is improbably cast as Obama's defender.

I appreciate your point about not being unduly cynical, although I think more often than not the seeming cynicism about Obama is, in fact, frustration: frustration about the state of the country and about his inability-unwillingness to do anything about it. It's probably also a reaction to the reverence for Obama in some quarters, a reaction that isn't simply small annoyance but an effort to correctly define Obama: if he's seen as a liberal (and he is, at this point) then his failures threaten liberalism. (Bowers had a post about this.) There'd be less anger if everyone saw him clearly.

In the end, in any case, the only possible way to get him to do the right thing is to make sure it's in his political interest to do so. It's easy for us to say that Obama could score big politically if he took on Wall Street, but the fact is, that's far from certain. They don't call it Power for nothing.

So: organize, organize, organize. And blog.


[ Parent ]
Yes, I Find It Amusing! (4.00 / 1)
Quite a thread, in which Paul Rosenberg is improbably cast as Obama's defender.

And if I can't be amused while blogging, well, then, what's the point?  The money?  The fame?  The women?  C'mon, cheap thrills are the only thing going here!

But, really, what I'm trying to do here is talk through Obama, rather than about him.  The contradictions he embodies are anything but his alone.  Which is why I'm not simply speculating about his inner states when I talk about inclinations.  He has a history that indicates such inclinations, and that history is known, in greater or lesser depth, by various different political actors whose perceptions of that history have played a significant role in their decisions about if and how to support him.  So at the level I'm trying to discuss things, the private person really doesn't exist, only constructions do, and those constructions are all more or less public--some completely so.

My point: we always elect imaginary presidents, but what our imaginations require them to be changes from time to time.  But those requirements are always reflective of the electorate as a whole, not just the manner in which the president fulfills them.  Thus, Obama's bipartisanship is a good deal more morally grounded than David Broder's, because the American people at large cannot abide the pure Beltray version of bipartisanship.  And that reflects something both about Obama and the electorate.  Treating it as if it were simply an unknowable aspect of Obama's personality, that doesn't really matter anyway is very much misreading how the zeitgeist works.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
History (0.00 / 0)
You made the same point, with the same term (dignitarian), perhaps a year and a half or two years ago.  Unforunately, I did not find it compelling then and don't find it compelling now.

Obama is pretty much exactly the President I thought we were going to get.  I hoped I was wrong and we would have a closet progressive or someone who circumstances would change.

We will have the Presidency we want (or at least I want) only if the House and Senate demand it (not we the people).  This is certainly possible although an uphill road.


[ Parent ]
What's Obama Got To Do WIth It? (0.00 / 0)
The dignitarian idea has a whole lot more to do with Ghandi and MLK than it does with Obama.

Comparatively speaking, I agree with Robert Fuller about Obama's latent potential to model dignitarian behavior, just as I agree with others here (as well as myself--it's always nice when you can agree with yourself, especially as you sense the onset of MPD) who point out how he's acted in non-dignitarian ways.

If you want to make an argument against the dignitarian concept, then make it.  But arguing about Obama is just not the same thing.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
King? Gandhi? (0.00 / 0)
Maybe I am missing the point.  I thought you were talking about the possibilities and promise of Obama and not about a specific idea.

Martin Luther King was a great man who spoke truth to power.  I am afraid we don't see much , or nearly enough, MLK in politiicans today.  Martin Luther King talked about war and poverty.  He'd be there working for the newly foreclosed and the auto workers. Martin's last casmpaign was for the sanitation workers of Memphis.  He fought to have bankers make more loans not to loan more to bankers. Of course he was the greatest American public speaker of the 20th century but he was far more.

I remember Martin Luther King.  I believed in his vision covering all people especially the poor and those in need of help and without a voice or power.  You, President Obama, are no Martin Luther King (not many are). (the comparison to Lloyd Benesen is deliberate).


[ Parent ]
Commitment vs. inclination? (4.00 / 3)
Well, perhaps it is as simple as he has not yet suffered serious political repercussions for a betrayal of what you and Fuller want to believe are his inclinations (again, I believe that we have no way of measuring his inclinations beyond his rhetoric other than through his actions...and maybe that means we can't go any further in this discussion...).  

The one thing we can judge confidently is his political ambition.  And he was elected president by neatly appealing to both the citizen army his campaign created and a vast phlanx of corporatists who never believed the Republican tripe about his being a socialist. The message I always got from him throughout the campaign was his deep fealty to the system as currently construed...what he was about was making it operate better, smarter...a kinder, gentler--more dignified?-- version of  American corporate imperialism.

As of right now, he clearly still has the support of his corporate sponsors (Rahm's appearance tomorrow at the JPMorgan Chase Board meeting...) and, while his poll numbers are dropping, he still mostly seems to elicit the benefit of the doubt from many who voted for him.   I can't see that lasting, however, through another few months of horrendous job losses, foreclosures and business failures...support will drop and fast.  Interesting to see the relationship between commitment and inclination when faced with a public that by then has moved from quietly frightened to deeply to dangerously angry.  

The system itself is wholly undignified, so utterly infested with rot and corruption as it is.  Might the real issue simply be that Obama is a man of the system as his political career always has demonstrated -- no matter his origins...no matter his deep-seated inclinations...gently chiding, but always still wholly embracing the system?


[ Parent ]
FDR Was Deeply Committed To The System, Too (0.00 / 0)
But he had a much more realistic sense of how much of an overhaul it needed to survive.

And this, for me, is where I"ve been most disappointed.  It's not that I thought he had pure intentions.  I just thought he had a better understanding of how fucked up things were, and thus how much of an overhaul was needed.

Apparently, not so much.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
What if we take the word "projection" (4.00 / 1)
at face value? Your comparison with Kennedy was illustrative, I think. He was never the man people thought he was, yet he was still able to be a force for good in some ways.

Carl Jung says this is how projection works, it allows us to see our own qualities in other people before (or instead of) seeing them in ourselves. But the neccessary next step is to withdraw our projections, to recognize that it is not Obama who has the power to make our world a more dignified one but we ourselves.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
There Are At Least Three Different Kinds Of Projection (0.00 / 0)
(1) The ego defense mechanism, which is what people are most familiar with.  There is related mechanism known as introjection, in which aspects of the other--usually, but not always idealized ones--are seen in oneself.

(2) Projective identification, which is pre-egoic in origins, and actually contributes to the development of the ego.  Projective identification is said to be into the other, whereas projection is onto the other, and it's much more of an interactive process. Indeed, it's considered the foundation of the therapeutic process.

(3) Cognitive projection.  We understand the unfamiliar in terms of the familiar by a process of cognitive projection. mapping the familiar onto the unfamiliar.  George Lakoff's first book on metaphor, Metaphors We Live By (1980), co-authored with Mark Johnson, illustrates this mapping process as it manifests in language in numerous ways.

(1) and (2) both come from the Freudian tradition ([2] from Melanie Klein in the 1940s), and it's been a very long time since I've read Jung, so I don't really know if I'd say that his notion of projection is (2) entirely, a combination of (1) and (2), a combination of (1) and (2) with introjection added to the mix, or if it should be seen as conceptually distinct.

Regardless of which is true, my impression is that there's pretty wide agreement on the basic thrust of what you're saying that goes well beyond Jung and his followers.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure how Jung's (4.00 / 1)
idea of projection fits into any of those. Negative projection can be a matter of ego defense, but it' s not the only, or even the most interesting kind.

What I think Fuller, and many other Obama supporters, are doing is positive projection, wherein they attribute to their hero qualities that are, in fact, their own. The bad news is their hero is not who they want him to be. The good news is the presence of the projection means they have it within themselves to become true heroes.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Except (0.00 / 0)
I think it's quite clear that Fuller knows this. The very essence of dignitarianism, it seems to me, is that everyone has heroic capacities.

It seems to me that Fuller is trying to highlight where Obama is going right, and emphasizing that.  Given what we know about learning (even BF abandoned punishment in the end) this seems like a sound strategy.  The question then is, "Does the education model make more sense? Or does something else?"

At this point, I think I part with Fuller in this respect--the old story about the peasant, the burro and the priest.

The peasant can't get his burro to move, and if he doesn't move, the peasant will never get to market, and his children will starve.  So there he is in the middle of the road, beating the burro, trying to get it to move.

The priest comes up and asks, "My good man, why are you beating the poor burro? Don't you know it's a creature of God, and thus deeply beloved to Him?"

The peasant explains his situation, and the priests nods knowingly.  He walks slowly around the burro in a full circle, with the burro eyeing him narrowly the whole way, eyes almost closed.  Finally, the priest finishes the circle, walks over to the side of the road, picks up a large branch, walks over to the burro, and whacks him over the head, knocking him unconscious.

The peasant freaks out.  "Father, what have you done!  You've killed my burro!  Didn't you just tell me he was a creature of God? And that I shouldn't hurt him?"

The priest replied, "Relax.  He's not dead.  Just unconscious.  And of course kindness is required.  But first I have to get his attention."

Hence the logic of the progressive block, and other forms of resistence.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Need for an underlying analysis (0.00 / 0)
You write, "what is most needed [is] the open, explicit articulation of dignitarian principles, and the adoption of dignitarianism as an organizing framework, as context, as well as content."

To open Obama to that precise idea was the reason for the post. I could be wrong, but I thought, at this early stage in his presidency, that he would be more likely to be open to an organizing framework if he were acknowledged for often acting as if he had one, instead of lambasting him for his occasional lapses.


[ Parent ]
Who said Obama didn't have an organizing framework? (4.00 / 1)
It's called "conservatism."

[rimshot. laughter]

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Some people are more dignified than others (4.00 / 2)
As a gay man, my perception is that there is a hierarchy within Obama's "dignity for all," and some are more dignified than others.  

Nonetheless, I think that domestic rankism (as here defined) -- the deliberate and systematic devaluation of the working poor -- is a bigger problem than Obama's lukewarm (at best) embrace of civil rights for gays.

If we could make any progress at on domestic rankism , I'd be happy.  


We Need to Overthrow This Government and the Plutocracy that Runs It (4.00 / 5)
All of these fancy discussions built around words like dignity and rankism cloud the obvious need for the American people to overthrow the plutocracy that has pretty much ruined the entire country.

It's that simple.

I watched Michael More's movie Sicko last night and it made me sick seeing what the plutocracy has done to the American people. Under-insured and un-insured people die right and left, or are dumped in the street to die by the plutocracy's army of servants. At the movie shows, this would never happen in Canada, UK, France, and Cuba, countries which have universal single payer health care.

As the movie also points out, in France the government is afraid of the people, who take to the streets by the tens of thousands every time the government tries to do something that harms their interests.

In the U.S., as the movie points out, the people are afraid of our plutocratic government, which has armed its henchmen with tasers to shoot down any protester they wish, with impunity. Even Obama's administration has arrogated to itself the right to imprison anyone it wishes indefinitely without charges.

When are the American people going to say enough is enough? After the public option has been eliminated from the phony health care reform legislation by the plutocracy's influence peddling Congressional lapdogs who refuse even to discuss the single payer system preferred by 75% of the American people?

At the risk of belaboring the point, I remain convinced that the only way to do it that I know of is through web inventions like my Interactive Voter Choice System, which I describe in my book, Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America.

These tools empower voters at the grassroots to peacefully change the system so that they run the government, not the plutocratic wrecking crew that is now in charge.


dignaty (0.00 / 0)
What a refreshing angle of view. Thank you Robert for bringing this to the conversation.  

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

A nitpick (4.00 / 2)
While I agree with the concept embodied in Fuller's dignitarianism, the term itself, like many other earnest neologisms, offends my ear. Couldn't we just resurrect the ancient republican name for it? I realize that fraternité is a) French, and b) could be accused of harboring a built-in gender bias, but it does at least connect us with our own history.

And rankism, well, I'd call that doubleplus ugly. In fact, I can imagine being accused of it in some gray, windowless room, and shipped off forthwith to wherever Siberia is located these days.

Finally, must we at this late date add to the world's supply of political isms?


Come Up With Something Better, My Man! (0.00 / 0)
I agree we could do better on the wordsmithing side.  But nothing's really occurred to me that seems to do the job.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Well, how about "obscurantism?" (0.00 / 0)
I realize that we're all in a hurry, but this temptation that infatuates the modern age, to try to pack a book's worth of meaning into a single word has had -- as Orwell foretold -- a genuinely negative effect on both cognition and discourse.

Think of Fellow traveler, right deviationist, or left adventurist. Think of GWOT, or AfPak, or socialist. Once we have a label, the thinkers who invented it, and the thought which led to it is forgotten, and while we may find ourselves in possession of  another shiny new cudgel to use on our enemies, we haven't advanced our understanding at all.

On the contrary....


[ Parent ]
Timberman is right on this (4.00 / 1)
Prof. Fuller isn't really inventing anything new here, beyond creating two new "isms" that aren't "isms" at all. He's creating new terms that refer to very old ideas in a way that merely puts his imprimatur on them--which I am not judging as "good" or "bad," just redundant. To the extent that it generates new discussion and ideas, that's fine with me. But I don't see anything new in his explication. Indeed, if anything, he's entirely focused on discourse while ignoring the obvious facts of indignity, which are poverty, powerlessness, disenfranchisement and oppression. I say ignore, because he's so totally focused on the conversation, as opposed to actual policies that will create dignity for those with none. It's about rights, not rhetoric.

There's no way of knowing who invented the notion of human dignity, but it certainly goes back at least a few thousand years. More recently, we're talking about socialists, Marxists, social democrats, Ghandi, MLK and countless others. Studs Terkel anyone? Even Mussolini used dignity as a slogan, although his spin on it was frankly  ridiculous.

But where the rubber meets the road isn't in rhetoric. It's in economic policy, strong democratic institutions, mass participation and real, functioning mechanisms for social and economic justice. A robust human rights regime is also mandatory.

On all these counts, thus far, President Barack Hoover Obama fails. To use Fuller's own term, he is a rankist. To use existing vernacular, he's classist, elitist, corrupt, corporatist, anti-democratic  and the ranking member of the oligarchy that governs us solely for their own benefit. This comes not from his fluffy speeches, but his policy positions.

The only people thus far who are being entreated to dignity in the WH are his friends, his corporate benefactors and nutters on the right. Given the way the WH treats progressives in general, this is abundantly clear at this point.

So when Prof. Fuller says Obama is a dignitarian, I have to disagree. There simply is no evidence to support that claim and speeches don't count anymore, since they bear no relation to the noxious policies spewing forth from the WH.

I have great respect for Prof. Fuller's intellect, but he's way behind the curve at this point. I presume he will catch up at some point.


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
Two Points (4.00 / 1)
(1) Fuller doesn't claim to be doing something fundamentally new here.  He's always pointing to examples, which show that he's more a chronicler than an inventor.  So you're basically confirming his thesis, not contradicting it.

(2) But Fuller is organizing and refining insights that have been with us forever, along with some of more recent vintage, and he's suggesting that we bring these insights to bear in new ways.

Now, the precise terms he uses are not the most poetic, but they're good enough for the prosaic task of describing what he wants to describe.

Finally:

So when Prof. Fuller says Obama is a dignitarian, I have to disagree. There simply is no evidence to support that claim and speeches don't count anymore, since they bear no relation to the noxious policies spewing forth from the WH.

Although emotionally satisfying, perhaps, this is a sweeping overstatement.  The policies are a disappointing mish-mash.  But they don't bear no relation to his speeches.  They bear a complicated and sometimes contradictory relationship.

The more messed up things become, the more it behooves us to be precise in our observations and descriptions, exasperating as that may be sometimes.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Point taken, but some of those contradictions are fatal to any notion of "dignity" (4.00 / 1)
Preventive detention (which is  to say extralegal imprisonment by executive fiat), mass sruveillance, continued covering up of war crimes, economic policies which are quite toxic for most Americans... I could go on. And these policies come from a guy who likes to quote MLK (even using some of his forms of speech personally).

To my mind, these are all fatal contradictions to the notion that he's somehow a "dignitarian." Yes, I'm painting with a pretty broad brush here, but you need a big-ass brush just to keep up with the hypocrisy. Admittedly, I also get carried away at times!

Perhaps it's unfair of me to say there is no relationship between his speeches and his policy positions. But you've got to admit (or not, as it happens) the symmetries are disappearing at an appalling rate. A "dignitarian" would not propose to imprison innocent people just because he says so, yes?

It's those types of issues that lead me to reach a pretty hard-headed conclusion that Obama's a fraud. There's just no way a "dignitarian" can reconcile his/her position of shredding habeas corpus with any notion of human dignity in society at large. That's not something that can be finessed away.

It's these most basic of problems that lead me to think Fuller is being overly academic and not sufficiently realistic. In a sense, he's preaching to the choir a tad much. I don't think any progressive really needs a lesson in dignity. That's at the core of what we believe in, isn't it?

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
This was my initial reaction as well (4.00 / 1)
When I first read about rankism and dignitarinism several months ago I had the same reaction as you.  However, it only took a few days of reading to terms to get used to them.  Now they seem pretty good to me because they are easy to understand.

[ Parent ]
Just So (4.00 / 1)
That's what I mean by saying that it's a "good enough" formulation.  It may not please the ear at first, but once you're passed the easy listening and onto the thinking it gets the job done.

[Homer Simpson voice:] D'Oh!  You're supposed to THINK?!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Fraternité (4.00 / 2)
There is a deep connection between "fraternity" and dignity. But the fraternitarian alternative has been tarnished, probably beyond repair, by its invocation by the Nazis and more recently, the Serbs. Fraternity, while originally used inclusively, has in the 20th c. been used exclusively to label those who do not share some supposed blood kinship. Then the exclusive notion of fraternity veers towards ethnic cleansing, even genocide. That, plus, its gender-specificity, inclined me to look elsewhere, and I settled on "dignitarian," which contrasts well with "libertarian" and "egalitarian." But it is the underlying ideas and analysis that matter, not the nomenclature.  

[ Parent ]
You have a point, especially about the corruption of fraternité (0.00 / 0)
but as I said before, as long as the underlying ideas and analysis are kept front and center, and related back to their historical antecedents (see: The Brotherhood of Man, as well as fraternité) the labels needn't wind up being part of the newspeak vocabulary -- emblematic of attitudes rather than content -- as so many do these days.

[ Parent ]
Obama's behavior towards his gay allies (4.00 / 8)
beginning with his promotion of "ex-gay" Donny McClurkin and leading all the way to today's "what promise?" regarding DADT tells me everything I need to know about his commitment to dignitarianism.

I read Fuller's book and enjoyed it very much, but he's projecting here.

Montani semper liberi


Same deal with FISA or TARP (4.00 / 4)
I really don't care about Obama's inner state.

If Obama had the soul of, say, Huey Long, and for whatever -- populist? -- reason really did filibuster FISA, and really did impose some accountability and transparency on the bailouts, instead of whipping them through, wouldn't we all be a lot better off?

It's time-consuming enough to gaze at one's own navel, let alone gaze at somebody else's...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
This just in... (4.00 / 1)
Rahm Emanuel will be the special guest speaker at JPMorgan's board meeting in DC tomorrow...

About Mr. Emanuel's visit:  
"It's a very nice thing for the board to have happen," said the chief of a major financial company. "But you'd have to have a lot of influence to pull it off."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07...


[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
im going to have to side with lambert here, paul. If you had written this last year, i might have been interested. But now, we dont have time for this sort of thing, obama is totally fucking up,( i dont know if you read kevin baker piece in harpers "barack hoover obama" but it scared the shit out of me.) These mind games are no longer needed, because we know what obama is about. I have stated thinking that the progressive community should make a very public break with obama, so we dont go down on his sinking ship,(if that is even possible)

To The Contrary (4.00 / 1)
I think it's more important than ever to have a more sophisticated understanding of why and how Obama is fucking up.  And I think that his relationship to the ideals of dignitarianism provide some answers at a deeper level that cuts across the answers provided by looking at issue areas one at a time.  Is it the whole story?  No, of course not.  But I think it has something significant to contribute.

And it's not exclusively--or arguably even primarily--about how Obama is screwing up.  It's about shared understandings--or misunderstandings--that facilitate the sorts of political developments we have been witnessing.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Apologies Paul, (4.00 / 2)
I didn't see what you were driving at before but subsequent comments have made it more clear, I think.

And I'll bite. Since we have the author here, maybe, I have a question for him. What is the relationship between dignitarianism and fear of conflict?

When I read "All Rise," I thought the two were opposite. After all, the people who have made the greatest strides in establishing dignitarianism in the real world were people who either had no fear, or if they did, were able to master it successfully. King, Ghandi, the usual suspects.

Montani semper liberi


Dignity and conflict (4.00 / 3)
If you think about it, the type of conflict supported by Ghandi and King actually included treating the oppressor with dignity.  It seems awkward to put it that way, but I think non-violent civil disobedience really fits into this paradigm well.

[ Parent ]
But it never included (4.00 / 2)
ducking a fight. And that's where the real problem lies, I'm afraid.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Which Is Why I Used King's Letter From Birmingham Jail (4.00 / 2)
To frame an early critique of Obama's demonization of polarization.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Relationship between dignitarianism and fear of conflict (4.00 / 4)
Dignitarianism (Yipes, too many syllables in that word) refers to a way of handling conflict, not fear or lack of fear towards it. A dignitarian approach, while insisting on one's own dignity, also concerns itself with the dignity of one's antagonist or opposite number. The key principle is to protect others' dignity as you protect your own. Gandhi did just that. He was generally respectful towards the British. The conclusion of WW I was not dignitarian. The victorious allies insisted on humiliating the Germans and that opened the Germans to the demagoguery of Hitler who promised to restore their pride. Dignity for all is not just nice, it actually works. Indignity causes its targets to become indignant. In a world as small, interdependent, and fragile as ours, it is very dangerous to sow indignity. Obama seems to sense this, but he makes certain political choices that deviate from it. That is why I'm suggesting that he dig deeper and put a consistent framework under his instincts. No one should trust to instinct alone.

[ Parent ]
Well, as far as sowing indignity being dangerous (4.00 / 2)
... this "little single payer advocate" would like -- to give a non-DADT example -- not to be censored, and to be invited to sit at the table.

So I certainly hope that sowing indignity is dangerous -- for Obama as sower, that is, since that would lead to policy outcomes that I prefer. "Dangerous" in a way that Ghandi would approve of, I hasten to add.

In other words, I'm all for dignity in the abstract.  But "Obama seems to sense this" isn't based on any evidence at all that I can see, and I just provided counter-examples. So, I'd argue, we're dealing with projection -- as in so many other cases, people projecting onto Obama what they wish him to be.

I'd argue that here projection is not merely futile, but dangerous. "If only the Czar knew put a consistent framework under his instincts" didn't work out real well for the peasants, did it?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Just catching up (4.00 / 1)
Great discussion on a Sunday afternoon. Too bad I had to spend most of it buying toilet paper and dog food at the local Costco.

My compliments to the participants anyway, and to the author. It's been a welcome, if belated stimulant to the non-consuming neurons.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox