| I want to look at Lakoff's piece in discrete sections, the better to clarify points of agreement and difference.
What Counts As An Issue?
First, Lakoff lays out the different approaches of Caroline Kennedy and the NY Times Editorial Board. The Times endorsed Clinton, and did so saying, "On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two," and while Caroline Kennedy basically agrees, Lakoff points out that for her, "policy is not the real issue." Instead, she cites "qualities of leadership, character and judgment," and says,
"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."
Now, there is every reason to believe these things important-including a way Lakoff does not explain, in terms of his own work. Perhaps he knows better-it would take a seminar to do properly, and Huffington Post is not best forum for that. But I want to at least indicate it. Lakoff's work is deeply rooted in a perspective that sees it as fundamental that we are physical creatures, who understand the world in terms of our most basic orientations and activities, building up from the simple to the complex. This is quite different from the dominant strain of Western thought, which sees us as disembodied consciousness-whether spirit or abstract mind.
This matters for the issue at hand for a very simple reason: if we are simply disembodied consciousness, then matters of leadership style, character, and judgement, really are quite distinct from policy positions, and even if one does not devalue them, one sees them quite separately. But if we are embodied consciousness, then nothing we think, no act of cognition, no decision, no analystical conclusion, however abstract, even purely mathematical ones, can be fully separated from how we live our lives. We can draw distinctions, and make separations-such as those between style and substance-but these are always, on some level, a form of make-believe. The reality is that they are all connected.
This provdes us good reason to take Kennedy's argument seriously as having real, tangible consequences. She may not be talking about policy, but she is still talking about matters of substance. But it is also cause for concern, because it means that the disconnects I see in Obama's conduct clearly are matters of substance as well.
Comaring the two postions-Kennedy's and the Times-Lakoff puts it like this:
The difference is striking. To the editors of the New York Times, the quality of leadership seems not to be an "issue." The ability to unite the country is not an "issue." What Obama calls the empathy deficit -- attunement to the experience and needs of real people -- is not an "issue." Honesty is not an "issue." Trust is not an "issue." Moral judgment is not an "issue." Values are not "issues." Adherence to democratic ideals -- rather than political positioning, triangulation, and incrementalism -- are not "issues." Inspiration, a call to a higher purpose, and a transcendence of interest-based politics are not "issues."
What we can say, simply, is that the Times only sees policies as issues. But Kennedy sees acheiving them as the larger issue, along with imbuing them with meaning and significance.
The Reagan Thing
Next, Lakoff takes up the issue of Ronald Reagan and his significance. Lakoff says:
In Thinking Points, the handbook for progressives that the Rockridge Institute staff and I wrote last year, we began by analyzing Ronald Reagan's strengths as a politician. According to his chief strategist, Richard Wirthlin, Reagan realized that most voters do not vote primarily on the basis of policies, but rather on (1) values, (2) connection, (3) authenticity, (4) trust, and (5) identity. That is, Reagan spoke about his values, and policies for him just exemplified values. He connected viscerally with people. He was perceived as authentic, as really believing what he said. As a result, people trusted him and identified with him. Even if they had different positions on issues, they knew where he stood. Even when his economic policies did not produce a "Morning in America," voters still felt a connection to him because he spoke to what they wanted America to be. That was what allowed Reagan to gain the votes of so many independents and Democrats.
As I've written before, I think that this view of Reagan is at least partly jumbled. Reagan's election in 1980 was primarily a rejection of Jimmy Carter, rather than an embrace of Reagan, and it was motivated more by uncertainty and fear over a changing world than it was by trust in Reagan. John Anderson and other third party candidates got nearly 9 percent of the vote, and Reagan barely topped 50%--not much better than Gerald Ford had done four years before. Furthermore, the American people didn't just reject Reagan on the issues of slashing social spending, for example. They rejected the values behind those policies as well. Even many conservatives who might agree "in principle" did not agree with the principle of putting principle above people in need. Finally, his 1984 win, which really did draw significant Democratic, as well as independent support, came in part because Walter Mondale lost his nerve. Instead of campaigning as the liberal he had always been, he tried to campaign as a fiscal conservative, promising to raise people's taxes. Thus, a very large part of Reagan's success came from his opponent's failures.
Nonetheless, Lakoff has done a much better job than most presenting what it was that Reagan was up to. And pointing out how it doesn't fully fit is not a good reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. After all, his opponents did fail, and there are clearly lessons to be learned.
One thing that's important to recognize is that Lakoff's discussion of Reagan cannot be taken as a play for sympathy from wistful Reagan supporters. This makes the issue of differences in analysis much more straightforward than when Obama speaks similarly of Reagan to a conservative editorial board.
The Heart of The Matter
We now come to what I consider the heart of Lakoff's essay, in terms of the issues I see as unresolved. This spans parts of three paragraphs:
There is a reason that Obama recently spoke of Reagan. Reagan understood that you win elections by drawing support from independents and the opposite side. He understood what unified the country so that he could lead it according to his vision. His vision was a radical conservative one, a vision devastating for the country and contradicted by his economic policies.
Obama understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.
But his vision is deeply progressive. He proposes to lead in a very different direction than Reagan.
The problem is, one cannot doubt how conservative Reagan was-even though conservatives today are far more rabid. Still, his allegiences were clear, as were his enemies. Neither is fully the case with Obama, whose policy positions Lakoff admits are close to Clinton's, and who goes out of his way to charm and disarm conservatives, whereas Reagan loved to demonize-"welfare queens," student radicals, Black Panthers, etc. Indeed, Reagan thrived on demonization, even as he flashed his Hollywood grin.
In part this is quite understandable-demonizing the other is a core conservative principle, while reaching out to the other is a core liberal principle. This follows quite directly from Lakoff's own work on the contrasting family models that structure liberal and conservative beliefs-the Nurturant Parent and the Strict Father.
Yet, Obama has shown himself capable of taking swipes at people from time to time-but the people he swipes at tend to be other progressives, which is one reason why there are lingering doubts. This has been particularly apparent in his periodic distancing of himself from anti-war advocates*, whose early support was crucial for distinguishing himself before he was elected to the U.S. Senate. He has also taken unfair jabs at secular humanists*. These are, some might argue, relatively minor concerns. But they are not the sorts of thing that Reagan would ever do. Reagan was a leading proponent of the eleventh commandment-"Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." And he certainly didn't speak ill of conservatives!
* NOTE: For some unfathomable reason, OpenLeft's upgrade utterly rejected my links to these diaries. Please google "Obama vs. ISG: Yes Blood For Oil!" (at DKos) and "Barack Obama Steps In It" at talk2action.org.
Lakoff's Three Major "Issues" Dividing Democrats
Lakoff then goes on to identify three "issues"-not policy issues, to be sure, but legitimate issues, nonetheless. The distinctions Lakoff draws are critically important ones-my only problem is that I don't see Obama clearly embodying a sharp alternative. He does embody an alternative-but it's fuzzy, in part because his speeches say so little about the underlying policy issues, and in part because-as even Caroline Kennedy admits-there's really not so much difference between the candidates on policy matters. And if there's not that much difference, then how can Obama be "deeply progressive" if Hillary is not? So I read the following as Lakoff's description of "ideal types" and I fully agree with everything he's saying about these ideal types-I just continue to have my doubts about Obama fullfilling his supposed role:
First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship."
But if Obama doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship," then why has he seldom been on the frontlines of any significant battle since joining the Senate? Why did he miss the vote supporting MoveOn when Clinton did not? Why did he buy into and repeat Bush's frame about Democrats cutting off funding while soldiers were in the field in Iraq? Why does he regularly use rightwing language such as "tax relief"?
The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about "I," I," "I" (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about "you" and "we" (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).
But if Obama believes in bold moves, how can his policy positions be nearly identical to Clinton's? Surely, the bold moves alone would set the two apart, and there would be no need for such an article by Lakoff in the first place. Moreover, if Obama believes in bold moves, why have they been so hard to find in his Senate record? And why has he rejected such bold moves in general and especially on the signature issue of health care, where bold leadership is precisely what's needed to bring single-payer front and center? David Sirota's June 2006 article in The Nation, "Mr. Obama Goes to Washington", made Obama's incrimentalism quite clear:
This theme had been reiterated all day: Obama is all about the art of the possible within the system. "This is a classic conflict within the left: Are you a revolutionary or are you a reformist?" Obama said. "I am less concerned with the labels that are placed on me in terms of what kind of leader I am, and I am more interested in results.... I think within the institutional structures we have, we can significantly improve the life chances of ordinary Americans." I asked him to give me some specific examples of what he meant. Is a proposal to convert America's healthcare system to one in which the government is the single payer for all services revolutionary or reformist? "Anything that Canada does can't be entirely revolutionary--it's Canada," Obama joked. "When I drive through Toronto, it doesn't look like a bunch of Maoists." Even so, Obama said that although he "would not shy away from a debate about single-payer," right now he is "not convinced that it is the best way to achieve universal healthcare."
In short, I would be happy to support George Lakoff's Barack Obama. My problem is, I just can't find him?
The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama's thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting.
Two words: Donnie McClurkin. Check out Pam's House Blend if you need it explained.
My diary yesterday, "Rankism--An Issue Custom-Made For Obama", did show a way that Obama could clearly demonstrate what Lakoff claims to already see in him. I believe that it is clearly a good fit for Obama to adopt an explicitly dignitarian platform, and, consequently, I remain deeply troubled and confused by the whole McClurkin incident. So long as McClurkin remains a bitter taste in my mouth, and so long as Obama puts no flesh on the bones of his empathic approach, I simply do not see the same Obama that Lakoff does.
Nonetheless, despite my significantly different view of Obama, I cannot but agree with the spirit, if not the letter, of Lakoff's closing statement:
For a great many Democrats, these are the real issues. These real differences between the candidates reflect real differences within the party. Whoever gets the nomination, these differences will remain.
It is time for the press, the pundits, the pollsters, and the political scientists to take these issues seriously.
I would only add, it's time for Barack Obama to take them seriously as well. |
