Upward and downward counterfactuals: Obama campaign vs. Obama presidency

by: Paul Rosenberg

Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 16:30

Downward counterfactuals

I look at the perceptions of President Obama and his "accomplishments" in terms of upward and downward counterfactuals, in addition to, as Paul says, "what do you get in the end?"

Upward counterfactuals look at "how much better it would have been if..."-these reduce satisfaction with reality but help individuals prepare for better performance in the future. The "sanctimonious purists" with whom the President parts company are engaging in upward counterfactuals-and rightly so.

Downward counterfactuals look at "how much worse it would have been if..."-and engender a sense of complacency and satisfaction; to me, they can be rationalizations for "settling" or, worse, defeatist.
The entire line from the Obama administration and its most ardent supporters has been, among other things, one long exercise in downward counterfactualism-"it would have been even worse if we had not gotten x," x being a mere fraction of or some inferior alternative to what was sought (as occurred in health care "reform," extension of unemployment benefits), not even what might be considered "ideal," or something no one could have or should have opposed (as in the START treaty, food safety, health care for 9/11 responders). These downward counterfactuals act as rationalizations for, on the one hand, as Paul says, the slow motion dismantling of the New Deal (as well as the wholesale undermining of liberal programs and philosophy, generally) and, on the other, as justifications for corporate-driven policy.

One thing that struck me about this comment is how it cut to the heart of what I think is wrong with the Obama presidency and how it contradicts his campaign.  It's a problem even deeper than ideology, because it goes to where the differences in ideology come from.  Put simply, Obama's campaign was one long exercise in upward counterfactual "thinking"--if, indeed, one could even call it "thinking".  It was more like imagining: imagine that things will be dramatically better, because we all know that they can.  And each of you can help by imagining that in your own way, and then pitching in....

There were limits to this, clearly.  And I pointed them out at the time.  There wasn't really a whole lot of content.  But there was, at least, this upward counterfactual logic which just by its form embodied a promise.

But Obama's entire presidency has been entirely the reverse.  It's been about downward counterfactuals. It's been about settling. "Well, this isn't exactly what you want, but imagine how much worse it will be if we don't at least do this."  That has been the logic of virtually everything the Obama Administration has done. And not just the finished legislation, but of all the pre-compromising, of the exclusion of idealistic voices--or even just long-suffering, hard-working, scientifically informed and/or militant ones.

Now, I'm very much a wonkish sort who's into how things work.  And it's simply a fact that neo-liberalism is not how things work.  So I tend to look at what Obama does and say, "Well, that's just more screwed up neo-liberal BS."  And that's true.  But it's also true that neo-liberalism means settling.  It is, at it's very essence, a philosophy of settling. "Well, yes, you want X, Y and Z," the neo-liberal says. "And so do we.  So does everyone.  But you can't just go ahead and DO it the way you want to.  You have to adapt.  You have to use more conservative means.  But don't worry, it's still for progressive ends."  And this argument, by its very essential logic is a form of downward counterfactual thinking: If you don't do this.... It's Tony Blair accepting Margaret Thatcher's most famous dictum: "There is no alternative."  Only he says, you can still make it work for progressive ends.  But then it doesn't actually work out, and the process of downward adjustment continues, grows deeper, based on the argument, "Well, if not, imagine how much worse...."

And throughout all of this what is always being lost, piece by piece, bit by bit is the wild-eyed exuberance of limitless hope and aspiration.  What's being lost is vision. What's being lost is the mindset of upward counterfactuals.

That's the bottom-line difference between how Obama campaigned and how he has governed.

Obama Campaign No Movement, MoJo Panelists Agree

by: Paul Rosenberg

Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 21:00

I rarely disagree with Digby on anything more than minor details, but this time her gloss just seems wrong to me.  

Here is a fascinating post over at Mother Jones:

Is Barack Obama exaggerating when he compares his campaign to the great progressive moments in US history? We asked two dozen writers, thinkers, and historians to answer that question; read their responses below.

I think the most interesting thing about the answers is the degree to which just about everyone sounds ambivalent or confused. It's a very odd array of answers from people who are immersed in politics and history and who should be able to rattle off a compelling rationale for the candidate without any problem, even if they disagree with the notion that it's a movement on par with civil rights or the labor movement.

There are plenty of other things Digby says in this post that I agree with, but there are two things wrong with this part. (1) I think it's clear that the vast majority of folks know the campaign is no movement, and say so in a variety of informative ways. They are neither ambivilent nor confused, though they may disagree with one another somewhat. (2) I don't think any of them saw it as their job to "rattle off a compelling rationale for" Obama, so what's the big deal that they didn't?  This isn't an indication of confusion, much less anything else, aside from the question they were trying to answer.

What's more, some of their answers were well worth thinking about--or at least worth reading for some small sense of not being alone.  And most surprisingly for me, arguably the best answer came from a somewhat surprising source--one-time "black conservative" Glenn Loury (he once held a very high position in the Reagan Administration), who has had a some fairly dramatic struggles and changes of direction in his life.  In contrast, a couple of progressive voices make some rather mundane points, albeit with a flourish. Execrpts and comments, also covering Naomi Klein, Garry Wills and Michael Kazin.

Oh, btw, the title of the Mother Jones piece is The Audacity of Hype?"