Markovits & Weintraub - "Obama and the Progressives: A Curious Paradox"

Back in January, discussing the remarkable speech that Obama gave in Atlanta just before Martin Luther King day (Barack Obama on solidarity, citizenship, anti-semitism, & the legacy of Martin Luther King), I noted that this speech highlighted one of the most striking and significant features of Obama's whole campaign:

Its central message emphasizes what I think is one of Obama's greatest strengths--namely, that he is not afraid to appeal to a politics of solidarity, national community, and the common good. This aspect of Obama's approach is precisely what makes some people uneasy, and perhaps they have good reasons for feeling that way in Obama's case, but rejecting this kind of message out of hand is a very damaging mistake.

For decades, too many alleged "progressives" have shied away from thinking or talking in terms of community and the common good in the pseudo-sophisticated but entirely misleading belief that only interest-group politics is "realistic," or the alternative belief that only the most balkanized forms of "identity politics" are progressive, or odd combinations of the two. In the process, they have unilaterally surrendered a central animating principle of active democratic citizenship and, at the same time, foolishly allowed Reagan and other Republicans to hijack the political language of the common good.

Of course, it is true that the rhetoric of solidarity and the common good can be bogus, self-indulgent, and ideologically mystifying--if it is empty of practical content, uncritical, and undemanding. But Obama understands that, too. [....]

In terms of the contrasting political styles of the Clinton and Obama campaigns, I think it is fair to say that Clinton has mostly cast herself as the candidate of interest-group liberalism, while Obama has cast himself as the candidate of republican virtue and national community. In doing so, whether or not Obama ultimately wins the Democratic nomination, he has added a valuable and exciting dimension to the political discussion. [....]

=> But one further implication of all this is that there is something a little puzzling, perhaps even paradoxical, about the excitement and enthusiasm that Obama and his message have generated among so many of his progressive supporters. Over the past four months this paradox has struck me as increasingly odd and intriguing. For example, a few weeks ago I attended an academic conference at which it was clear that most of the speakers supported Obama--but the arguments that most of them made in their papers rejected, in effect, the central defining themes of Obama's political message in one way or another. That's typical, not unusual.

This kind of disconnection is obvious once one notices it--at least, it seems obvious to me--but I don't think it's been sufficiently noticed or appreciated, and it might be enlightening to give it some consideration and reflection.

=> My friend Andy Markovits (who, unlike me, has been an unequivocal Obama supporter since 2007) has also been struck by this curious incongruity, and he proposed that we write something about it. Our piece (from the Huffington Post) is below.

Yours for democracy,
Jeff Weintraub
==============================
Huffington Post
May 28, 2008
Obama and the Progressives: A Curious Paradox
By Andrei Markovits & Jeff Weintraub

For millions of Americans, Barack Obama and his message have inspired intense support, enthusiasm, and even exhilaration. But there's something paradoxical about Obama's appeal to an important segment of his supporters.

Aside from African-Americans, Barack Obama's strongest support has come from affluent whites with college degrees or beyond, especially younger voters. Upscale middle-class progressives have been the core social and cultural constituency for the post-1960s "new politics" wing of the Democratic Party. In contrast to Obama's disproportionate support among professionals, academics, college students, and the like (not to mention political journalists and pundits), the core of Hillary Clinton's support turned out to be in constituencies at the heart of the classic pre-1968 New Deal coalition, above all white working-class voters (supplemented by Clinton's greater appeal to Hispanics and to middle-aged and older women). That's a compressed and incomplete picture, but few would deny that it captures a lot of the story.

These two wings of the Democratic Party's base have cohabited with varying success for the past four decades. This year they polarized fairly sharply between Clinton and Obama.

Clinton and Obama don't differ substantially in terms of specific issues and programs. But their campaigns have been organized around different orienting visions of politics and political leadership. Clinton based her campaign on the well-established model of interest-group liberalism, which she used effectively to mobilize the New Deal wing of the Democratic Party. The fact that this familiar message resonated with her supporters in tone and content isn't mysterious.

But Obama's appeal to so many upscale white progressives does have a puzzling aspect. People often talk about Obama's soaring rhetoric, but what's the content of that rhetoric? To put it in terms that the Founders would have understood immediately, Obama has made civic patriotism and republican virtue central to the message of his whole campaign. He has consistently championed a politics of solidarity, active citizenship, national community, and the common good. Like Lincoln, Obama portrays the United States as a nation defined by certain constitutive ideals and charged with the project of imperfectly but continually striving to achieve, extend, and enrich these ideals in concrete ways ("in order to form a more perfect union"). Furthermore, Obama affirms and celebrates "the promise of America" (adding that "I know the promise of America because I have lived it"), while insisting that to fulfill that promise requires constant effort, civic engagement, shared sacrifices, and conflict as well as cooperation.

The most crucial requirement ("the great need of the hour," in a formulation borrowed from Martin Luther King) is active moral and political solidarity -- not only to empower oppressed and underprivileged groups, but to bind together and revitalize a more comprehensive national community.

(Obama is popular around the world, but it's no accident that he drives some hard-core anti-Americans up the wall. For example, the Australian/British journalist John Pilger dismissed Obama as "a glossy Uncle Tom" who believes, along with Clinton and McCain, that "the US is not subject to the rules of human behaviour, because it is 'a city upon a hill'"--whereas in reality it is just "a monstrous bully.")

Historically, those themes have often been prominent in American politics, including progressive, reformist, and radical politics. (Let's not forget that the Pledge of Allegiance, which Obama has pointedly quoted, was originally written by a Christian socialist.) But in recent decades they have become increasingly unfashionable in some quarters--including those that have produced many of Obama's most passionate supporters.

Nowadays many (not all) self-styled progressives distrust any patriotic talk and regard appeals to solidarity and the common good as mystifying bunk or dangerous propaganda. Instead, serious discussion of politics is supposed to focus exclusively on competing interests, and much allegedly progressive discourse has gone beyond valuing diversity to supporting an irreducibly fragmented "identity politics" based on fetishizing "difference." (The main alternatives to balkanizing ultra-"multiculturalism"--more accurately termed "plural monoculturalism," as Amartya Sen points out--are often varieties of abstract legalism or cosmopolitanism equally allergic to the notion of national community.) From this perspective, Obama's invocations of "the American people's desire to no longer be defined by our differences," and his expressed conviction that "this nation is more than the sum of its parts--that out of many, we are truly one," should sound heretical. Ditto for his insistence that we have and must pursue "common hopes" that reach across our differences, aiming for more inclusive solidarity and effective recognition of the "larger responsibility we have to one another as Americans."

Put bluntly, the core of Obama's message would appear to be completely incompatible with the proclaimed beliefs of many of his most ardent progressive supporters. (And we haven't even mentioned the religious imagery of compassion, covenant, and redemption--analyzed thoughtfully and provocatively by Philip Gorski--with which Obama sometimes links his political message.) So what gives?

Three partial explanations, not mutually exclusive, strike us as plausible. First, the fact that Obama is African-American probably helps to make his appeals to American civic patriotism (along with his religious imagery) more acceptable in progressive circles than they would be coming from a white candidate. Second, some of Obama's supporters--and critics--probably assume that all this stuff is just empty campaign rhetoric that Obama doesn't really believe himself. We suspect they're wrong about that.

But the most interesting fact is that many of Obama's progressive supporters don't simply accept or tolerate his message. They are moved, thrilled, and inspired by it. As Gorski perceptively noted, this response suggests that Obama's message speaks to profound hopes, concerns, and emotions that--for good or ill--run deeper than explicit beliefs and positions. We hope so. For decades progressive politics in America has too often crippled itself by unilaterally surrendering the discourse of national community and the common good--and, with it, some of the key animating principles of active democratic citizenship. (Todd Gitlin and others have rightly decried this folly.) If Obama can help make these notions respectable again for self-styled progressives, that alone would be a valuable contribution.

Andrei S. Markovits teaches political science, sociology, and German studies at the University of Michigan. His most recent book, on European anti-Americanism, is Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America (Princeton University Press, 2007).
Jeff Weintraub teaches social and political theory and political sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. He also blogs at: http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/

Obama finally stops acting like a wimp ... up to a point

Some quick reactions to President Obama's "jobs speech" Thursday night (transcript here). First, one has to put it in context.

=> The federal government just spent months embroiled in a manufactured crisis over raising the debt ceiling that brought the US government to the edge of default, undermined the financial credibility of the US in ways that will probably have long-term consequences, and did further damage to our already dysfunctional political system by validating the Congressional Republicans' strategy of reckless and irresponsible political hostage-taking and extortion—which, as Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell openly boasted, they intend to employ routinely for the indefinite future. Aside from the immediate damage generated by this debacle, the fact that public discourse has been so totally consumed by the long-term problem of dealing with the federal deficit has been a gigantic distraction from addressing much more urgent economic problems: namely, that the economy remains stuck in a major recession, with considerable danger that the anemic recovery of the past year and a half will run out of steam and give way to a renewed decline, and that unemployment has remained stuck at appallingly high levels and shows no signs of going down.

A single-minded focus on cutting government spending is not just irrelevant to dealing seriously with these problems; cutting government spending prematurely will almost certainly make matters worse. During a major recession, the federal government should be running a deficit. (If nothing else, this is necessary just to counteract the cumulative effects of spending cutbacks by state and local governments. But counter-cyclical spending in response to an economic crash should go well beyond that.) The idea that the federal government should respond to an economic slump and rising unemployment by tightening its belt and balancing the budget might have been intellectually respectable, though incorrect, before the Great Depression of the 1930s and the writings of John Maynard Keynes. But seventy years later, that kind of position demonstrates either a quasi-theological commitment to certain pre-Keynesian economic dogmas or, more frequently, some combination of economic illiteracy, mindless sloganeering, and/or pure partisan demagoguery.

Unfortunately, Obama and his administration have not pushed back hard enough against these dangerously misleading notions, and in some ways their rhetoric has even encouraged these delusions. Furthermore, on a wide range of issues Obama has been far too willing accommodate the Republicans and to waste time in futile efforts to seek compromises with them, as though they were willing to negotiate in reasonable and constructive ways, whereas it has been clear since the beginning of 2009 that the Congressional Republicans are committed to a strategy of unremitting, indiscriminate, and monolithic obstructionism—which has actually been working out pretty well for them in terms of partisan advantage. By offering too many pre-emptive concessions and giving the Republicans too much of a free ride for their historically unprecedented levels of routine sabotage and obstructionism, Obama has often just played into their hands.

I know that some intelligent analysts like Jonathan Chait, who is usually right about most things, have argued that at least some of the criticisms of Obama for being too timid and for caving in too readily are unfair and unrealistic, because the the critics ignore the genuinely difficult constraints under which Obama is operating. I appreciate that this defense makes sense in some cases, and up to a point. But it's also too indulgent to Obama, who really has acted in ways that help make the problem worse.

Furthermore, when it comes to economic issues, it's not just a matter of Obama's being too unwilling to challenge the Republicans and right-wing economic sloganeering (and being too accommodating to big business and the financial sector, which have been shamefully coddled, cosseted, indulged, and reassured—with the absurd-but-unsurprising result that the Obama administration is ludicrously accused of being anti-business and even anti-capitalist). To an uncomfortable degree, these mistaken policies often seem to accord with the perspectives and policy preferences of important tendencies within the administration itself. Bill Maher recently quipped that Obama has been accused of being a secret Muslim, a secret terrorist, a secret Kenyan, and so on, but the the reality turns out to be even worse—he's a secret Republican. Again, this is a bit unfair if you take it literally (and, anyway, Maher was probably thinking more of an Eisenhower Republican than a contemporary hard-right Republican) ... but based on the record, it's not totally unfair.

=> Given this context, Obama's speech on Thursday was, on balance, a welcome departure in both tone and substance. It's clear that he and his advisers now realize how urgent it is to give the economy a further "jolt" of stimulus before it goes into another downward spiral. And his proposal was serious and substantive—probably not bold enough or big enough, and not without other problems, but a lot better than the main alternatives, which start with doing nothing and get worse from there.

Details aside, the central message of Obama's speech was that the federal government can and should do something significant to prevent a further economic slide and to reduce the level of unemployment. The situation is not hopeless, and efforts to improve it with positive action are not inevitably futile. Delivering this message was necessary and important. The central point, as Mark Schmitt put it, is "that we have it in our means to rescue the economy and to restore the promise of a middle-class country." People want to hear that, and I believe that it also happens to be true.

In the process, Obama made a bid to wrench the focus of public discussion away from a narrow and distracting obsession with deficit-cutting to concerns that most Americans clearly find much more pressing: "to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working." His tone was appropriately combative and even, by Obama standards, confrontational. He challenged his opponents not only in terms of specific policies, but also in terms of larger political visions at stake. All that was admirable and heartening.

On the other hand, a closer look at the details leaves me with mixed feelings, though I have to emphasize that these are just preliminary impressions. Although Obama did come out swinging, the speech still included too many rhetorical concessions to Republican priorities and ideas. The package of actual proposals, as presented in the speech and in an outline of the “The American Jobs Act”, is too heavily weighted toward tax cuts and credits (including an extension of temporary payroll tax relief for workers and various tax breaks for employers). But there may be tactical justifications for this approach, and the proposal also includes serious amounts of valuable spending, above all for infrastructure and other construction—which we urgently need in substantive terms, and which can easily be funded by borrowing right now, with interest rates on US government debt so low. (For an overview of what the proposal involves, see this piece by Ezra Klein.)

As the outline of the proposal gets fleshed out in various ways, and as we see where it goes in terms of practical politics, there will be more basis for an overall assessment. Meanwhile, I wanted to register two related qualms I had as I listened to the speech.

(1) Deficit Spending. Obama and his advisers clearly decided that it was impossible for him to state a central truth about the situation clearly and explicitly (perhaps, in part, because it takes two sentences to state it): (a) In the long run, the federal government and the country as a whole need to find ways to live within their means (a process that will have to include rolling back the Bush tax cuts and further reform of the health care system). But on the other hand, (b) in the short run, until the economy has genuinely recovered from the economic crash of 2007-2009 and unemployment has been significantly reduced, cutting federal spending and trying to eliminate the federal deficit are very bad ideas that can only hamper economic recovery and will almost certainly make matters even worse.

I can see some reasons why Obama and his team felt it was too dangerous to address this central issue head-on. But the fact that they felt this way is a bad sign in itself. Since it is a central issue, trying to avoid facing it won't make it go away.

What Obama did was to insist that "The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for." Indeed, "everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything. (Applause.)" But Obama avoided saying anything concrete about how it would be paid for. Instead, the Congressional super-committee that's supposed to be finding ways to cut the long-term deficit will be charged with finding additional savings that to cover the cost of this proposal. Presumably, some of Obama's suggestions will be included in the "more ambitious deficit plan" he intends to release in a week and a half—"a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run."

I will hope for the best, but I can see both practical and public-relations problems ahead. If Obama's promise that "The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit" turns out to mean, in practice, that its costs will be offset by future savings over the long run, then in substantive terms that will be fine. In fact, it would make excellent sense in terms of substantive policy. But that rhetorical maneuver may offer a vulnerable target for right-wing propaganda. On the other hand, if the costs are supposed to be offset by other spending cuts in the relatively short run, then that would wipe out many of the positive effects of the whole initiative. And if Republicans do agree to pass any of the measures included in Obama's proposal (the business tax cuts, for example) we can expect them to demand that the costs should be balanced by other spending cuts immediately. (Otherwise these measures might actually, God forbid, reduce unemployment between now and the November 2012 election!)

(2) The 2009 "Economic Stimulus". This brings us to a somewhat different but related point. It has become a standard right-wing talking-point to claim that the "stimulus" bill passed in 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was a complete flop, did no good at all, was a huge waste of money, and so on. Constant repetition has helped lodge this claim in the public mind, even though it's quite wrong, and the fact that economic conditions are still miserable helps make it sound plausible. The right-wing propaganda machine has been remarkably successful in turning "economic stimulus" into a dirty word that politicians avoid even mentioning—even though 85% of the current House Republicans who were in office three years ago voted quite happily for the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 when Bush II was President. So the right-wing line on Obama's latest initiative, especially the spending proposals, will be that it simply continues the alleged "failed stimulus policies" of the Obama administration.

There is a straightforward response to this line of attack, and one which happens to be correct. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 definitely
did work—in the sense of helping to pull the economy out of what looked like a self-reinforcing downward spiral, save millions of jobs, and prevent the Great Recession from turning into another Great Depression. No doubt it could have been better designed in various ways—though one has to bear in mind the urgent need to act quickly and forcefully in early 2009, in the context of a less-than-efficient Congressional budget process and in the face of almost unanimous Republican obstructionism. But if the ARRA hadn't been passed at all, we would be in much worse shape right now, and that's the appropriate criterion.

So why has the recovery been so anemic, and why is unemployment still so high? Well, in retrospect it's clear that the stimulus wasn't big enough (as a number of economists argued at the time) and that the severity of the economic crash in 2007-2009 was more massive than most analysts realized (and, perhaps, hoped). So it has been clear for a while that a major jolt of further economic stimulus is necessary. It's a pity that this wasn't done already, but better late than never. This isn't a matter of repeating a policy that has (supposedly) failed already, but of reinforcing a policy that has clearly had beneficial results, but which turned out to be inadequate in size and is still necessary. If you take two aspirins and your headache doesn't disappear immediately, do you throw away your aspirin bottle in disgust or take more aspirin a few hours later?

I would have been happier if Obama and his speech-writers had found an artful way to make some of these points in the course of his speech. Instead, Obama avoided using the word "stimulus" and said nothing at all about the ARRA. I can appreciate why he might have wanted to get bogged down in that controversy. But, once again, trying to avoid facing the issue won't make it go away. As I noted, Republicans are bound to charge that Obama's current proposals are simply a continuation of his "failed stimulus policies". Sen. Mitch McConnell began singing this tune even before Obama gave his speech. And ordinary people might honestly wonder why we should try another economic stimulus after the first one (supposedly) "failed". So Obama and his supporters will have to find some effective way to make the point that the 2009 stimulus did not fail (except in the sense of being too small). There's no avoiding it. If Obama and the other Democrats don't find an effective way to that, I suspect they will lose the struggle for public opinion.

=> Despite those reservations and qualifications, I do think that on balance Obama gave a very good speech, a surprisingly good speech under the circumstances, and that the initiative announced in his speech is also a good one. Both will have to be judged on the basis of practical results, which may take a while to work themselves out. But at least Obama decided to put up a serious fight, which is a Good Thing.

What happens next? Hard to predict, but right now I'm inclined to agree with Paul Krugman's assessment:

First things first: I was favorably surprised by the new Obama jobs plan, which is significantly bolder and better than I expected. It’s not nearly as bold as the plan I’d want in an ideal world. But if it actually became law, it would probably make a significant dent in unemployment.

Of course, it isn’t likely to become law, thanks to G.O.P. opposition. Nor is anything else likely to happen that will do much to help the 14 million Americans out of work. And that is both a tragedy and an outrage. [....]

O.K., about the Obama plan: It calls for about $200 billion in new spending — much of it on things we need in any case, like school repair, transportation networks, and avoiding teacher layoffs — and $240 billion in tax cuts. That may sound like a lot, but it actually isn’t. The lingering effects of the housing bust and the overhang of household debt from the bubble years are creating a roughly $1 trillion per year hole in the U.S. economy, and this plan — which wouldn’t deliver all its benefits in the first year — would fill only part of that hole. And it’s unclear, in particular, how effective the tax cuts would be at boosting spending.

Still, the plan would be a lot better than nothing, and some of its measures, which are specifically aimed at providing incentives for hiring, might produce relatively a large employment bang for the buck. As I said, it’s much bolder and better than I expected. President Obama’s hair may not be on fire, but it’s definitely smoking; clearly and gratifyingly, he does grasp how desperate the jobs situation is.

But his plan isn’t likely to become law, thanks to Republican opposition. And it’s worth noting just how much that opposition has hardened over time, even as the plight of the unemployed has worsened. [....]

The good news in all this is that by going bigger and bolder than expected, Mr. Obama may finally have set the stage for a political debate about job creation. For, in the end, nothing will be done until the American people demand action.

And perhaps it's not even impossible that Obama's proposal, or a significant portion of it, might even get passed. But, if so, that will take a long and ferocious political struggle. Those are the key points made by Jonathan Cohn. His analysis is intelligent, and I hope his (very guarded) optimism turns out to be on-target, so I'll close by passing on the highlights of his discussion:

Two years and one very long summer into the Obama presidency, many progressives have gotten tired of watching their would-be hero trying to appease the Republicans. On Thursday night, Obama made it clear he’s tired of it, too.

In one what was certainly his most impassioned -- and maybe even his most consequential -- speech since taking office, he proposed something bold and specific, demanded that Congress pass it, and promised to take his case directly to the people. As Greg Sargent noted, "The tone of urgency bordered on overkill — which is a good thing. ... Aides had promised he would challenge, rather than beseech, Congress to act. That turned out to be an understatement."

Indeed, the message seemed clear. The inside game is over. The outside game begins now.

And not a moment too soon. [....]

The proposal isn’t exactly what any expert would recommend for fixing the economy, in part because even relatively like-minded experts have some different notions about which initiatives work best. But virtually every mainstream economist I’ve seen or read in the past twelve hours thinks the plan has enough good ideas to reduce unemployment significantly.

And in a normal political world, it would actually have a chance of passing, because most of the ideas have a genuinely bipartisan pedigree. The infrastructure bank proposal, for example, comes straight from a bill co-sponsored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Republican from Texas [JW: and Democrat John Kerry of Massachusetts]. The single biggest element of the proposal is a payroll tax cut, which Republicans have historically supported.

Of course, Republicans have already indicated they may not support it this time around. Which brings us to the real issue here: What now? Most seasoned observers doubt meaningful legislation can pass. I'm not quite so sure. Republicans, particularly in the House, may have some extreme views on the economy. And they may be determined to oppose anything that Obama endorses. But they still have to win elections next year. And they may already be feeling some pressure to relent.

After this speech, House Speaker John Boehner issued a statement indicating that Obama’s proposals “merit consideration.” No, that doesn’t mean he, or his party, intends to give the proposal consideration. (Republicans were simultaneously blasting it as more "failed stimulus," after all.) But it does mean they feel compelled to pretend they will. And that means they might eventually feel compelled to vote for something – not as ambitious as the president proposed, for sure, but something that could still make some difference in the economy.

And if they don’t? Then Obama has at least given the public a clear sense of who stands for what. And make no mistake: That’s a worthwhile endeavor. The approaching presidential election will offer voters stark choices about the country’s future. The best thing Obama can do – not only for the sake of his own candidacy but for the sake of the public discourse – is to make sure the voters understand those choices.

But it will take more than one speech. It will take a sustained campaign – one Obama cannot wage alone, but one only he can lead. As a senior Democrat on Capitol Hill told TNR last night, “It was a strong speech. It’s what comes next that matters. Will he stay tough and keep hammering the Republicans, or will he go back to staying 'above the fray'?"

Stay tuned.

—Jeff Weintraub

Obama sticks to his central vision

One of the things that Barack Obama delivered in his speech at the Democratic National Convention, which has to rank among his truly great speeches, was a powerful restatement of his central orienting vision of political community and democratic citizenship, which he first presented during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007-2008. After all the trials and tribulations of his presidency, it's clear that he still remains committed to that vision, like it or not. In fact, anyone who follows Obama's speech closely and compares it with some key speeches he gave in 2008 will notice that he went out of his way to emphasize some of the continuities.

As I listened to Obama's speech, I was reminded of a piece that my friend Andy Markovits and I wrote way back in 2008 titled "Obama and the Progressives: A Curious Paradox". I think the points we were making there remain timely and relevant—especially in the context of an election contest against the threat posed by Trump and Trumpism.  So I offer some highlights as food for thought.  (Anyone who's interested can find the rest here.)

--------------------------------------------------
[....]  People often talk about Obama's soaring rhetoric, but what's the content of that rhetoric? To put it in terms that the Founders would have understood immediately, Obama has made civic patriotism and republican virtue central to the message of his whole campaign. He has consistently championed a politics of solidarity, active citizenship, national community, and the common good. Like Lincoln, Obama portrays the United States as a nation defined by certain constitutive ideals and charged with the project of imperfectly but continually striving to achieve, extend, and enrich these ideals in concrete ways ("in order to form a more perfect union"). Furthermore, Obama affirms and celebrates "the promise of America" (adding that "I know the promise of America because I have lived it"), while insisting that to fulfill that promise requires constant effort, civic engagement, shared sacrifices, and conflict as well as cooperation.

The most crucial requirement ("the great need of the hour," in a formulation borrowed from Martin Luther King) is active moral and political solidarity -- not only to empower oppressed and underprivileged groups, but to bind together and revitalize a more comprehensive national community.

(Obama is popular around the world, but it's no accident that he drives some hard-core anti-Americans up the wall. For example, the Australian/British journalist John Pilger dismissed Obama as "a glossy Uncle Tom" who believes, along with Clinton and McCain, that "the US is not subject to the rules of human behaviour, because it is 'a city upon a hill'"--whereas in reality it is just "a monstrous bully.") [Update: In 2016, Pilger prefers Trump to Clinton or Sanders.]

Historically, those themes have often been prominent in American politics, including progressive, reformist, and radical politics. (Let's not forget that the Pledge of Allegiance, which Obama has pointedly quoted, was originally written by a Christian socialist.) But in recent decades they have become increasingly unfashionable in some quarters--including those that have produced many of Obama's most passionate supporters.

Nowadays many (not all) self-styled progressives distrust any patriotic talk and regard appeals to solidarity and the common good as mystifying bunk or dangerous propaganda. Instead, serious discussion of politics is supposed to focus exclusively on competing interests, and much allegedly progressive discourse has gone beyond valuing diversity to supporting an irreducibly fragmented "identity politics" based on fetishizing "difference." (The main alternatives to balkanizing ultra-"multiculturalism"--more accurately termed "plural monoculturalism," as Amartya Sen points out--are often varieties of abstract legalism or cosmopolitanism equally allergic to the notion of national community.) From this perspective, Obama's invocations of "the American people's desire to no longer be defined by our differences," and his expressed conviction that "this nation is more than the sum of its parts--that out of many, we are truly one," should sound heretical. Ditto for his insistence that we have and must pursue "common hopes" that reach across our differences, aiming for more inclusive solidarity and effective recognition of the "larger responsibility we have to one another as Americans."

Put bluntly, the core of Obama's message would appear to be completely incompatible with the proclaimed beliefs of many of his most ardent progressive supporters. (And we haven't even mentioned the religious imagery of compassion, covenant, and redemption--analyzed thoughtfully and provocatively by Philip Gorski--with which Obama sometimes links his political message.) So what gives?

Three partial explanations, not mutually exclusive, strike us as plausible. First, the fact that Obama is African-American probably helps to make his appeals to American civic patriotism (along with his religious imagery) more acceptable in progressive circles than they would be coming from a white candidate. Second, some of Obama's supporters--and critics--probably assume that all this stuff is just empty campaign rhetoric that Obama doesn't really believe himself. We suspect they're wrong about that.

But the most interesting fact is that many of Obama's progressive supporters don't simply accept or tolerate his message. They are moved, thrilled, and inspired by it. As Gorski perceptively noted, this response suggests that Obama's message speaks to profound hopes, concerns, and emotions that--for good or ill--run deeper than explicit beliefs and positions. We hope so. For decades progressive politics in America has too often crippled itself by unilaterally surrendering the discourse of national community and the common good--and, with it, some of the key animating principles of active democratic citizenship. (Todd Gitlin and others have rightly decried this folly.) If Obama can help make these notions respectable again for self-styled progressives, that alone would be a valuable contribution.
--------------------------------------------------

=> OK, a full assessment would have to take into account some of the disappointments and shortcomings of Obama's actual presidency, and consider whether and to what extent they might have been linked to the ways that Obama tried to implement this orienting vision in practice. Among other things, it's clear that for a while Obama had unrealistic hopes about the prospects for working out constructive compromises with the Congressional Republicans. He underestimated the extent to which they would respond to his presidency with a strategy of unrelenting, indiscriminate, monolithic obstructionism and intensified partisan polarization, and did not foresee the political effectiveness of that strategy in terms of gaining partisan advantage for the Republicans, damage to the country notwithstanding. (That strategy also, by the way, had the unintended side-effect of helping deliver the Republican Party to Trump.) But one can't do everything at once. And those errors and setbacks do not, in my view, undermine the validity and value of Obama's central message.

—Jeff Weintraub

[Update 8/5/2016:  Andy Markovits and I have also published a slightly revised version of this post in Public Seminar titled "At DNC Obama Reaffirmed His Central Vision: Why It Matters for Democratic Politics Today".]

Theda Skocpol on health care reform, then and now

Anything that Theda Skocpol has to say about the politics of social policy in the US has to be taken very seriously, and that definitely includes her interventions in debates over the politics, political economy, and policy substance of the current health care reform effort. That makes it especially interesting to read and compare two pieces she wrote on this subject for Talking Points Memo six months apart, one in June 2009 and the other on December 19, 2009. Both are strongly and cogently argued, but their messages point in strikingly different directions. Perhaps they don't quite contradict each other, but at least they're in sharp tension.

I don't say that as a criticism. Actually, comparing Skocpol's arguments in these two pieces helps to illuminate some of the deepest, most difficult, and most genuinely intractable dilemmas involved in this whole political struggle. Some highlights:

=> "Robust Health Care Reform is the Moment of Truth for Obama and the Democrats" (June 24, 2009)

Fellow Americans, and fellow Democrats and Obama supporters, we are at a moment of truth, a pivotal turning point -- in the form of what happens in the next days and weeks with robust, universal health reform. A fork in the road socially, economically -- and politically. It could go either way depending on Obama and the Democratic officeholders many of us worked so hard to elect. They have the power to act, but will they use it -- or lose it?

If at this remarkable juncture Obama and the Democrats cannot enact a robust health care reform -- with a strong nationwide public option, cost controls, and nearly universal coverage -- I would not want to be in charge of fundraising and mobilization for them in the 2010 and 2012 elections! Most of us who supported them last time will of course not vote for a Republican.. But if Obama and the Democrats cannot act now on a once in a half century challenge and opportunity, they are not worthy of extra energy. [....]

Key leaps forward for U.S. public social provision -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- have NEVER happened through "bipartisan" compromises and they always happen in close votes. They have always sqweaked through after gargantuan effort, strong presidential pressure, and refusal to allow eviscerating compromises. Think of Social Security if the Clark amendment -- allowing corporate opt-out -- had passed in 1935. We would not have it. And conservatives and the medical and insurance establishments cried "socialism" in 1965, too. We would not have Medicare if we had listened.

Obama and the Democrats are coming off a historic, landslide election. They have all the popular support for robust reform they will ever have. Good policy design as well public desire for change and considerations of social justice and economic efficiency insist that they enact health care reform with a strong public plan in the mix. That is the only way to move toward cost control and guaranteed access with quality to all -- especially for Americans in lower economic strata or in rural states where one or two private insurers call the tune. [....]

The stakes here in political-economic terms are NOT between a "free market" and "government control." They are between two alternative uses of government regulations and subsidies: [....] So-called conservatives seeking "compromise" on health care reform want more subsidies for their buddies' profits, and want to force more Americans to buy inefficient products (through a mandate to buy private insurance). If Obama and the Democrats agree to such compromises under the name of "reform" they will have squandered the country's future economically -- and undercut their own political fortunes for the future.

Because let's not kid ourselves: WHATEVER passes this year will make the Democrats owners of the health care mess going forward. If they just throw more subsidies and piecemeal regulations into the current system, they will ensure galloping public costs for residual arrangements and for subsidies to private insurers who will easily find ways to avoid sick or costly patients. Businesses and citizens will grow more and more irritated as time passes, and will blame the Democrats. Rightly so. [....]

=> "Defend and Demand: The Progressive Way Forward" (December 19, 2009)

The 2009 health reform end game -- yes, the end of the beginning is in sight -- has been excruciating for progressives. Reforming health care in the real world in which we live means paying to include millions more Americans while fending off all of the tricks America's privileged, left and right, use to resist paying taxes; and it means finding ways to use public regulations and subsidies to put health delivery and finance on a more sustainable path for us all, while watching key mechanisms like the public option shrink and disappear to buy the votes of a few weasely "Democrats" in Congress who want to guarantee profits for private insurers.

Understandably, some progressives see what's left at the end of these struggles as not worth their support. But history tells us this is mistaken. We should take the many big steps forward that are on the table now -- above all the expanded entitlement, the regulations of private insurance, and the increased subsidies for the less fortunate -- and accept that true "health care reform" remains a multi-year, multi-election struggle. Social Security took several decades to become universal and adequate; Medicare did not include cost controls or key benefits for many years. Both programs moreover, had to be improved and defended at the same time, because conservatives attacked and tried to dismantle, even as liberals fought to improve and expand. The same will happen here.

So what should happen next for progressives? We have to DEFEND AND DEMAND AT THE SAME TIME-- and keep at it:

-- We must curb our doubts enough to celebrate what is good in the accomplishments and promises of this round in health reform, and make sure that those Congressional Democrats who fought for the best parts of this reform survive in 2010 and 2012. There is a huge amount of good in even the compromised Senate bill. It marks the accomplishment of a century-long struggle to say that all Americans deserve public help to ensure affordable health care coverage; and there are billions in subsidies to help many lower and middle-income people afford health care. [Etc.]

=> What changed in the meantime? Well, no doubt watching the health care reform effort make its way through the political meatgrinder this year has been a sobering experience. As John Maynard Keynes once said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

That doesn't necessarily mean that Skocpol's present position is the correct one, though I'm inclined to agree with it myself. But the crucial point is that morally serious political judgment has to take account of reality, with all its constraints and imperfections and ethical irrationalities, as well as ideals. (And has to do this without succumbing either to doctrinaire and unrealistic moralism or to spineless and unprincipled opportunism masquerading as 'pragmatism'--which, as Max Weber explained in his great essay "Politics as a Vocation," is not easy.)

--Jeff Weintraub

P.S. As I was finishing up this post, I noticed that Matt Yglesias also urged people to read and ponder Weber's arguments in "Politics as a Vocation"--and quoted one of the key passages, too. At moments like these, it's hard to avoid thinking about Weber's analysis of what it means to pursue what he calls an "ethic of responsibility" in politics. Matt ends on the right note:

[This] is perhaps a long-winded way of explicating Weber’s maxim: “Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards."

But we might also note what Weber says next:

It takes both passion and perspective. [....] [E]ven those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else men will not be able to attain even that which is possible today. Only he has the calling for politics who is sure that he shall not crumble when the world from his point of view is too stupid or too base for what he wants to offer. Only he who in the face of all this can say 'In spite of all!' has the calling for politics.

Markovits & Weintraub - "Some Blind Spots and Hypocrisies of European Obamamania"

[Also posted, with some slight modifications, in the Huffington Post.]

Some Blind Spots and Hypocrisies of European Obamamania
By Andrei Markovits & Jeff Weintraub

This follows up our May 28 piece in the Huffington Post, "Obama and the Progressives: A Curious Paradox," in which we pointed out that there's something puzzling about Barack Obama appeal to some of his most ardent "progressive" supporters. Andy Markovits is currently in Europe (serving as a Visiting Professor of International Politics in Vienna and following the European soccer championship matches), where Obamamania runs rampant. There are a range of different reasons for that enthusiasm, all of them understandable and many of them admirable. But European Obamamania (they actually use the word there) also has its paradoxical aspects.

Most of the report that follows comes from Andy Markovits in Vienna (with some joint input), so now I will turn things over to him. --Jeff Weintraub

=> Andy Markovits: Ever since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination for President, the overwhelming response from the European media and from cultural and political elites has been euphoric.

In many ways I find this total euphoria wonderful. In a piece that Jerome Karabel and I wrote in December 2007, we argued that one of the positive consequences of electing someone like Obama President would be to help restore respect for America around the world--not just because of what Obama says or what he would do, but also because of who he is, and what his election would represent about American society. It seems clear that even the strong possibility of this outcome, as it has emerged over the course of the nomination contest, has already begun to have those effects on European public opinion. Along with the world-wide impact of this year's US election drama in general, which shouldn't be discounted, the Obama factor in particular probably helps explain developments like these:

A BBC global poll released in April showed that views of the U.S. had improved in 11 of 23 countries from a year ago, including a big gain in France. A recent poll for ARD-TV showed that German confidence in the U.S. soared by 21 percentage points to 53% from last year.

At the same time, I can't help noticing some aspects of this euphoric response, especially from western European elites and from the prestige news media, that are disingenuous and even hypocritical.

In an awful lot of those responses, the basic message runs along the following lines. Now, finally, there may be a chance (a chance, not a certainty) that those American barbarians might be about to return to their senses--which, in essence, means European senses and sensibilities. In contrast to the cowboy Bush and his dangerous supporters, Obama is practically an honorary European, who can appreciate the wisdom, virtue, and enlightenment typically monopolized by Europeans (which usually means western Europeans). This is often followed by the ultimate seal of approval--they would be delighted to vote for Obama themselves, if given the chance.

All very heartwarming. But having followed the European media with some care since my arrival in Vienna on June 1, I have seen very little acknowledgement of one inconvenient complicating reality. Obama, or someone with Obama's social background and political style, would have a hard time getting elected dog-catcher in any of these European countries, let alone President or Prime Minister (or, in Germany, Chancellor).

There are various reasons why that's true. Despite the swooning praises of Obama from the western European chattering classes, the reality is that someone in their own countries with Obama's political style would actually turn them off. A European candidate with Obama's message of hope and idealism would make a lot of European journalists, intellectuals, and politicians roll their eyes. And in western European countries with established party systems, it would be almost impossible for a political outsider like Obama to vault over a party hierarchy so dramatically.

But the most fundamental reasons run deeper. A number of European countries have elected women to high political office, even the highest. (Score that one for the Europeans, at least some of them.) But as Jerry Karabel and I pointed out, none of them has ever elected a non-white person of any extraction to its highest political office--that is, head of state or head of government. (Actually, no predominantly-white country in the world has ever elected a black person to its highest political office.)

OK, neither has the US so far. But the more telling point is that in none of these countries have significant numbers of non-whites risen high enough in the political system that they could even be considered plausible candidates for the highest offices.

In France (depending on how the calculations are done) roughly ten per cent of the population are of Arab or sub-Saharan African origin. But the 577 members of the Chamber of Deputies do not include a single person of color. The German Bundestag has a few members of Turkish origin, but their numbers are minimal and none of them plays a prominent role (as compared with some heavyweight African-American, Cuban-American, and Mexican-American Congresspeople and Governors in the US). And so on. One can find isolated exceptions here and there (Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands, for example, before she had to flee the country?), but the point is that they're isolated exceptions.

Nor is this just a question of race (and racism). In comparison with the US, European societies have more ethnically restricted and exclusionary conceptions of full citizenship and of political community that make it difficult for outsiders of all kinds to succeed politically. Consider who is Governor of the largest and most important US state, California--the Austrian-American immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger. Is it even conceivable that a foreign-born immigrant with a funny foreign-sounding name and a heavy funny-sounding foreign accent could be elected Prime Minister of the most important German Land, North Rhine-Westphalia? (You don't have to guess--the answer is no.) And ditto for Italy, Britain, France, and the rest.

(Frankly, it's hard to imagine someone with Schwarzenegger's career profile getting himself elected to an important political office even in his native Austria--which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective.)

The recently deceased Congressman Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor from Hungary who came to the US as a child and eventually became a significant figure in national politics, used to say that a life-story like his would have been possible "only in America." Obama says the same thing, of course: "in no other country on Earth is my story even possible." This is a characteristically American line, and one that irritates some people who find it a misleading and exaggerated slogan of national self-congratulation. But in Lantos' case, at least, his claim was almost certainly correct. Not simply because he was Jewish--France, along with its bouts of intense political anti-semitism, has had several Jewish Prime Ministers, most famously Léon Blum, and even post-WWII Austria had the long-serving Chancellor Bruno Kreisky--but because Lantos was also a foreign-born immigrant.

Nor is the American system's greater openness and inclusiveness for outsiders restricted to elective office. Consider, for example, that former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright are both foreign-born, and Kissinger still speaks with a heavy German accent. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili is foreign born, with an exotic-sounding Georgian name. Shalikashvili's predecessor at the top of the US military hierarchy, former Secretary of State Colin Powell is not just African-American (like Condoleezza Rice) but also the son of Jamaican immigrants. In the US, figures like these have come to be considered normal, even unremarkable. Are there analogous Kissingers, Albrights, Powells, and Shalikashvilis in any European country?

Since France came up, it is only fair to add that President Nicolas Sarkozy may offer a partial exception to this European pattern, with a more "American" profile (in this and other respects). His father was an immigrant from Hungary, and his maternal grandfather not only immigrated from Greece, but was born a Sephardic Jew in Thessaloniki. Because of this background and for other reasons, Sarkozy's election was recognized as a major break with French political traditions. Furthermore, though Sarkozy has been less than welcoming to current immigration, to his credit he has appointed two women of North African origin and one from Senegal to ministerial and junior-ministerial offices. But so far Sarkozy is a unique figure, and those appointees remain--as indicated earlier--marginal exceptions in the French political system.

In short, the fact that an African-American like Obama is now the presumptive Presidential nominee of a major US party constitutes a new and historic breakthrough for American society. But it is also brings home some important ways in which American society itself is profoundly exceptional.

=> To be entirely fair, European reactions to Obama's victory have included some recognition of this point--not least, it would appear, in some quarters in France. According to a prominent French Obamaphile quoted in the International Herald Tribune on Friday ("Excitement in France over Obama Victory"):

"He inspires different people for different reasons, but he inspires most people" [....] "For the French establishment, Obama represents a new chapter in the Western alliance [....] For ethnic minorities he embodies the equality of opportunity they crave." [....]

"You can't welcome it enough, especially in this era of rampant anti-Americanism," Le Figaro, the French daily, said Thursday.

"With Obama, a certain idea of America is back: that of a generous society where equality of opportunity is not an empty promise. Hope and change, key words of his campaign, reinforce this rediscovered ideal, which resonates as much inside the country as beyond." [....]

Kama Des-Gachons, a 28-year-old Frenchwoman, was one of about 600 young men and women flocking to a panel discussion in Paris on Tuesday about the "Obama Effect in France." Her eyes lit up when she spoke about Obama. Not because he is a Democrat or because he opposed to the war in Iraq. But because his father was an African immigrant, like hers.

"He makes me dream," said Des-Gachons, whose parents came to France from Mali. "I even bought a T-shirt with the American flag. America is the country where you can make it."

Des-Gachons is living the American election campaign vicariously, as if she had a vote herself. Could she imagine a French Obama?

"Not anytime soon," she said. Despite a university degree from the Sorbonne, it took her two years to find her current job in finance.

"But who knows?" she added, echoing a hope that many in the audience expressed. "If Obama is elected, maybe it will change perceptions in France, too." [....]

Could be. In the meantime, that "Obama Effect" is a reminder of the genuine and enduring reality of American exceptionalism--for good and for ill, but in this case mostly for good. Perhaps that might make some people here dream, too?

------------------------------
Andrei S. Markovits teaches political science, sociology, and German studies at the University of Michigan. His most recent book, on European anti-Americanism, is Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America (Princeton University Press, 2007). Markovits is currently in Vienna as the Dr. Elisabeth Ortner-Chopin Visiting Professor of International Relations at Webster University, teaching a graduate course on Globalization and Sports and following the European Football Championship tournament (which is being played in Austria and Switzerland).

Jeff Weintraub teaches social & political theory and political sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. He also blogs at: http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/

Obama's Inaugural Address

I'm still mulling over Obama's speech and what it means. In the meantime, what follows are (mostly) some of my first impressions from Tuesday.

They're part of a conversation with Mark Kleiman at The Reality-Based Community. Tuesday evening I sent a message with some of my preliminary thoughts to Mark (partly in response to Mark's immediate reflections on the speech and the event--here & here--which are worth reading). He graciously suggested posting my message on his blog, and you can find it there (together with some of his commentary) as: Jeff Weintraub on Obama and the civic-republican tradition.

You can also read it below, along with a transcript of the speech itself. And you can watch Obama deliver his (First?) Inaugural HERE.

--Jeff Weintraub

=========================
Hi Mark,

I just read your thoughts on Obama's Inaugural Address, and (as usual) I found them perceptive and largely on-target. I think we agree that it was not one of his soaring speeches (and was not designed to contain a lot of applause lines), but it was eloquent in a sober and austere way. I felt a kind of tension there as I listened to it, which made parts of the speech seem almost odd to me, and perhaps that was due in part to a characteristic of the speech that I think you noted correctly--that is, in some ways it was "a text for the eye more than the ear." But that's only part of the reason, because when I read the text my overall impressions were not that different from what they were when I heard it.

For my part, when my wife and I watched the inauguration on TV, I found myself overcome with emotion to an extent that genuinely surprised me. Even the invocation by Pastor Rick Warren (!), who is hardly one of my favorite people, and which had a lot more Jesus in it than it should have, moved me almost to tears. Obama's speech, too. Even Joe the Biden's oath of office (which Justice Stevens, unlike Chief Justice Roberts, did not mess up). I guess when certain grand political rituals coincide with a historic occasion like this, the effect can be awe-inspiring.

I'm putting off writing down my own thoughts about the speech for my blog (and if I do post them at all, they'll be briefer and less substantial than yours were). But among other things, this speech once more reinforced an impression that struck me very early and very forcibly about Obama. You remark that a major theme of the speech has to do with the inextricable connection between freedom and responsibility (even "duties").

Insofar as a single dominant theme stands out in my memory, it was the responsibility of individual Americans to do their part in rebuilding the nation and the world.

This is right. One way to flesh this out, I think, is to frame it in a way that I did last January (Barack Obama on solidarity, citizenship, anti-semitism, & the legacy of Martin Luther King) and which my friend Andy Markovits and I spelled out more fully in May (Obama and the Progressives: A Curious Paradox):

[....] People often talk about Obama's soaring rhetoric, but what's the content of that rhetoric? To put it in terms that the Founders would have understood immediately, Obama has made civic patriotism and republican virtue central to the message of his whole campaign. He has consistently championed a politics of solidarity, active citizenship, national community, and the common good. Like Lincoln, Obama portrays the United States as a nation defined by certain constitutive ideals and charged with the project of imperfectly but continually striving to achieve, extend, and enrich these ideals in concrete ways ("in order to form a more perfect union"). Furthermore, Obama affirms and celebrates "the promise of America" (adding that "I know the promise of America because I have lived it"), while insisting that to fulfill that promise requires constant effort, civic engagement, shared sacrifices, and conflict as well as cooperation.

The most crucial requirement ("the great need of the hour," in a formulation borrowed from Martin Luther King) is active moral and political solidarity--not only to empower oppressed and underprivileged groups, but to bind together and revitalize a more comprehensive national community. [....]

That evocation of solidarity and responsibility conjoined with republican liberty, of the need to revitalize the political community (not as an alternative to government action, but as a necessary complement to it), and of a politics of the common good runs through his Inaugural speech, too--in a sober and serious tone, as I said. These themes tie together many of the specific passages you picked out.

And there's even an explicit invocation of virtue, which is more dicey nowadays. In fact, "hope and virtue" come together in the concluding paragraphs.

=> Of course, this talk of "virtue" is introduced and legitimized by quoting it from none other than the Alpha Founder George Washington. But did you notice something interesting about that historical tidbit?

The Washington-related passage in Obama's second-to-last paragraph referred to the terrible winter of 1776, when Washington's consistently-beaten army had retreated to Valley Forge and seemed about to melt away.

[JW: Mentioning Valley Forge was a slip on my part. The winter at Valley Forge came a year later, in 1777. In December 1776 Washington's army was camped across the Delaware River from Trenton, New Jersey. On December 26--my birthday--Washington gambled everything with an attack on the Hessian troops quartered in Trenton ... and won his first real victory.]

Obama's speech says:

At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive ... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].

Now, what struck me immediately is that those quoted words are Thomas Paine's. They come from Paine's pamphlet "The American Crisis" (printed December 23, 1776), which begins with that well-known passage ...

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. [Etc.]

According the standard historical account (or legend) I remember learning in my youth [recounted here, for example], Paine actually wrote that tract sitting in Washington's camp, and Washington really did have it read aloud to inspire the troops.

(Did it actually happen that way? I'm not sure, but it's plausible, and it certainly could have happened that way. Perhaps a historian could confirm it. But that's neither here nor there. Whether or not Washington actually had Paine's tract read out to the troops, they're the sort of thing he would have had proclaimed.)

Still, it's a pity that poor old Tom Paine couldn't get some recognition in Obama's inaugural speech. (Reagan quoted him explicitly, you will recall, at the 1980 Republican convention.) Paine's revolutionary pamphlets were phenomenal best-sellers at the time, of course. And when Paine's audience read those words, they knew exactly what "virtue" meant in that context--that is, citizen virtue. That's what we need, for sure (among other things).

=> Well, now we have to hope for the best.

Yours for republican virtue,
Jeff Weintraub

====================
Mark Kleiman comments:

Two quibbles on secondary points:

1. As noted in an update to my earlier post, the story that Paine's words were written at Valley Forge can't be true; they were published the previous winter. It's still possible that Washington ordered them read at Valley Forge.

[JW: As I explained earlier, I confused the issue by carelessly mentioning Valley Forge. Washington's camp in December 1776 wasn't at Valley Forge--that came a year later, in the winter of 1777--but once we correct for the actual location, the story is historically plausible.]

2. I find "too much Jesus" - a reaction I've encountered from others - a surprising response to Warren's invocation. Mine was just the opposite. Warren quoted Jesus (whom he referred to first by his Hebrew name, Yeshua) as I might quote Socrates: that is, as a human teacher to whom Warren is personally indebted for various insights. That's a long way from identifying Jesus as the Messiah, let alone worshipping Jesus as God.

Warren recited the Lord's Prayer, but didn't call it that; stripped of the title, it's recognizably (even in English translated from Greek) a very nice but fairly conventional piece of Hebrew religious poetry, which wouldn't be out of place in the Book of Psalms or the Saturday-morning synagogue service.

So while atheists and practitioners of non-Abrahamic religions might reasonably have felt left out, Warren's prayer wasn't really a specifically Christian one, let alone an Evangelical one.

And except for the mention of Jesus, the rest of the invocation could have been given just as well by a mainstream liberal Protestant minister, or a liberal rabbi. If Obama-ism has no greater triumph than persuading a mega-church entrepreneur to give such an ecumenical prayer, then I say, on behalf of my fellow fighters against superstition and bigotry, dayyenu! It is sufficient unto us.

[JW: On reflection, I think Mark is right about this--or at least more right than I was..]

Update Just in case you had any doubt, former Maryland Governor Bob Erlich wants to remind you that contemporary Republicans are not civic republicans. Oh, and they're a little bit literacy-challenged, as well.

=========================
New York Times
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address

Following is the transcript of President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you.

CROWD: Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.

I thank President Bush for his service to our nation...

(APPLAUSE)

... as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.

The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.

(APPLAUSE)

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

(APPLAUSE)

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less.

It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.

Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died in places Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

(APPLAUSE)

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.

The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.

We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality...

(APPLAUSE)

... and lower its costs.

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

MR. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.

But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

(APPLAUSE)

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

(APPLAUSE)

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan.

With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet.

We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense.

And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

(APPLAUSE)

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.

And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

To those...

(APPLAUSE)

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

(APPLAUSE)

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.

And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.

We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.

And yet, at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.

It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break; the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours.

It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old.

These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.

What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence: the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall. And why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

(APPLAUSE)

So let us mark this day in remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled.

In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river.

The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood.

At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words; with hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come; let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Thank you. God bless you.

(APPLAUSE)

And God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

"I'm Voting For Hillary Clinton" (Todd Beaton)

I've recently posted several strong pieces endorsing Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination (including this one today), so it seems only fair to balance them with a statement of some good arguments for the other side--especially since some Obama supporters seem to find it hard to imagine why anyone would support Hillary Clinton over Obama.

This particular statement comes from Todd Beeton, one of the regular bloggers at the California liberal-Democratic websites MyDD (where they're split between Obama & Clinton) and The Courage Campaign. I don't know much about Beeton (aside from having read a solid and intelligent discussion of Obama's Krugman Problem that he wrote on Sunday), but he makes a thoughtful case here.

--Jeff Weintraub
=========================
MyDD (Direct Democracy)
I'm Voting For Hillary Clinton
Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - 12:26:13 PM EST
by Todd Beeton

Hillary Clinton had an uphill climb. She started out way at the back of my rankings of presidential preferences, behind Obama (whom I prefered early) and Edwards, but over the course of the past year, she of all the candidates made the case best, in my mind, for why she should be president.

The shift began to happen in early fall after several debates gave me a sense of just what a good candidate she was, which is different than whether she'd be a good president; I just really became more and more impressed with her intelligence, humor and ability to communicate a message in a succinct and accessible way, unlike Democratic nominees of days past. At the same time, I became less and less impressed with Barack Obama's candidacy, which seemed to be flailing a bit. As fall gave way to winter and there was a switch in the fortunes of what would become the two leading campaigns for the Democratic nomination, I realized my admiration for Clinton had developed into a real belief that she would be not only a great nominee but also a phenomenal president.

Over the past few weeks, as the differences between the candidates have sharpened into a choice between two styles of the presidency and as I've seen Clinton and Obama in person several times, that impression has grown even stronger. Who knew I had such a strong belief that the presidency is a job that requires intimate knowledge of the ways Washington works and a hands on approach to not only setting, but pushing through an agenda. I'm much more a Jed Bartlett guy than a Dave guy, which is why through all of the Obama events I've seen, I've been left wondering, OK, sounds great but exactly what will you do as president and how will you do it? Obama wants to lift the country up, make us see ourselves as better than we are, unite the red states and blue states...you've heard it all...but as inspiring as it is, I'm always left wondering what does it mean in real world terms? I need more than a theory of change to cast a ballot for the most important job in the world. Follow me...

As if trying to answer just that question, Ted Kennedy said at a recent rally that Barack Obama is the one to break the deadlock in Washington. Huh? How? If that's the case, why hasn't he done so as senator? What sort of across the aisle magic unity has he manifested over the past 3 years? It plays into this idea that Hillary Clinton is too divisive to be elected, which flies in the face of the reality that she won over the respect of Republican senators in congress and she won over Republican voters in New York; to paraphrase Obama himself, Hillary Clinton is not nearly as divisive as the caricature her opponents paint of her would suggest, yet it certainly behooves the Obama campaign to perpetuate that idea.

In addition, as for what the two candidates will do as president, there are two distinct reasons Hillary Clinton has inspired my vote over Barack Obama. First is that I know she will be a partisan warrior. I'm not ready to give up the fight that they started but that we've been waging over the past several years; I'm not ready to give in to the Broders and Brooks's who insist both parties are equally culpable in the havoc that the Bush administration and a Republican congress has wrought and that unity, in and of itself, is the answer. I've been saying all year that a unity message does not have to be a post-partisan message; you can unite the country by branding the values of the majority of Americans as what they are: Democratic values opposed to the regressive and destructive Republican values that have almost run our country into the ground. While I have no doubt that Barack Obama is a committed Democrat and wants Democrats all over the country to win, I'm disturbed at times by his reluctance to state proudly that he is a Democrat; he has a real opportunity to rebrand the party but he almost perpetuates the idea that it's a dirty word.

The second reason is that I actually believe Hillary Clinton is prepared to take full advantage of the progressive moment we find ourselves in to set a challenging domestic agenda that will not only, as she puts it, "clean up after this Bush," but will also set us on a track for a longterm progressive majority. I know she's seen as a cautious DLC centrist, but what's interesting is that people who claim to be so concerned with moving forward into the future assume Clinton will govern as president with the same instincts that led to some of her worst votes as senator. I actually believe with workable majorities in both houses of congress and with a strong electoral mandate from the country in November, President Hillary Clinton will be a friend and champion of progressive causes. Sure, I fully admit that requires a leap of faith on my part, but she inspires me to take that leap.

Why don't I see Barack Obama as that guy? Perhaps because in his effort to woo more conservative voters he's running to Clinton's right on health care and using right wing language on anything from Social Security to tax cuts. It used to matter to progressives how a candidate talks about issues; it still matters to me. It's not that I think Barack Obama isn't a progressive, certainly his voting record is, but the idea that he would run right to make distinctions from his opponent in a Democratic primary goes against everything we've been fighting against; and how else am I supposed to judge how he'll be as president than by the policies he's offering as a candidate? Whenever Obama does something questionable to progressives, it's fascinating to see the bending over backwards that goes on throughout the blogosphere to justify it. I don't think we should be trying so hard to look for signs that Barack Obama is a friend to the progressive movement even as he boasts about wanting to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Maybe he is sending some complex series of coded messages, which is essentially what some bloggers have argued, but all it does is make me question even more exactly the kind of president he would be. I don't have that same question with Hillary Clinton.

So, for me, a vote for Barack Obama is a leap of faith, one I'm not prepared to take. While Barack Obama certainly has inspired me and I believe him to be a good and honorable man, Hillary Clinton has inspired something far more important for my vote: confidence. I have no doubt that Obama could continue to nurture the movement he's started, perhaps as a VP candidate (yes, Clinton-Obama would be my ideal ticket) or just as a senator/orator; he doesn't need to be president to make the change he says he wants to bring to our nation. As he himself tells us often, it's not about him, it's about us. Right now, after a president who has systematically undermined every aspect of government, I need a president who will focus on making it work again; I believe in the power of government to be a force of positive change in people's lives and I know Barack Obama does as well, but only Hillary Clinton has inspired me to believe that she is the one to fix it and indeed to restore faith in government to usher in a longterm period of progressive -- and competent -- governance. Now that would be quite a change indeed.

I went back and forth on whether I should write this, curious your thoughts. I don't know if it's to my credit or not that I've been accused of being both an Obama booster and an Obama hater but now you know where my vote lies, the truth is out. But quite frankly, I've tried not to use this blog as an outlet of candidate promotion, I've tried to call it as I've seen it, regardless of my vote, so I will continue to write about Barack Obama in a positive light and criticize Clinton when warranted. These are both great candidates, we're lucky to have this choice, as tough as it's been.