Liberalismâs Existential Crisis
Peter Wehner - 09.02.2010 - 11:39 AM
As the Obama presidency and the Democratic Party continue their journey into the Slough of Despond, itâs interesting to watch Obamaâ supporters try to process the unfolding events.
Some blame it on a failure to communicate. E.J. Dionne, Jr., for example, ascribes the Democratsâ problems to the fact that Obama âhas chosen not to engage the nation in an extended dialogue about what holds all his achievements together.â Joe Klein offers this explanation: âIf Obama is not reelected, it will be because he comes across as disdaining what he does for a living.â And John Judis points to the Obama administrationâs âaversion to populism.â
Others are aiming their sound and fury at the American people. According to Maureen Dowd, âObama is the head of the dysfunctional family of America â a rational man running a most irrational nation, a high-minded man in a low-minded age. The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown.â Jonathan Alter argues that the American people âarenât rationally aligning belief and action; theyâre tempted to lose their spleens in the polling place without fully grasping the consequences.â And Slateâs Jacob Weisberg has written that âthe biggest culprit in our current predicamentâ is the âchildishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.â
For still others, Obamaâs failures can be traced to James Madison. George Packer complains that Obamaâs failures are in part institutional. He lists a slew of items on the liberal agenda items âthe worldâs greatest deliberative body is incapable of addressing.â Paul Krugman warns that the Senate is âominously dysfunctionalâ and insists that the way it works is âno longer consistent with a functioning government.â For Vanity Fairâs Todd Purdum, âThe evidence that Washington cannot function â that itâs âbroken,â as Vice President Joe Biden has said â is all around.â The modern presidency âhas become a job of such gargantuan size, speed, and complexity as to be all but unrecognizable to most of the previous chief executives.â
Commentators such as the Washington Postâs Ezra Klein place responsibility on âpowerful structural forces in American politics that seem to drag down first-term presidentsâ (though Klein does acknowledge other factors). The New Republicâs Jonathan Chait pins the blame on âstructural factorsâ and âexternal factorsâ that have nothing to do with Obamaâs policies.
Then there are those who see the pernicious vast right-wing conspiracy at work. Frank Rich alerts us to the fact that the problem lies with âthe brothers David and Charles Koch,â the âsugar daddiesâ who are bankrolling the âwhite Tea Party America.â Newsweekâs Michael Cohen has written that, âPerhaps the greatest hindrance to good governance today is the Republican Party, which has adopted an agenda of pure nihilism for naked political gain.â And Mr. Krugman offers this analysis: âWhat we learned from the Clinton years is that a significant number of Americans just donât consider government by liberals â even very moderate liberals â legitimate. Mr. Obamaâs election would have enraged those people even if he were white. Of course, the fact that he isnât, and has an alien-sounding name, adds to the rage.â Krugman goes on to warn that âpowerful forces are promoting and exploiting this rageâ â including the âright-wing media.â And if they come to gain power, âIt will be an ugly scene, and it will be dangerous, too.â
What most of these commentators are missing, I think, are two essential points. First, the public is turning against Obama and the Democratic Party because the economy is sick and, despite his assurances and projections, the president hasnât been able to make it well. And in some important respects, especially on fiscal matters, the president and the 111th Congress have made things considerably worse. Second, an increasing number of Americans believe Obamaâs policies are unwise, ineffective, and much too liberal. They connect the bad results we are seeing in America to what Obama is doing to America.
But thereâs something else, and something deeper, going on here. All of us who embrace a particular religious or philosophical worldview should be prepared to judge them in light of empirical facts and reality. What if our theories seem to be failing in the real world?
The truth is that itâs rather rare to find people willing to reexamine or reinterpret their most deeply held beliefs when the mounting evidence calls those beliefs into question. That is something most of us (myself included) battle with: How to be a person of principled convictions while being intellectually honest enough to acknowledge when certain propositions (and, in some instances, foundational policies) seem to be failing or falling short.
Itâs quite possible, of course, that oneâs basic convictions can remain true even when events go badly. Self-government is still the best form of government even if it might fail in one nation or another. And sometimes it is simply a matter of weathering storms until certain first principles are reaffirmed. At the same time, sometimes we hold to theories that are simply wrong, that are contrary to human nature and the way the world works, but we simply canât let go of them. We have too much invested in a particular philosophy.
President Obamaâs liberal supporters understand that he is in serious trouble right now; what they are doing is scrambling to find some way to explain his problems without calling into question their underlying political philosophy (modern liberalism). If what is happening cannot be a fundamental failure of liberalism, then it must be something else â from a âcommunications problemâ to âstructural factorsâ to a political conspiracy. And you can bet that if things continue on their present course, ideologues on the left will increasingly argue that Obamaâs failures stem from his being (a) not liberal enough or (b) incompetent.
If the Obama presidency is seen as damaging the larger liberal project, they will abandon Obama in order to try to protect liberalism. They would rather do that than face an existential crisis.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/352621
Peter Wehner - 09.02.2010 - 11:39 AM
As the Obama presidency and the Democratic Party continue their journey into the Slough of Despond, itâs interesting to watch Obamaâ supporters try to process the unfolding events.
Some blame it on a failure to communicate. E.J. Dionne, Jr., for example, ascribes the Democratsâ problems to the fact that Obama âhas chosen not to engage the nation in an extended dialogue about what holds all his achievements together.â Joe Klein offers this explanation: âIf Obama is not reelected, it will be because he comes across as disdaining what he does for a living.â And John Judis points to the Obama administrationâs âaversion to populism.â
Others are aiming their sound and fury at the American people. According to Maureen Dowd, âObama is the head of the dysfunctional family of America â a rational man running a most irrational nation, a high-minded man in a low-minded age. The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown.â Jonathan Alter argues that the American people âarenât rationally aligning belief and action; theyâre tempted to lose their spleens in the polling place without fully grasping the consequences.â And Slateâs Jacob Weisberg has written that âthe biggest culprit in our current predicamentâ is the âchildishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.â
For still others, Obamaâs failures can be traced to James Madison. George Packer complains that Obamaâs failures are in part institutional. He lists a slew of items on the liberal agenda items âthe worldâs greatest deliberative body is incapable of addressing.â Paul Krugman warns that the Senate is âominously dysfunctionalâ and insists that the way it works is âno longer consistent with a functioning government.â For Vanity Fairâs Todd Purdum, âThe evidence that Washington cannot function â that itâs âbroken,â as Vice President Joe Biden has said â is all around.â The modern presidency âhas become a job of such gargantuan size, speed, and complexity as to be all but unrecognizable to most of the previous chief executives.â
Commentators such as the Washington Postâs Ezra Klein place responsibility on âpowerful structural forces in American politics that seem to drag down first-term presidentsâ (though Klein does acknowledge other factors). The New Republicâs Jonathan Chait pins the blame on âstructural factorsâ and âexternal factorsâ that have nothing to do with Obamaâs policies.
Then there are those who see the pernicious vast right-wing conspiracy at work. Frank Rich alerts us to the fact that the problem lies with âthe brothers David and Charles Koch,â the âsugar daddiesâ who are bankrolling the âwhite Tea Party America.â Newsweekâs Michael Cohen has written that, âPerhaps the greatest hindrance to good governance today is the Republican Party, which has adopted an agenda of pure nihilism for naked political gain.â And Mr. Krugman offers this analysis: âWhat we learned from the Clinton years is that a significant number of Americans just donât consider government by liberals â even very moderate liberals â legitimate. Mr. Obamaâs election would have enraged those people even if he were white. Of course, the fact that he isnât, and has an alien-sounding name, adds to the rage.â Krugman goes on to warn that âpowerful forces are promoting and exploiting this rageâ â including the âright-wing media.â And if they come to gain power, âIt will be an ugly scene, and it will be dangerous, too.â
What most of these commentators are missing, I think, are two essential points. First, the public is turning against Obama and the Democratic Party because the economy is sick and, despite his assurances and projections, the president hasnât been able to make it well. And in some important respects, especially on fiscal matters, the president and the 111th Congress have made things considerably worse. Second, an increasing number of Americans believe Obamaâs policies are unwise, ineffective, and much too liberal. They connect the bad results we are seeing in America to what Obama is doing to America.
But thereâs something else, and something deeper, going on here. All of us who embrace a particular religious or philosophical worldview should be prepared to judge them in light of empirical facts and reality. What if our theories seem to be failing in the real world?
The truth is that itâs rather rare to find people willing to reexamine or reinterpret their most deeply held beliefs when the mounting evidence calls those beliefs into question. That is something most of us (myself included) battle with: How to be a person of principled convictions while being intellectually honest enough to acknowledge when certain propositions (and, in some instances, foundational policies) seem to be failing or falling short.
Itâs quite possible, of course, that oneâs basic convictions can remain true even when events go badly. Self-government is still the best form of government even if it might fail in one nation or another. And sometimes it is simply a matter of weathering storms until certain first principles are reaffirmed. At the same time, sometimes we hold to theories that are simply wrong, that are contrary to human nature and the way the world works, but we simply canât let go of them. We have too much invested in a particular philosophy.
President Obamaâs liberal supporters understand that he is in serious trouble right now; what they are doing is scrambling to find some way to explain his problems without calling into question their underlying political philosophy (modern liberalism). If what is happening cannot be a fundamental failure of liberalism, then it must be something else â from a âcommunications problemâ to âstructural factorsâ to a political conspiracy. And you can bet that if things continue on their present course, ideologues on the left will increasingly argue that Obamaâs failures stem from his being (a) not liberal enough or (b) incompetent.
If the Obama presidency is seen as damaging the larger liberal project, they will abandon Obama in order to try to protect liberalism. They would rather do that than face an existential crisis.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/352621
