I remain agnostic about Barack Obama. I do not think I know enough about him and how he thinks to get an accurate reading of his character. People who have a great deal more certainty than I do have variously proclaimed him to be the embodiment of an idealistic liberal, a quasi (or actual) socialist, a Chicago pol complete with petite and grand corruption, and a spineless facade for powerful and often nefarious interests. I am determinedly omitting the most extreme possibilities, that he is the "light bringer" who will stop the seas from rising or a Manchurian candidate dedicated to the destruction of America.
I often wonder if, in four years, I will be any closer to a decent reading of Barack Obama. Until now he has shown himself to be an ambitious President whose wishes and rhetoric border on the grandiose, with little evident awareness of the complexity of many of the problems he hopes to tackle and with little apparent ability or desire to confront the most aggressive among his friends or enemies.
Yesterday , EJ Dionne offered a very supportive, bordering on hagiographic, depiction of Barack Obama and his Presidency in its early days:
EJ Dionne Ironies of 'a Devout Non-Ideologue'
But the most intriguing aspect of Obama's presidency so far may be the way in which he combines intelligence and intellect. The two are quite different, as Richard Hofstadter noted more than four decades ago in his instructive book, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life."
Intelligence, Hofstadter argued, is an "unfailingly practical quality" that "works within the framework of limited but clearly stated goals." Intellect, on the other hand, is the mind's "creative and contemplative side" that "examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes, imagines."
For Obama's base of progressive and liberal supporters, it is his intellectual side that draws such fierce loyalty and admiration, while his conservative foes mistrust the very part of him that imagines and dreams -- because they do not share his dreams.
But Obama's continued high standing in the polls rests on the great middle of the electorate that doesn't care if he's intellectual as long as he is smart enough to fix things. Obama and his aides know this, which is why our intellectually inclined president will continue to sow mystery by casting himself as a mechanic, a problem-solver and "a devout non-ideologue."
Jenifer Rubin disputes Dionne's characterization by pointing out that Barack Obama has been, thus far, a rather doctrinaire, neo-liberal (as opposed to a classical liberal):
Dionne contends that the president “loves to engage conservatives.” But he has not done so in any meaningful way. None of their ideas for the stimulus plan were embraced; the president is bent on ramming home healthcare through the reconciliation process; and he regularly slams conservative policy ideas, no matter how innovative, as “stale” or non-existent. It is an odd form of engagement that governs strictly on party lines.
Dionne also contends that Obama sought a “middle ground” on tough interrogation. But in fact the president was cowed by the netroot contingent, kicking open the door to a truth commission, deciding to release inflammatory photos ,and hiding behind the attorney general’s skirts on the decision to prosecute former Bush officials. It is an odd form of moderation which requires the president employ verbal gymnastics to avoid offending the most extreme elements in his party.
Obama is an “non-ideologue” we are told. But there is little in his actions to suggest that is really the case.
Speculation alert: What follows is nothing more nor less than speculation about Obama's actions and
Barack Hussein Obama has made much of his childhood in Indonesia and his mixed parentage. His father was a Luo from Kenya, a nation that still operates on a tribal basis. Steve Sailor quoted from Obama's Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (p. 348): [All comments in brackets from Steve Sailor]
Anyway, the divisions in Kenya didn't stop there [between Africans and Indian merchants]; there were always finer lines to draw. Between the country's forty black tribes, for example. They, too, were a fact of life. You didn't notice the tribalism so much among [half-sister] Auma's friends, younger university-educated Kenyans who had been schooled in the idea of nation and race; tribe was an issue with them only when they were considering a mate, or when they got older and saw it help or hinder careers. But they were the exceptions. Most Kenyans still worked with older maps of identity, more ancient loyalties. Even Jane or Zeituni could say things that surprised me. "The Luo are intelligent but lazy," they would say. Or "The Kikuyu are money-grubbing but industrious." Or "The Kalenjins -- well, you can see what's happened to the country since they took over."
Hearing my aunts traffic in such stereotypes, I would try to explain to them the error of their ways. [At this point, Obama has spent a little less than two weeks in his life in Africa.] "It's thinking like that that holds us back," I would say. "We're all part of one tribe. The black tribe. The human tribe. Look what tribalism has done to places like Nigeria or Liberia."
And Jane would say, "Ah, those West Africans are all crazy anyway. You know they used to be cannibals, don't you?"
And Zeituni would say, "You sound just like your father, Barry, he also had such ideas about people."
Meaning he , too, was naive; he, too, liked to argue with history. Look what happened to him ...
Barack Obama, when he wrote his autobiography at 33 identified himself with his tribe, though in his case he enlarged his tribe to mean "the black tribe." If he remains tribal, it is clear that he has enlarged further his concept of his tribe to include White liberals who agree with his basic worldview. His world view certainly includes ideological positions, supporting the redistribution of wealth, accepting the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and adhering to the internationalist liberal doctrine that the use of force is never an acceptable alternative unless it is divorced from the narrow conception of national interests. (In other words we should never use force to assure our supply of oil but the use of force is acceptable to prevent the massacre of Muslims in Europe.)
There is an additional element of Barack Obama's tribalism that emerges in his comment form a meeting he held with Conservative Republicans early in his tenure in which he pointed out that since he had won on, he didn't need to take their interests into account. This is actually the essence of tribalism. In tribal societies, the baseline ethos is "winner takes all" and "to the victors go the spoils." A cursory examination of the behavior of our government in its economic behavior supports this. Unions (winners) are being treated much more equitably than (rich) shareholders (losers.) Members of Goldman-Sachs (winners) are getting much better treatment than members of Bank Of America (losers.) In every situation, the idea that "we won" and can do what we want seems to predominate over minimal efforts at bipartisanship (which in effect amount to being told that if Republicans support the Obama administration's policies completely, they will be given a gold star for bipartisanship.)
The ultimate expression of tribalism in politics is currently a threat on the horizon. In tribal societies, the winners typically seek to destroy the ability of the losers to recoup and re-challenge. In the most extreme cases the losers are summarily executed. In more sophisticated and civilized tribal societies, the losers are merely persecuted and prosecuted.
The furor over the "torture memos" is nothing more than a threat of political persecution. The Bush administration, for all its faults, made sure that both party's representatives were fully aware of the techniques being used and made sure to obtain legal justification for everything they did. In the past, when conditions have changed and past practices were determined to be over the line, the policies were changed but no member of the previous administration who had acted in good faith faced legal and financial ruin. Members of FDR's administration were not prosecuted for having placed Japanese Americans into internment camps during WWII. Jimmy Carter was not prosecuted for failing to defend Americans from Iranian acts of war. (Seizing another nation's diplomats is an act of war.) Not only did George W. Bush not seek to shift blame and prosecute Bill Clinton and members of his administration for the derelictions of duty that led to 9/11, but the 9/11 Committee expressly protected the most culpable. (Does Jamie Gorelick ring a bell?) Bush didn't even fire George Tenet!
There has always been an implicit political compact in America that we would not operate on a tribal basis. One of the wonders of the ideal of the "melting pot" was that in America, anyone could become a member of our vast and varied tribe. As a result, the losers in elections were allowed to go home, accept lucrative book deals, academic sinecures, think tank and speaking engagements and generally live to fight another day. If, as I suppose, Barack Obama internalized tribal patterns during his youth and has carried them forwards until now, it bodes poorly for him and for us. The damage that can be done to our polity by "tribal" over-reach will reverberate for many years to come.
Recent Comments