SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In the last few weeks, a number of people on the left have expressed disappointment with Barack Obama. Obama has said that the death penalty may be appropriate for child rape. He has applauded the Supreme Court's recognition of an individual right to own guns. He has voted for wiretapping reform that includes retroactive immunity for telephone companies. Having raised doubts about NAFTA during the primary, Obama recently said that he does not want to reopen negotiations unilaterally.
Perhaps because of Obama's strong and early opposition to the Iraq war, and because he has not been on the national scene long, some people on the left have projected their own views onto him. They think that his recent departures from left-wing orthodoxy are a form of flip-flopping or some kind of betrayal.
These objections miss the mark. Obama has not betrayed anyone. The real problem lies in the assumption, still widespread on both the left and the right, that Obama is a doctrinaire liberal whose positions can be deduced simply by asking what the left thinks.
Of course Obama is a progressive. From health care to assistance for low-income families to education to environmental protection, he emphasizes that Americans have duties to one another, and that government should be taking active steps to provide equal opportunity and to help those who need help. But, by nature, he is also an independent thinker, and he listens to all sides. One of his most distinctive features is that he is a minimalist, not in the sense that he always favors small steps (he doesn't), but because he prefers solutions that can be accepted by people with a wide variety of theoretical inclinations.
When he offers visionary approaches, he does so as a visionary minimalist--that is, as someone who attempts to accommodate, rather than to repudiate, the defining beliefs of most Americans. His reluctance to challenge people's deepest commitments might turn out to be what makes ambitious plans possible--notwithstanding the hopes of the far left and the cartoons of the far right.
Obama's views have never been simple to characterize. For a number of years, Obama has expressed his support for capital punishment. As a teacher of constitutional law, he does believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to have guns and said so well before the Supreme Court ruled to that effect. While he emphasizes the need for environmental and labor safeguards, Obama is no protectionist. He understands the power of markets, and, in principle, he is committed to free trade. Reiterating these long-held positions does not exactly count as flip-flopping or "tacking to the center."
No politician, and no human being, is fully consistent, and it is true that Obama's emphases have sometimes changed over time and that he has been willing to compromise. Having suggested that he would filibuster a measure granting the telecom companies retroactive immunity, Obama strongly favored a substitute bill that rejected such immunity. In the end, however, he was willing to vote for a bill with immunity. He did so on the grounds that it strengthens the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (thus rejecting the Bush administration's most ambitious claims of inherent presidential authority)--while also specifically requiring (for the first time) judicial warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas and increasing protection against abuse in various ways, such as by mandating reports by the inspectors general. To be sure, reasonable people rejected the compromise. But, in the end, even Morton Halperin, among the nation's strongest defenders of privacy, declared that the bill "provides important safeguards for civil liberties."
There is a much larger issue here, and it has to do with the distinctive nature of this particular candidate. Obama really means it when he deplores red-state-blue-state divisions and claims to draw ideas from Republicans as well as Democrats. Just as he resists ideological templates, Obama does not believe in "triangulation"; his skepticism about conventional ideological categories is principled, not strategic. It is revealing, and entirely characteristic, that Obama admires Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, in which Goodwin describes Lincoln's self-conscious decision to assemble a contentious, bipartisan cabinet. By nature, Obama does not follow old-line political orthodoxies. Above all, Obama's form of pragmatism is heavily empirical; he wants to know what will work.
Consider his domestic agenda. Favoring aggressive action to control greenhouse-gas emissions, he is open to considering nuclear power and has explicitly credited Republicans for promoting market-oriented approaches to environmental problems (and he has attracted the scorn of some on the left for doing so). A sharp critic of No Child Left Behind, he has spoken favorably about merit pay for teachers. Offering an ambitious health care plan, he would not require adults to purchase health insurance. His goal is to make health care available, not to force people to buy it--a judgment that reflects Obama's commitment to freedom of choice, his pragmatic nature (an enforcement question: Would those without health care be fined or jailed?), and his desire to produce a plan that might actually obtain a consensus. And, while he would raise taxes on the very richest Americans, he is hardly anti-business; indeed, he proposes to eliminate the capital gains tax for start-ups and small companies.
Many people on the left want Obama to be the anti-Bush. But what, exactly, does this mean? To some, it means a kind of left-wing Bushism--the mirror image of the Bush administration, with its rigidity, its insistence on enduring political divisions, and its ruthlessly Manichean approach to political life. If so, the left is likely to be disappointed. Obama wants politicians, including Democrats, to accept "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point." Obama does not demonize his opponents. For instance, he strongly favors the right to abortion, but he speaks respectfully and sympathetically of those who are pro-life. He does not like to attack people's motives. Speaking on what may be the most divisive issue of our time, he has often said that "there are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."
But in his empiricism, his curiosity, his insistence on nuance, and his lack of dogmatism, Obama is indeed a sort of anti-Bush--and perhaps the best kind. If the Bush administration has often operated on the basis of the president's "instinct," we should expect to see, from Obama, a rigorously evidence-based government. If the Bush administration has rejected internal dissent and viewed disagreement as disloyalty, Obama is likely to seek advisers who will reflect diverse views and challenge his own inclinations. In the Senate, one of Obama's proudest accomplishments has been the Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, for which he worked closely with archconservative Tom Coburn to create an Internet database of federal spending.
The larger point is that Obama's departures from left-wing orthodoxy should not be understood as a betrayal of his own beliefs, or as a kind of "tacking to the center." Instead, they reflect something altogether different: an independence of mind, and a rejection of doctrinal filters, that we do not often see in candidates for public office.
Cass R. Sunstein is co-author of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. He has been an occasional, informal adviser to Barack Obama.
Subscribe to The New Republic for only $29.97 a year--75% off cover price!
By Cass R. Sunstein
42 comments
No comments posted? Interesting. No one has a comment on how an Obama advisor is writing about how Obama isn't really flip flopping, he's a minimalist visionary? I am sure his flopping is not because he's influenced by polls and the ongoing search for the right answer that will get him the most votes. It takes a great intellect to cover up for someone else's lack of ability--and make it look like a strength. So my hat is off to author for his great intellect.
- Mike
August 28, 2008 at 8:39am
“something altogether different” --Something altogether common, 17th-21st Century: The Anglo/British “Midde Way” (and 20th century Marxist dialectic), Hobbes through Marx, right down to the phrases propagandizing (i.e. peddling) it, “dogmatic,” “orthodox,” and “absolutes” presented, rhetorically, as (absolute) negatives, and empirical,” “pragmatic,” and “compromise,” presented rhetorically as (absolute)positives (“old-line political orthodoxies,” “rejection of doctrinal filters,” “pragmatism,” “heavily empirical,” “wants to know what will work,” “consensus.”). In application (such as Georgian-Britain ‘Rule By Law,’ or 20th-Century Georgian Britain “middle Way,” it is always thoroughly amoral, ethically (‘whatever is expedient’), and, in application, inevitably quasi-dogmatic and doctrinaire. Empiricism is merely a method of natural observation, extremely useful in investigation of natural science and development of technology. “What will work:” For, and to what purpose, precisely? Since science and technology advance according to where ones capital is invested, and the decision of capital is invested upon the basis of ones ethics, then “for, and to what purpose, precisely,” is a key question (the answer, for those formed in this? Ignore it, while Maintaining Face, or respond with banalities, such as ‘above my pay grade,’ or, smile understandingly, 'demonstrating' empathy, while steadily imposing a transparent, but only ambiguously so, meticulously goals-oriented agenda. “Transparent,” but not honest, forthright, or clear).
-
August 28, 2008 at 10:06am
Excellent and necessary explanation. I don't know about anyone else that reads this article, but Cass' views have buried all lingering doubts about Obama in a sealed coffin. We tend to get so caught up with the garbage spewed through mainstream media, "Obama is a flip-flopper," "Obama only wants the fame," "Obama is politics-as-usual "Obama is spineless," etc. We need more depth in our analyses, more breadth in our evaluations of a potential candidate. We need to make more of an effort to understand. Obama has led a sparkling campaign so far. Praising and showing genuine gratitude to his former rivals (Clintons), remaining positive with a nasty such as McCain. We are so quick to jump to conclusions and judgments by saying he's weak, inexperienced, and cowardly for not confronting his rivals forcefully enough. But the truth is, as described in this article, we underestimate Barack's intelligence, intuition, and capability. There's a reason to his madness. Barack still is a new type of politics. He can't destroy his rivals because he plans to work with them. He can't fully put down another's views because he may borrow something from them. We're used to having it all black and white... "Love Republicans, Hate Democrats," but Obama may be bringing a gray blend we have never experienced before. And this shade of gray may be exactly what this country in distress may need to pull through...
- Andrew
August 28, 2008 at 10:24am
Exactly - this is one of the most appealing things about Obama. Beyond the fact that one's own point of view is rarely 100% "correct", being closed-minded to the points of view of others is also rarely a way to get things done, at least to get things done without producing major resentments in the other side. If John McCain and his followers believe that "life" begins at conception - without a doubt - where does that leave the other half (or more) of the people in this country who might argue otherwise or who, like Obama, do not feel godlike enough to make that call. The Republicans have "ruled" this country as if they had the truth all locked up. Why would it be better if the Democrats took over and did the same thing? There ARE legitimate differences of opinion on problems in this very complicated world and we need to work within that reality.
- Janie Snyder
August 28, 2008 at 10:57am
Hey, Cass, I'll watch for your interpretations of John McCain's real "meaning" in an article next week! Y'all in the media have to see just how transparent your efforts are at "fixing" Obama's problems. He lied. He switched. He flipped. He flopped. One thing he never did is reach across the aisle. Oh, and he sat silently while his pastor raged about White America, for 20 years. Nope, we're not dumb, but you want to pretend that we are, and that by massaging his words, you can create a new reality. Good luck in November!
- spk2moi
August 28, 2008 at 11:01am
As I recall, Obama stated his support of an undivided Jerusalem that may well be, in some sense, divided. He also declared that he will pull troops out of Iraq within a specific timetable, which is to be left open-ended. Boy, I wish my parents had let me use that kind of nuance when I was growing up!
- Yaacov Shulman
August 28, 2008 at 11:28am
So what's the beef? Obama is open, open, open to divergent opinions. Halepeno!
- moran
August 28, 2008 at 12:04pm
Interesting- glad to see this here. I hope (and tend to believe) that it's true. I also suspect/believe Obama still must have certain core principles which shape his decisions, principles which transcend or at least do not follow simple left/right dichotomies (and these are not simple anyway and are constantly shifting in definition). I'd love to hear him articulate these- very likely he has and the press has not stressed them. I suspect a basic ideal of fairness is high on the list, but whatever that list is, it would be helpful to hear it. Professor Sunstein, if you had to define what you think some of Obama's core ideals might be, I would be really interested, as it is these which will presumably ultimately shape his decisions and actions.
- sharongail
August 28, 2008 at 12:59pm
Excellent article
- Andres
August 28, 2008 at 1:10pm
To win the election there is no cause or group or person who OBAMA will not betray
- CRAMOS
August 28, 2008 at 3:58pm
Excellent article. It was Obama's pragmatism that made me vote for him in February, and I was puzzled by the much repeated wisdom that he was "tacking to the center" when I xould discern no change in his positions. It is good to see someone else make a cogent argument that much better explains Obama's actions than the media talking points (not just campaigns seem to have them).
- Carolyn D. Mack
August 28, 2008 at 4:16pm
Well, perhaps all this is true. Now, given that we know that what a candidate says is of minor importance compared to what he does, wouldn't it be preferable to give Mr. Obama another 4 or 20 years to develop a strong verifiable track record of accomplishments based on these general principles of empiricism you put forth? In Mr. McCain, we have an individual who has proven time and time again his, not only willingness, but ability to buck orthodoxy. When has Mr. Obama ever taken and fought for a controversial position and produced meaningful results thereby? I'm not interested in taking your, or his, word for it.
- I. Austin
August 28, 2008 at 4:29pm
This has been my impression of Senator Obama, and my main reason for supporting him, since reading Audacity of Hope, early in the Democratic primaries. My thanks to Ms. Sunstein for her clear articulation of the Senator's political orientation.
- Aaron Levitt
August 28, 2008 at 4:32pm
Bet he wouldn't have impeached Nixon either.
- Jane
August 28, 2008 at 4:32pm
For decades, Cass Sunstein has been a national treasure. Thank God for the nuanced realism and wisdom of the great tradition of American pragmastism. The tragedy of the "left" in America is that as the true-believing, puritanical, litmus-testing ego trip of the "New Left" it became in the Boomer Sixties, it turned its back on the flexibility and sense of complexity at the heart of the central American philosophical tradition, pragmatism. One of the greatest Americans of the late twentieth century, the great pragmatist Richard Rorty, for example, was pilloried again and again by stupidly vain, "purist" PC members of the professoriate as a "conservative" and a traitor to the "left." Like most Boomer narcissistic argument, this was so much hot air. As Rorty and Obama, like Clinton before them, have realized so clearly, the New Left destroyed the prospects for political progressivism in this country for almost two generations with its self-righteous hatred of America and the mass of white Americans. The central greatness of Obama is that he is a Gen-X pragmatist who is rightly sick and tired of the irresponsibility of the Boomers on both sides of the culture wars. Gen-X'ers are famous for resenting the haplessness of so many of their Boomer parents--in marriages that failed, in politics that failed, in lives that too often failed across the board. The X'ers famously reacted by determining to be super competent and realistic (as well as famously mocking of Boomer narcissism and pretentiousness). Obama wants to sweep the purist battles of '68 on BOTH sides of the Boomer political divide into the Dust Bin of history, so that we and Obama can finally get this country MOVING forward again. Dewey, like the late lamented Rorty, would have loved Obama as much as Cass Sunstein rightly does, and seen him not just as America's Great Black Hope, but also as its Great Pragmatist Hope.
- jeanrenoir
August 28, 2008 at 4:42pm
For decades, Cass Sunstein has been a national treasure. Thank God for the nuanced realism and wisdom of the great tradition of American pragmastism. The tragedy of the "left" in America is that as the true-believing, puritanical, litmus-testing ego trip of the "New Left" it became in the Boomer Sixties, it turned its back on the flexibility and sense of complexity at the heart of the central American philosophical tradition, pragmatism. One of the greatest Americans of the late twentieth century, the great pragmatist Richard Rorty, for example, was pilloried again and again by stupidly vain, "purist" PC members of the professoriate as a "conservative" and a traitor to the "left." Like most Boomer narcissistic argument, this was so much hot air. As Rorty and Obama, like Clinton before them, have realized so clearly, the New Left destroyed the prospects for political progressivism in this country for almost two generations with its self-righteous hatred of America and the mass of white Americans. The central greatness of Obama is that he is a Gen-X pragmatist who is rightly sick and tired of the irresponsibility of the Boomers on both sides of the culture wars. Gen-X'ers are famous for resenting the haplessness of so many of their Boomer parents--in marriages that failed, in politics that failed, in lives that too often failed across the board. The X'ers famously reacted by determining to be super competent and realistic (as well as famously mocking of Boomer narcissism and pretentiousness). Obama wants to sweep the purist battles of '68 on BOTH sides of the Boomer political divide into the Dust Bin of history, so that we and Obama can finally get this country MOVING forward again. Dewey, like the late lamented Rorty, would have loved Obama as much as Cass Sunstein rightly does, and seen him not just as America's Great Black Hope, but also as its Great Pragmatist Hope.
- jeanrenoir
August 28, 2008 at 4:44pm
Electing Obama would be a huge risk, because he is so unknown. Hillary would not have been a risk: we know where she stands. Similarly, McCain is a known quantity, for better or worse. Obama has refused to submit himself to rigorous questioning. If Obama would submit himself to substantial numbers of Town Meetings over the next two months, where he could be questioned vigorously, he could reduce the "perceived risk" factor.
- Peter Parrott
August 28, 2008 at 4:47pm
"visionary minimalist"...I know you folks at NR coined this term for Barack's ideology back in January and I have to hand it too you...you'll make up anything to convience Americans to vote for him. Thats integrity we can believe in.
- Jason
August 28, 2008 at 4:49pm
Yes! This is the Obama -- the real Obama -- that I want to see tonight lay out his vision for the future: Pragmatic, empirical, and respectful. I hope people are watching.
- William
August 28, 2008 at 4:58pm
Gee, talking about "bending over" ... Yeah, the only problem is that Obama's "pragmatism" looks too much like opportunism, given the timing ( his slipping in the polls). What else to expect from a guy who has been perpetually launching a campaing for a higher office every 2-3 years since he was 30 something.
- Indyfan
August 28, 2008 at 5:18pm
Cass, We all know who you're voting for this November. To refute your assertions would mean to write an article just as long, paragraph by paragraph, to point out all your revisions of history. One simple thing to note: Obama was rated the most liberal senator by the National Journal. That's hardly a record for a person who claims to be post-partisan. You're telling me a person who claims to draw ideas from both sides of the isle cannot find one single instance when a conservative idea was better than a liberal idea to vote for? Give me a break; and stop drinking the Kool Aid.
- nathan
August 28, 2008 at 5:20pm
ahh man - I'm so sorry. I just bought your latest book Cass. Guess I'll take it back.
- deyeah
August 28, 2008 at 6:11pm
Listening to a worshipper of "The ONE" make excuses for his lack of decisiveness and/or a position at all on key issues, and/or flip flopping back and forth between them depending on his audience, or the latest poll is painful. The only thing more painful is trying to get a straight answer from Mr. "That's above my pay Grade" Obama. The answer is easy. "The Obama" is saying whatever he thinks will get him elected. He and his worshippers have destroyed the word "Nuance". After "The Obama" Nuance the new connotation for Nuance is evasiveness and/or saying whatever it takes to get elected. I'm pretty sure that "The Obama" will try and take this country further to the radical left then any other person in history if elected President, but that's my opinion. I don't know what "The One" will do on any single issue of importance if elected President, because he has never answered a single question in an honest straight forward manner. That ought to scare the hell out of the American people!!!!
- valwayne
August 28, 2008 at 6:15pm
Sunstein has broken through the noise, accurately portraying the reason why so many Americans supported Obama in the first place. There needs to be more clear analysis like this to counter the fear and smear which continues to paralyze America's thought process. Great job!!!!
- Franklin
August 28, 2008 at 6:33pm
Interesting that you outline one of Obama's successes in the Senate. His only success? What others? My problem with Obama is this. Say you are the Head football coach for an NFL Super Bowl team and you are to choose the starter for the game. Your candidates are Tom Brady and Brady Quinn. Who do you choose? Case closed.
- Ed Mendez
August 28, 2008 at 6:40pm
I had to stop reading after the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, in which Sunstein blames the people who projected their own ideas and values on Obama on the people themselves. While these progressives were certainly naive in doing so, Obama deliberately and consciously exploited that naivete, and has admitted as much. That Sunstein either doesn't know this, or is lying about it, makes the rest of his analysis worthless (except as a cover letter for his Supreme Court nomination.) Does Sunstein really want us to believe that Obama did not deliberately signal to progressives that telecom immunity was a non-starter? Does anyone believe that if Obama had told the truth about his willingness to support a FISA bill with telecom immunity, that he would have recieved the support of all those "latte liberals" who were so crucial to his nomination? Fool me once Cass, shame on you. Fool me twice -- well, that ain't gonna happen.
- paul lukasiak
August 28, 2008 at 6:48pm
The similarities between the raise of Hitler and Obama campaing are so striking - to say the least (lack of self-irony, huge deliberately staged rallies, fear of debates, reliance on charisma and rhetoric, branding (logo, seal, etc), fainting women, religious iconography, messianistic self-image, hope/change/unity platitudes, bildungroman autobiography, indoctrinated youths followers, the use of new media in crafting and controlling the message, etc., etc.). I swallowed the fake presidential seal, but the Greek temple, that's just too much, even for me. I am voting for McCain.
- Liberties
August 28, 2008 at 6:54pm
Pragmatism?-how about non disclosure? How can you place reliance on this guy? So if he doesn’t disclose his positions, or postures himself as something he is not, what does that say? That says to me, don’t look at what he says but his history and his actions. Look at with whom he has associated. Is he an independent thinker? His main influences Fanon, Alinsky, Black Liberation theology? He seems to me to be a Harvard Law School education gone wrong. The Legal method saying nothing. Where is this guy? A minimalist? He wants Supreme Court judges that are the opposite of that. He is unwilling to show his cards. How about an egregious tax policy? 62% marginal rates? See the Hoover Institute economist Michael Boskin. That will tank the economy. He was clueless on capital gains and that you collect more with lower rates. This shows his inexperience. On other issues again you don’t know what he stands for so you can only look at his history , associates and actions. He’s been a hardline Chicago Pol. Expect more of the same. More of a power equation. This is too important a position not to know where the candidate stands. The biographies written on him speak reams. Ted Humphreville
- ted humphreville
August 28, 2008 at 7:22pm
Everything he has done since Hillary dropped out has been driven by polls and the media buzz. He even thought he had to offer and explanation for moving the acceptance speech to Greece.
- David
August 28, 2008 at 7:22pm
Oh, please, you can cobble together a few isolated statements from either candidate and reach whatever position you want. Obama is a rigid empiricist; "he wants to know what will work?" How ironic; how rich, especially given the absolute and utter failures of the real-world projects he has worked on--asbestos abatement, Rezko's slums and the Annenberg Education project. How'd those all work out? For someone who's so interested in solutions, you'd think he might be concerned about the results of those projects on actual people. He's interested in the ideas, not people's day to day existence. The fact is, the record shows that Obama can make no deep commitments to implement his ideas, and is not committed to investing the deep, long-suffering blood, sweat and tear sacrifices of time and energy that bring about genuine change and improvements in the human condition. He plays with ideas. To the extent he enriches the political scene, his value lies in his ideas and intellectual curiosity, and in his ability to inspire others. But to suggest that he's a role-up your sleeves, get to work pragmatist who will impose programmatic measures of effectiveness and strict accountability requirements is naive in the extreme. He simply doesn't have either the stomach or the attention span for that kind of rigorous assessment and accountability. Further, to suggest he's not by nature doctrinaire and does not follow "old-line political orthodoxies" is a HOOT. There's simply not one shred of evidence that he's bi-partisan or a bridge builder. NONE. There are many politicians who can work across party lines. The evidence Obama is a unifier is so scant as to be (aside from his 2004 convention speech) virtually non-existent. Not only is he a died-in-the wool, old-school liberal (really, please tell us how he's any different than Ted Kennedy), he shows clear evidence of being a machine politician, with all the advantages and disadvantages that brings. If you believe it's time for new ideas from a liberal perspective and are looking for a modern day William Jennings Bryant, then Obama is your man. A pied piper, a new breeze, something different could be what America needs at this time, and may well be enough to get my vote. However, the evidence simply doesn't support the author's advocacy for Obama. In fact, to be fair, if you really want to elect the greater pragmatist, McCain would be the pick. The fight for survival makes people pretty darn pragmatic, and McCain's fights for both his physical and political survival, as well as more numerous examples of bi-partisanship surely support the argument that he is the more pragmatic of the two. That, however, may not be what's required. People's outlook is pretty grim right now, and the inspiration and oratory may be what Americans need at this time. But arguing that Obama should be elected because he's the epitome of pragmatism is silly in the extreme . . .
- Chad3337@hotmail.com
August 28, 2008 at 7:26pm
Obama's record runs contrary to everything this piece said. Therefore, it's proven wrong, and quite simply, stupid.
- yeah right
August 28, 2008 at 7:59pm
Yeah sure...Let November come! For God's sakes, its not apocalypsis. Its a presidential election. If he (Obama) loses, life goes on but for many of us that share his views regarding conduct of public officials with respect to how campaigns ought to be run, we would be proud.
- oviefowe@yahoo.co.uk
August 28, 2008 at 8:06pm
I think what is interesting about this piece is what it doesn't say. It is right to say that sometimes Obama might think the other side might have a point. But what does he believe in? I think to generalize, Obama believes in a government solution to a problem rather than a free market solution. If there is a free market, he believes that government ought to set up the constraints of that market, and regulate it. When it comes to taking care of people, Obama believes in government intervention, and socialistic policies to take care of people. When it comes to education, he sides with the teachers' union. When it comes to labor, he is interested in mandating a "living wage" (what's that?). On point after point, Obama is not about change. He is about bigger government, a more proactive government. "Nudge" itself is about big brother setting up constraints for humans. I have read the book. Sunstein speaks from the regulatory "institutions know better" side of the coin, than the "freedom" side of the coin that people like Milton Friedman espouse. Obama is dangerous for our country. Not because he would weaken us, but because he does not favor traditional American values that we were founded on. Obama is for institutions. He is for big government. He is not for the entrepreneur, the free market, free will, or any of the precepts that the framers of the Constitution came and settled America for.
- Jeff
August 28, 2008 at 8:21pm
Quite frankly I am disappointed in Cass Sunstein. The problem with flip-flopping is not about how Obama is "thinking" about the issues, it reflects the fact that he has not already thought about the issues. In many instances his flips have been quite absurd and reflect ultra-pandering. Case in point, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You simply cannot justify his change in stance within a period of three weeks. His shift was not nuanced, it was a 180 degree shift in policy, and in the completely wrong direction, by the way. Similarly, his stance on Campaign Finance. While it is absolutely a pragmatic move on his part, you would like to see some evidence of rooted principles so firmly held that uprooting them is impossible. This in particular was not an issue of policy, where there are 2 contested sides, but one of principle and tradition where universally this was a revered component of electioneering. The gravy train and political ambition clearly changed him. Nuance quickly gives way to one of two things...evidence of a lack of previous consideration or reflection on the issues of the day (i.e. not enough experience to know what the right path should be) or simply political posturing. His shifts do not appear to be based on some new intellectual insight, but rather on political expediency. This is troubling. Case in point, his energy plan. He wants millions of electric cars on the road, and expects to cut electricity demand by 25%. These two are mutually exclusive outcomes. Has Barack considered that obvious reality? Did he overlook it? Or did he even write that plan? Or did he simply think nobody would care or notice? None of these are flattering thoughts for a man who would be President. It makes it harder to understand what his core values really are. There are enough questions about his associations, and they are legitimate, that one can reasonably ask "I wish I know what he really thinks, or if he thinks at all". I simply do not want him to wait for a crisis to consider what the implications are, he needs to have some guiding framework to lead, and he has made it cloudier and less tangible through his shifting logic. My biggest fear is that his tendency to meander and ramble is evidence that he has not really put his own time in to reflect on some issues. At Saddleback it took him far too long and in too many word to understand what he was thinking. Sometimes his thinking was inconsistent logically. I think Obama has great potential, no doubt. As a centrist I was initially quite enthusiastic, but increasingly I am wary that he has put intellectual muscle behind the issues of the day. Grandiose platitudes and soaring rhetoric are fine, but when it takes 5 minutes to get his position on something so fundamental like Abortion, somebody simply is not clear on what they believe. It makes one wonder if there is and substance under the hood. Hope, as compelling a concept as it is, is not a strategy.
- Matt
August 28, 2008 at 8:38pm
Wow, what a bad article. I have to say I am impressed by all the attempts to justify how Obama can stand for nothing and still come out ahead. Can you at least mention some important items here, like Mr. Obama's 20 year affiliation with the Rev. Wright? I know, I know, Mr. Obama never was really in church, and never heard this man utter the famous words "god dam america". Deeds speak much louder than words. Mr. Sustein, you are nothing more than an apoligist and a cheerleader. I know that this is certainly a magazine that I would never subscribe to.
- Ernie
August 28, 2008 at 10:32pm
Nice try, Mr. Sunstein, but an examination of his actual voting record, such as it is, proves you wrong. Must be that nuance thing. He is a doctrinaire liberal, so liberals need not be worried. It is the majority of the population that is in the moderate middle that should be concerned.
- CS
August 29, 2008 at 12:10am
When I got to the part about "visionary minimalist" my brain exploded. I couldn't continue. Even putting aside whatever Cass is angling for in the Obama administration, this was just too sycophantic an essay for human consumption. He's not the Messiah after all. Just a visionary. Jesus, give me a friggin' break. I am a progressive Obama voter, who will support him to the gates of hell to stop McCain, but I'm not an idiot.
- David
August 29, 2008 at 12:39am
I was born in Tanzania (East Africa) of an Irish Mother and and Indian Father. I was raised in Tanzania (below Kenya on the map) and at 12, was sent to Isle of Saints and Scholars (Ireland)for an education. My Father, the former Assistant Attorney General of Tanzania and Director of Legal Services Corporation Zambia, inherited from the Great Generation the privilege to legally immigrate with his family to these Great United States. This is the first time in thirty one years that I have felt fired up enough to vote! Barack - in Swahili, the lingua franca of East Africa, and other languages, means Blessing. Patricia Burke
- Patricia
August 29, 2008 at 12:41am
The ferocity of the Obama nation hatred for their opponent evident on the blogs is something to behold! Stalinlike, they are continuously revealing their unwillingness to listen to serious discussions which challenge Obama's credentials to lead, such as their attempt to stifle Dr Stan Kurtz's radio show appearance in Chicago last night, evidently encouraged by the campaign. (Dr Kurtz is the scholar who has conducted meticulous research showing the unsavory but one supposes pragmatic relationship between Obama and the American Terrorist William Ayers.) The Obama nation has its marching orders to prevent any such criticism of their (false) Messiah. Intimidation and shout-down is a favored tactic of the Obama camp. Now that's pragmatism. (The alleged openness to ideas seems entirely ad hoc, but in truth merely expedient.)
- Dave J
August 29, 2008 at 1:39am
The main point here is certainly on target: Obama's apparent rightward drift is just his politics coming to better light (for the most part: he really did change his mind about some things, and it isn't worth defending him for it). In fact, I would never use the term "progressive" to describe Obama. But there are two mistakes here that throw doubt on Sunstein's credibility. The first is his title: Pragmatism and Empiricism are nothing like synonyms. William James used the term empiricism to describe some of his work, but a huge chunk of 20th century philosophy was devoted to fights between the two. They're not the same. My second objection concerns the "partisan gridlock" rhetoric. Do you know how many passed bills didn't have the support of the majority of both parties? The answer is four. Gridlock SOUNDS like it's something we have to deal with, but really just isn't.
- Nick
August 29, 2008 at 9:23am
When I call him the anti-Bush, I don't mean in terms of policy. I mean that he's a thinking man and that he bases his policies not on partisan rhetoric, but on trying to find the just the right combination to make things work. I like that he listens to people, that he brings in people more knowledgeable than he is to help him figure out what is best for our country. We don't need a president who knows everything (or at least thinks he does.) We need a president who is capable of listening to experts and figuring out how to implement their advice and ideas in policy. One man can't be the center of all knowledge. However, you can be a powerful catalyst for taking the knowledge of others and using it to make a difference.
- Katie
August 29, 2008 at 12:30pm
Such an elaborate excuse for a lack of core principles. Obama is a shame, a shame to himself and shame for the American people. I was predisposed to vote for him, given his stance against the Iraq War. I supported him, because I had the impression that he had principles and he would act on these. However, at every opportunity given to prove himself, Obama has shown himself a chameleon, ready to barter ideals for the faint possibility of a few more votes. Were these positions that he had supported, FISA, execution for child rape, to be his true beliefs, I would be even more shocked, disgusted, repelled. However, it is difficult to attribute such inconsistency of beliefs to belong to a coherent belief system. Empiricism or opportunism? Bona fide empiricism has been the search for principles (e.g., Newton's laws), empiricism describing only the process and not the outcome. However, there is no principles that remain after a flurry of activity, perhaps it is better to call this nihilism or egotism.
- Josh Josephs
September 2, 2008 at 9:02am