SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Liberalism's Bumper Sticker Problem

JONATHAN CHAIT APRIL 28, 2011

Liberalism's Bumper Sticker Problem

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Ryan Lizza's latest must-read New Yorker piece is framed as the story of President Obama's abandonment of the doctrine of foreign policy realism and adoption of "consequentialism." It's filled with a lot of reporting that doesn't really advance that narrative but is really interesting anyway. I was amused by one advisor's attempt to boil this doctrine down to a bumper sticker:

“The project of the first two years has been to effectively deal with the legacy issues that we inherited, particularly the Iraq war, the Afghan war, and the war against Al Qaeda, while rebalancing our resources and our posture in the world,” Benjamin Rhodes, one of Obama’s deputy national-security advisers, said. “If you were to boil it all down to a bumper sticker, it’s ‘Wind down these two wars, reëstablish American standing and leadership in the world, and focus on a broader set of priorities, from Asia and the global economy to a nuclear-nonproliferation regime.’ ”

I'm not sure Rhodes understands what bumper stickers look like. Let's have TNR's crack graphics squad try that one out:

Might need some trimming.

The bumper sticker problem is endemic for American liberalism. On foreign policy, it's actually a murky split, with ideologies cutting across both party coalitions. But on economics, there's a persistent phenomenon of conservatives having clear bumper-sticker answers and liberals lacking them. That's because, as I've argued before, conservatism is philosophically anti-government in a way that liberalism is not philosophically pro-government. "Market good, government bad" fits on a bumper sticker. So does "Government good, market bad." The problem is that the former pretty well describes the Republican philosophy, while the latter describes the philosophy only of a tiny socialist fringe operating mainly outside the two-party system.

Liberalism is forever in search of a philosophy that can fit on a bumper sticker. It's always failing, because a philosophy of leaving the free market to work except in cases of market failure, and then attempting to determine which intervention best passes the cost-benefit test is never going to be simple.

Dana Milbank recently wrote an interesting column arguing that Obama's complexity as a thinker is both a source of strength (primarily as a policy-formulator) and a source of weakness (primarily as a politician.) He quoted some interested social scientists:

“What distinguishes Obama particularly is the depth and carefulness of his thinking, which renders him somewhat unfit for politics,” said Jonathan Haidt, a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia. “He is a brilliant social and political analyst, which makes it harder for him to play hardball or to bluff.”

Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously. The integratively simple thinker — say, George W. Bush — has one universal organizing principle that dominates all others, while the integratively complex thinker — Obama — balances many competing goals.

Philip Tetlock, a professor of psychology with the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, found that politicians on the center-left (where Obama dwells) tend to have the highest degree of integrative complexity, followed by politicians on the center-right. Politicians on the far left and far right are the most simple.

Tetlock's quote shows that the problem is endemic to center-left politicians in the contemporary American political spectrum, not necessarily Obama as a personality. Liberalism is a more complex ideology. That certainly dovetails with my sense. There's a psychological equivalence between the certainty of left and right, but the midpoint of the mirror image does not happen to run right between the split between two parties. American politics today is a kind of one-and-a-half ideology system, with a Republican Party acting as the arm of a coherent conservative movement staunchly opposed to government, and a Democratic Party acting as a kind of catch-all for everybody who doesn't accept the conservative agenda. It's no coincidence that one party keeps producing leaders who think in simple ways, while the other keeps producing leaders who think in complicated ways.

Photo: AlishaV/Flickr

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 42 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

42 comments

Yeah, and stealing everything that isn't nailed down until you get to everything that is is not a very complicated idea.

- roidubouloi

April 28, 2011 at 12:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I saw a great liberal bumper sticker today on a pick up truck. It said, "Carpenter's Union" "We work to make the middle class strong."

- arnon

April 28, 2011 at 12:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Take a break, roidubouloi. It's obvious you don't come from the working or even the middle class. You come from the meddlesome class.

- arnon

April 28, 2011 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are we supposed to believe, along with Galston, that there are going to be $750-$800 billion of spending cuts in the operating (non-entitlement) budget in order to close the more than $1 trillion deficit there?

- roidubouloi

April 28, 2011 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fuck off, arnon. You obviously come from the moron class.

- roidubouloi

April 28, 2011 at 12:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "Fuck off, arnon. You obviously come from the moron class." It doesn't take much brains to pretend to be a genius.

- arnon

April 28, 2011 at 12:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It takes no genius at all to recognize that you are of the moron class. It's quite obvious. Really.

- roidubouloi

April 28, 2011 at 12:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The self made genius goes on and on.....

- arnon

April 28, 2011 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The self made genius goes on and on.....

- arnon

April 28, 2011 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are you a self-made moron, arnon? Did it take practice? Or are you just naturally this lacking in mental capacity? My guess is that you are naturally a moron, but a self-made asshole.

- roidubouloi

April 28, 2011 at 1:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No wonder you guys aren't successful in the bumper sticker business.

- Konstantin

April 28, 2011 at 1:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that bumper sticker made me laugh out loud... FWIW, I think that the presidential limo has bigger-than-average bumpers...

- hairdan

April 28, 2011 at 3:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think after reading Chait's post about nuanced sophisticated liberals that the comments from arnon and roid are way up there in terms of funny.

- Nusholtz

April 28, 2011 at 4:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You wrote it yourself, Chait: "The free market works except when it doesn't."

- Claris

April 28, 2011 at 7:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait makes the same mistake: complexity. Barber's seminal work on presidential personality types is all one needs to know. And for Obama, it isn't so much his complex thinking but his personality traits: too many passive and negative traits. Listen again to Obama's "concession" speech after the last election when he said more than once that being President is an enormous burden. Can one imagine FDR ever making such a statement, whether in the depths of the great depression or the dark days of WWII?

- rayward

April 28, 2011 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Fewer wars. More respect. A broader vision. Obama 2012." Done and done.

- austinexpat

April 28, 2011 at 7:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Concession" news conference.

- rayward

April 28, 2011 at 7:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama: Fighting for the middle class. That's it. Republicans are branding themselves as the party of plutocrats, so why not align with 90% of the country.

- sokol8

April 28, 2011 at 8:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How about: PROGRESSive rates

- Nusholtz

April 28, 2011 at 8:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“What distinguishes Obama particularly is the depth and carefulness of his thinking, which renders him somewhat unfit for politics,” God help us, if this is true, we're doomed. All we know about the world tells us that deep and careful thinking is absolutely essential do do things that actually work. So is being able to think deeply and carefully a serious handicap for one with political power in early 21st century America? Obama may be able to figure things out and do the right things, but he can't convince semi-sentient mouth-breathing morons? OK, you made my day; I'll just go off and quietly slit my wrists now.

- K_Wilson

April 28, 2011 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In my brief (but fairly successful) career as a what my favorite critic likes to refer to as a "semi-professional" politician, I discovered why it is not the place for me. I care about the outcome. I do not enjoy the battle. There are those with a zest for the battle, such as Bill Clinton, who quickly put their defeats behind them and move on to the next fight with gusto. They enjoy the process itself. I don't. I want to achieve the policy outcome but find the process only a soul-crushing obstacle to getting there. Even though I discovered that I could learn how to fight the battle successfully, I found it exhausting and depressing, particularly because you can only win and enjoy respite for a brief moment before you have to go at it again. I think this is part of Obama's problem too. Unlike an FDR, a Johnson, or a Clinton, he does not have any zest for the political process. He may care passionately about the policy outcome and have very good ideas about policy, he may be shrewd and dispassionate when considering when and how to compromise for the achievable (although I often disagree with his choices here), but he seems to have no zest for the political battle that is actually his most important task. Wonks can make policy. Only the president can lead the fight to shape and win national public opinion. It appears to be no fun for Obama to do that. Hence, he does it only fitfully.

- roidubouloi

April 28, 2011 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi "In my brief (but fairly successful) career...." It's all about this poster, the self made, self named genius.

- arnon

April 28, 2011 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My entries into the Liberal Bumper Sticker contest: 1. Market good, but Government makes it better 2. Every market has a negative externality to manage 3. Ask not what you can do for your country, become a Liberal 4. Don't be envious - Success is just dumb luck 5. Arrogance and stupidy together are really attractive, become a Liberal 6. Taxes are not inevitable -- Become a liberal and pay zero Net Taxes

- mr_rationale

April 28, 2011 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sigh. Once again, vigorous ignorance rears its ugly head. How about these fact-based alternates: -Regulated Markets are Great-Government Makes Them Possible or -Taxes Build America; Be a Patriot-Pay Your Taxes

- janus

April 28, 2011 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've always thought the best pro-liberalism, anti-conservativism bumper sticker was one that has been around quite awhile: MEAN PEOPLE SUCK

- Fishpeddler

April 28, 2011 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's a bumper sticker for you: What Rat Knows Ain't Worth Knowing.

- liberalref

April 28, 2011 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The essential liberal bumpersticker would be: "You are the government." Maybe if people began to take ownership of their democracy they would spend a little more time thinking about what they are voting for and a little less time whining about the people they elect (and the policies they unknowingly voted for).

- esmense

April 28, 2011 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

esmense: I think you've nailed it, certainly with less anger and more sense than I did. One of the most baffling aspects of conservative speech, at least to, is always the sense of railing against "government" as some sinister, far-off, utterly foreign other. Maybe it's just because I actually paid attention when we were taught Lincoln's words, "of the people, by the people, for the people" in elementary school.

- janus

April 28, 2011 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, should've been "at least to me."

- janus

April 28, 2011 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For chickenhawks and/or climate-change deniers: "If you want to drive a Hummer, sign up for Iraq" For libertarian aristocrats: "If you're born on Third Base, don't act like you just hit a triple." For Rat and all the other libertarian TPers: "Socialism for the rich, Capitalism for the rest of us".

- desertdog

April 28, 2011 at 2:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

janus and esmense -- I think you've both hit it. The big problem is that there are two frameworks in which Lincoln's words (and the D of I, in fact) are understood. One is the expansionist framework, that says that America is not an ethnic nation, that loyalty to the Constitution and a willingness to join in to make America work trump (!) ethnic/racial identity, country of origin, religious faith, and other more specific markers of belonging. There was and is, however, a very different, exclusivist framework in place that has never really gone away, whether in 1863 or 2011. There the belief is that America is essentially a country of white folks (generally Protestant but now Catholics and Jews are not a problem), and any political leader or national policy that reflects or seeks to meet the actual diversity of the nation is illegitimate. Therefore a government that wants to, for example, redress ancient prejudices by giving some extra opportunity to victims of that prejudice is no longer "our" government but an invading force to be rejected. Even more weirdly, in this framework, the government looking to do anything that might help everyone is acting illegitimately, as the mindset is that "I'd rather be disadvantaged than see someone who's not 'one of us' get any advantage at all, even if that advantage is generally distributed and would help me too."

- ironyroad

April 28, 2011 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony - I just finished reading Bernie Sanders' "Outsider in the House" (his memoir from long-ago 1998). At one point, he describes responding to a woman at a town hall meeting who complained about people on welfare getting healthcare while she was struggling to pay her bills. Sanders said that he was advocating for single-payer, so that everyone could get reasonable healthcare. The woman responded that she didn't want Sanders to get her healthcare; she just wanted it taken away from those welfare people. Sanders doesn't detail his response further, but whatever it was, I imagine it was nicer than mine would have been.

- janus

April 28, 2011 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

esmense: "Maybe if people began to take ownership of their democracy they would spend a little more time thinking about what they are voting for and a little less time whining about the people they elect" I've been on this theme for a few years now. If we have irresponsible government, maybe it's because we have an essentially irresponsible electorate? It is a representative democracy, after all. This issue has come up for me again with the recent anguish over gas prices. Yes, it's is an additional burden for many struggling households. But what have we been asked to do about it over the past 10 years? People say they're in favor of energy independence, but what are we willing to do about it? What have politicians asked us to do about it? I think the answer is just about nothing, on both counts. We're still driving hugely inefficient cars which leave us vulnerable to oil shocks. Well, what did we think would happen? Oh, we didn't, because we're apparently incapable as a society of acting in our own long-term interests when it involves short-term sacrifice. Let someone else deal with the problem! Or blame it on government! Too many people seem to think that just electing the "right" people to Congress will solve our problems for us, when real change and progress requires us to do things differently ourselves. Politicians can't make hard decisions unless we're willing to back them on it, but they're unwilling to ask us to do anything because they fear they'll alienate too many voters--and they may be right. So they perpetuate the fantasy that they can make change happen without any effort on the part of their constituents, and their constituents go along with it--until things get worse, people get unhappy with the situation, and they vote in another collection of representatives promising another free lunch. I don't see how we can get lasting change unless we're asked to do something about the issues we say we care about. But is it possible to win elections that way? It's a lot easier to run against "the government" than to tell people they're responsible for the government they elect. Anyway, that's way too long to put on a bumper sticker.

- dsimon

April 28, 2011 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But the big question is what optimizes better, simple-minded, anti-thinking, anti-expertise decision making or intelligent, complex, well educated and informed, flexible decision making? And the answer is the latter. It's not just there are two different approaches and no one right answer. If you want to be a wealthy powerful advanced nation where people live very well, and not fall into decay and decline, you choose the latter. If you want to be a poor, weak third world country you choose the former.

- RHSerlin

April 28, 2011 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Janus. -Regulated Markets are Great-Government Makes Them Possible Do you even understand that Gov regulated markets were abject failures and that de-regulation in Energy, Telecom, Airlines, ....... has led to greater prosperity. Look up de-regulation -Taxes Build America; Be a Patriot-Pay Your Taxes This one is just too stupid for commennt Sigh.

- mr_rationale

April 29, 2011 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We all agree with Lincoln "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." That is not the state of the US, rather we have: gov of the public sector parasites, by the liberal politicians, and for liberal special interests and unions. Not a coincidence that largest Dem contributor public sector unions. Large disconnect between private sector and public sector.

- mr_rationale

April 29, 2011 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RH -- You are the poster child for the stupid / arrogant slogan Listening to Talking Heads lately? as you have stopped making sense

- mr_rationale

April 29, 2011 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

desertdog: socialism works great until you run out of other people's money

- mr_rationale

April 29, 2011 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your point being?

- ironyroad

May 1, 2011 at 1:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exactly my point, Rat. The Corps and wealthy get bailouts, tax breaks and subsidies; the rest of us peons get unemployment, foreclosure and risk/cost shifting onto us.

- desertdog

May 1, 2011 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Liberals haven't been able to come up with good slogans because they lack the organization and structure the conservative movement has built. You can't have a good bumper sticker if nobody agrees on what the core values are. Here's my contribution: "The Democratic Party: Government that works smarter and harder."

- rlpeterson

May 5, 2011 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An alternate: "Government that does more, better."

- rlpeterson

May 5, 2011 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close