There's a
piece in today's New York Times musing about Obama's political philosophy. This gives the flavor of it:
Much of Mr. Obama’s politics, his opposition to the war and support for raising taxes on the wealthy, and his support of abortion and labor rights, falls squarely in the liberal mainstream of the Democratic Party. But his ideological departures are noteworthy.
He supports the death penalty for some crimes not involving homicides, like child rape, and he favors giving federal money to religious groups for delivering social services.
In foreign affairs, he is a stated admirer of former President George Bush’s foreign policy, often identified now with the so-called “realist” view that the United States should act primarily out of strategic self-interest.
Mr. Obama, an intellectually curious man, is nothing if not pragmatic in the application of philosophy to politics, temperamentally inclined toward no strand of thinking. In his books, sentences are pulled taut between opposing viewpoints; a literary critic remarked on the “internal counterpoise” in his writing.
But that leaves a fundamental question for admirers and critics: Is his a consistent philosophy that borrows pragmatically from the center while rooted on the left? Or does he have an expedient slide-step that allows him to appeal to the center without alienating his liberal base?
There's much in this Michael Powell piece that I agree with (though I continue to be baffled at editors around the country continually allowing the questionable assertion that Bob Casey was denied a speaking role at the 1992 Dem Convention because he was pro-life -- so were several people who spoke, but they actually had endorsed the party's candidate).
I think there are some dots that remain unconnected here, though. Obama has repeatedly spoken of Doris Kearns Goodwin's
Team of rivals, her account of Lincoln's Cabinet. Lincoln constructed a Cabinet filled with his political rivals, forceful men who disagreed with him on numerous issues and several of whom were convinced that the wrong person had been elected President -- the right one, of course, was each of them. Goodwin does a masterful job of portraying how Lincoln used his Cabinet to test his own ideas. Cabinet meetings often were heated, but he assured that he had heard the best case on all sides of a given issue before he then made the decision. Anyone who has read much about Lincoln knows that he was accused of being without principle, because his positions fit no clear ideological position, and anyone who reads his speeches knows that his political philosophy ephasized pragmatism and aiming at what was possible over standing firmly on untenable moral positions. Obama, besides referring to Goodwin's book, also has chosen Springfield as the starting point for his primary campaign and for introducing his running mate. While this could be seen as empty political symbolism, I'd suggest it reflects an admiration by Obama for Lincoln's willingness to shun orthodoxy, his belief in his own ability to withstand heated disagreements, and his desire to find a pragmatic basis for governing and for solving national problems. Whether this is evidence of Obama's purported arrogance remains to be determined, and I certainly wouldn't want to be read as suggesting that Obama would be a great president in Lincoln' league, but I think those wishing to understand how a President Obama would govern might do well to read up on Lincoln.
clipped from www.dallasnews.com
Posts
