Obama On Centrism
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General PoliticsThe more and more I hear from Barack Obama, the more and more I like him.
So here are some very good points by the man who could be the first black President.
The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives’ job. After all, it’s easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it’s harder to craft a foreign policy that’s tough and smart. It’s easy to dismantle government safety nets; it’s harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It’s easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it’s harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that’s our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more “centrist.” In fact, I think the whole “centrist” versus “liberal” labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the “centrist” label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don’t think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).
Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of “framing,” although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It’s a matter of actually having faith in the American people’s ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.
Actually, what I think he’s suggesting IS centrism. You see, centrists don’t simply compromise for compromise’s sake. That’s not the point to what we do and what we are.
The point is to have a strong stance on what you believe, but still be willing to hear what others have to say. Because if you don’t keep an open ear and an open mind, you’ll lose valuable perspective.
Yes, the point to centrism IS real debate. And furthermore, the point is to make your argument and make it well, while hopefully discarding the partisan rhetoric that chips away at progress and causes division.
We can make this a better world if we just open up our hearts and our minds to the the other side and see where they are coming from. And when I say “the other side” I mean from whatever perspective you’re coming from. Whether you be a Republican, Democrat or Independent, perspective is needed because no ideology is pure and right and true.
In closing, I look forward to the continued debate on this site about the issues that face us week after week. Your voices are needed to push the debate forward because honesty is key.
This entry was posted on Saturday, October 1st, 2005 and is filed under General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 1st, 2005 at 9:52 am
Nice bit of “centrism” by Obama by immediately setting out to slam his opponents. Paraphrase: “It’s easie for those Republican war-monger fascists baby jillers to formulate a foreign policy basded on killy everyone who isn’t a wasp than it is for us believers in Truth Justice and Equaltiy.”
Funny how “Centrism” equals “Democrats who salm all non-Dem Party Platform positions as morally and intellectually inferior and evil”.
October 1st, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Listen icepick, are you even interested in centrism? Time and time again, you throw out caustic salvos and that adds nothing to the conversation, especially “thoughts” like these.
I’m not saying you have to agree, but this is obviously just a slam, and a decidely partisan one at that. So really, what’s the point?
October 1st, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Justin, I could ask if you were interested in centrism. I note that you criticize those on the right on a regular basis, and rarely mention much in the way of fault on the left.
Katrina coverage? Slam Bush and FEMA non-stop, rarely if ever mention that the state and local (primarily Democrats) are responsible for far worse failings.
Mention a call for centrism from a prominent Dem whos starts his call for “moderation” with statements like “it’s easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb….” Yep, that’s the way to reach across the partisan divide: call the other guys stupid and belligerent! And yet, you don’t seem to notice this bit of ad hominem attack.
Judith Miller finally gets out of jail, and you wirte, “As much as she stood up for her right to not speak, I bet she has to be a little bit peeved that Libby only recently decided to give her permission to speak.”
Yet a Chicago Tribune story states:
So Libby makes the offer over a year ago, and you state that Miller should be pissed because Libby only granted permision recently.
Part of the Katrina relief effort allows for children already attending religious schools to get vouchers to go to other religious schools, and you go immediately into snottily dismissive mode.
The Bennett brouhaha is another good point. Bennett states that he disagrees with the proposition that higher abortion rates have led to a reduction in crime. He then states that
You stae that this is logically contradictory and racist. (You seem quite gleeful about getting to call a Republican racist. What’s your opinion of Robert Bird?) It is not logically contradictory. The second statement maximizes the abortion rate amonst a targetted segment of the population, not a smaller increase amongst everyone.
The fact is that African-Americans do commit crimes at a higher rate than Americans as a whole. For Bennett’s arguement it doesn’t matter whether or not this is do to race or poverty; it is simply a fact of life. Therefore, eliminating this group would reduce the crime rate. That is hardly logically contradictory.
But how does Bennett feel about this? He follows up the above comment with
He calls such a tactic morally reprehensible, yet you call him a racist, which in the USA is about the worst statement you can make about someone.
Now, tell me again about your interest in centrism when you confine your arguements to only criticizing “the other guy”.
Another Rovian Tool,
Icepick
PS Almost forgot the link to the Chicago Tribune story:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&ncid=2027&e=3&u=/chitribts/20051001/ts_chicagotrib/ciainquiryshiftsfocustovpsaide
October 2nd, 2005 at 4:03 am
Icepick,
Listen, I do criticize those on the left and have banned them from this site for making caustic remarks. To illustrate, please see the post Republicans Fail. Democratics Flail.
Of course, one post does not a trend make, but I am a liberal and, as such, we’ll hardly see eye to eye on many issues. But do I understand where reasonable Repubs are coming from? Yes, of course.
Howeverm, Bill Bennett’s position wasn’t a reasonable position. You disagree and I appreciate that, but I don’t think you’re really seeing the full argument. You contend that blacks commit more of the crimes in this country, and I don’t disagree, but that’s not the point I’m making. My point is that Bennett first discounted one point of view as false and then turned around and used that same point of view to target the black population and accuse them, from birth, of criminality. Please, please, please understand this because it is how my argument is constructed.
And by the way, I never called Bennett a racist. I merely called his one comment racist. So, does one comment make a person racist? No. But the comment itself can certainly be seen a racist since it mentions a specific race being responsible for a higher crime rate in America, without addressing the socio-economic issues that face our country.
In essence, Bennett’s black baby comment suggests that just because somebody is of a certain race, they’ll be more accustomed to commit crimes. I don’t know about you, but that seems like a fairly indefensible position to me, especially considering that if you were to take ANY baby and place it in an environment that fostered love and understanding, the child would be FAR less predisposed to committ crimes.
It’s a nature vs. nurture argument, and I wish many of the commenters would appreciate that.
Even the author of Freakonomics says as much in his very deferential post about Bennett’s remarks.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/09/bill-bennett-and-freakonomics.html
Listen, I don’t think you’re a Rovian tool, but I do think you tend to pick a particularly divisive point of view when I post about something and don’t offer up any REAL evidence to support your arguments. Do understand that this is why I’m so pointed in my retorts to your thoughts. Be honest, are you a die-hard Republican or a true moderate? Because I have honestly not seen you argue about ONE moderate position yet.
Make your point and make it well. That’s the unofficial motto of this site. Follow it and I’m sure we’ll be able to have a good conversation.
Best.
October 2nd, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Justin wrote:
Later Justin wrote:
So, I’m confused. Bennett has a slightly racist tinge to him, but he isn’t a racist? How MUCH of a racist tinge does Bennett have to have before he is a racist? Well, earleir still you wrote:
So maybe you never DIRECTLY accused Bennett of being a racist, but you have sure as hell implied it.
My final comment on the Bennett issue is to once again reiterate that Bennett’s second position is significantly modified from the position from Freakonomics. He is NOT using the exact same arguement, and the fact that you are insisting that he is either stubbornness on your part, or an inability to understand the importance of modifiers.
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Justin:
What the hell do you want? I pointed out that you had made a mistake in your thoughts on whether or not Bennett was making a logical mistake, and you basically told me that you were going to completely ignore what I said because it didn’t fit with your opinion. Adding a modifier to an arguement changes the arguement. (In Bennett’s case, he made two changes: targetting the group to be aborted, and maximizing the abortion rate.)
More importantly, you CONTINUE to completely ignore the fact that Bennett said that his second line of thought was morally reprehensible. Instead, you keep implying that Bennett is a racist, while insisting that that is not what you are doing.
More from Justin:
I’m a die-hard conservative, and I’ve not exactly hidden that fact. But are you a die-hard Democrat or a moderate? How many moderate positions have you adopted? How many Dem positions have you backed off from? How many Republican positions have you moved towards? Or are the only “moderate” positions Democratic positions?
And as for being divisive, I don’t see how picking a comment of one of the most partisan members of the Senate calling Republicans belligerent and dumb is supposed to be “inclusive”, but perhaps as a stupid belligerent Rethuglican, I ain’t never gon to be getin’ such sutle thinkin’s.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:14 am
Patience, Icepick. The process here is seeking, not dogma. We find a center, we don’t lay it down like flagstone. One of the interesting qualities of this site, to me, is the way the harshest attacks on it have consistently come from the left. That sort of thing will nudge a lot of decent people right-ward in a very short time. Don’t blow it for me, lol.
Sometimes it’s a process of letting people react in the style to which they are accustomed, then giving them something to think about that makes the knee-jerk look a bit foolish, then backing off to give it time to sink in. Rubbing noses in it doesn’t teach anything but resentment.
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:52 am
Increased fiscal responsibility. Lowering the deficit. Increasing state’s rights. Social Security reform. Flat tax. Limiting abortion rights in certain cases. Adding more troops in Iraq. Using military force in Iran and North Korea, or whenever it’s needed. Funding faith based intiatives, as long as they respect the division of church and state.
I can probably name some more, but those are the first ones that popped into my head.
Okay, these are the second and third lines of what Bennett said.
The fact that he said it was a morally reprehensible idea, does not change the fact that he was still making the point that it would lower crime.
What I’d like from you is to quit accussing me of gleefully wanting to call people’s racists, and look at what Bennett actually said and see the inherent logic problem with it. Again, even the author of Freakonomic points out that Bennett can’t have it both ways. Also appreciate that I can see this logic problem, and wonder why Bennett hasn’t apologize for missepaking yet.
See, I think the problem is you actually agree that it would reduce crime. Well, then why wouldn’t Levitt’s observation reduce crime too? Why wouldn’t increased abortion rates results in a lower crime rates? Because that’s what Bennett DISAGREED with, but then he went on to suggest the exact same thing, only with a different modifier, something you accuse me of not being able to see.
Seriously, walk through this with me.
Position A - Bennett disagrees (in theory) that this would reduce the crime rate.
If the abortion rate is say 10 million per year. By Levitt’s logic, if this were to decrease, the crime rate would go, or it were to increase the crime rate would go down.
Position B - Bennett agrees (in theory) that this would reduce the crime rate.
If the abortion rate among blacks were to become “complete,” say 8 million per year, the crime rate would drop. And as Bennet said, “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”
Can’t you see the problem there? If not, then there’s nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. I don’t Bennett’s a bad man. I just think he made a mistake and has yet to apologize for misspeaking.
Listen, we’re probably not going to see eye to eye on many issues, but understand that I created this site to foster real debate among Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Have I been wrong on some points? Yes. But so have you. Let’s move on and start a real conversation instead of this pointed back and forth we’ve had since the beginning.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:32 am
To get back to Obama…
He is evidently a good man and would probably make a decent President. On domestic issues he sounds like he’s got the right attitude. But (to go back to a point implied but not made by Icepick in his first comment) there is a real problem with his characterisation of foreign policy. I’m British, so US foreign policy is what I care about most.
Obama said: “a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action”
This characterisation is rhetorically effective, but it has too many holes in it - holes that can be pointed out by Republicans, holes that ordinary voters are likely to take seriously.
Bush’s foreign policy is not based solely upon military force. Assume that the primary goals of US foreign policy for the time being must be to promote moderation/ democracy in the Muslim-majority parts of the world, to hunt active terrorists, and to restrict proliferation of WMDs. How is that being achieved? A mixture of:
- humanitarian aid - witness the tsunami-relief efforts in Indonesia or the funding of health and education programmes in Pakistan, for which see http://www.usaid.gov/pk/.
- diplomacy - as in the joint efforts with France to sponsor a UN resolution which helped bring about Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and the recent elections there. On the WMD front, it was US/ UK diplomacy that brought about Libya’s renunciation of its nuclear programme, incidentally shining a bright light onto the AQ Khan shenanigans.
- police/ intelligence cooperation - again as in Pakistan, which, with a little help from the CIA, has captured or killed a substantial number of terrorists - perhaps not as many as we’d like, but it can’t be discounted.
- multilateral military operations - such as in the PSI or Proliferation Security Initiative, basically a set of naval patrols aimed at preventing North Korea or Iran exporting any their little toys. The French and Germans are fully on board for that.
See: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Jan/US-Led.htm
Furthermore, so far as military operations go, Afghanistan was almost painfully multilateral, backed as it was and is by UN and NATO resolutions.
So Obama’s beef all boils down to Iraq and the lack of a specific UN resolution to support the invasion (though the ongoing operations there are covered by UN resolutions, cf. UNSCR 1483 et seq.). That is, indeed, a fairly big deal, but it doesn’t amount to “a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action”.
And as a Brit I have to point out that the Iraq invasion was not unilateral: our troops are there (and were there from the start) and so are (and were) many others, not all of them from countries easily bribable or coercible. You may reasonably, if you wish, call the invasion unwise or wrong or even illegal (though I disagree on all three points, they are matters on which reasonable people can disagree), but it was not unilateral. Even if it were, he still shouldn’t claim that unilateral military action was the sole basis of US policy. It’s factually false, and surely we all want to be part of the fact-based community?
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:32 am
You keep insisting that
(1) [If (A applied to P) then B]
and
(2) [If (Maximized A applied to a proper subset of P) then B]
are logically equivalent statements. They are not. Even if Maximized A = A, that is, if A is constant, the definition of a proper subset makes these two statements different. I have no idea what the hell your problem is that you insist that these are equivalent statements.
And if they are not equivalent statements, it is possible to say
(3) (1) is False AND (2) is True
without (3) necessarily contradicting itself.
Concrete example:
(1) If we kill 10% of all birds, then the % of live birds that are sparrows will increase.
This statement is false, as we have not specified which birds will be killed. If only sparrows are killed (assuming sparrows are more than 10% of the bird population), then the % of live birds that are sparrows will go down. If sparrows are less than 10% of the population, then killing all sparrows would also bring down the % of live birds that are sparrows. There are other scenarios, but this is sufficient to show the statement is false.
(2) If we kill all blue jays, then the % of live birds that are sparrows will go up.
This statement is true. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to prove this statement.
So,
(3) (1) is false and (2) is true.
No contradiction.
THIS IS THE SAME CONSTRUCTION BENNETT USED. He may or may not be correct in his evaluations of the truth or falsity of his propositions, but the actual structure of his arguement is logically consistent.
Or perhaps all of the mathematics I learned back in grad school (and before) was wrong. If that’s the case, you should publish. Not only will you completely overturn the last 2500+ years of mathematics, you can also win a Fields Medal, which to those in the know is more prestigious than a Nobel Prize. Hell, you’d be Archimedes, Newton, Euler, Gauss and Gödel all wrapped up into one, and then some! Your fame would be eternal!
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Icepick, let me ask you one question:
Do you think a maximized black abortion rate raises or lowers the overall abortion rate?
Other are welcome to answer this question too.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Insufficient data. I don’t know what is happening to the non-Black abortion rate, nor what the overall rate is, nor how maximizing the rate for this subpopulation could change the rate as a whole if the non-black abortion rate changes.
What you are doing is saying that if something is true for one particular circumstance, it must be true for all other analogous circumstances.
Let me try this: Atrios is a lefty blogger who is rude and arrogant. Therefore all lefty bloggers must be rude and arrogant. QED!
I am done with this. You are either too stupid to understand the logical contstruct being discussed or you’re being completely dishonest in this arguement. I don’t care which anymore.
Go ahead and ban me. It’s what you’re itching to do anyway.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Steve K - good points. People lean too hevily on “unilateral” in Iraq do an insult to our good allies in Britain. On the other hand, I do think Afghanistan was questionable, by U.N. standards. That it turned out so well and ended so quickly allowed the U.N. to leap aboard the ship as it was leaving the dock, but that ship was going anyhow.
One of the abilities a political observer needs nowadays is the art of peeling away the parts of a political speech that are specific to the audience being addressed, and getting at the core of what is being said.
Politicians still haven’t realized that there’s no such thing as a speech for local consumption anymore. Or, if they have realized it, they haven’t adjusted to it.
It never was entirely so, it has been even less so since the rise of mass media, and it is completely gone since the coming of the Internet. The President of the U.S. may be addressing a union hall in Dubuque, but what he says there will be published and parsed in living rooms in Karachi and Berlin and Singapore.
With someone like Obama, whom I basically like and root for, it’s easier for me to step back and say, this rhetorical flourish may be offensive, but he’s just establishing that he knows where the base is and knows he has to feed them. I will tend to blow by that and get to the pith of what he says.
It’s a lot harder with politicians I like less well.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Well, here’s what I think. If the black abortion rate was absolute the overall abortion rate would go up. For the abortion rate to stay the same or go down, all the others rates would have to drop. How exactly is this “completely dishonest”?
Quickly, here is the logic.
IAR = Increased Abortion Rate
ABAR = Absolute Black Abortion Rate
DCR = Decreased Crime Rate
Bennett first said IAR ≠DCR
Bennett then said ABAR = DCR
However, all things being equal, ABAR = IAR
Therefore, IAR must = DCR
Also, I’m not itching to ban anybody, and although I’ve heeded a request to ban somebody before, I’m not going to do it this time. You’re only caustic on my posts, and I don’t really mind being called stupid.
But I’m not a punching bag either, so I suggest that you either try to come to the table with a better attitude or simply leave. Personally, I really don’t feel like talking to you anymore, but I’m sure others like Callimachus appreciate your comments on their posts.
The choice is yours.