A longer-than-normal post, but an oh so important topic no?
In the Red Corner! (Color not chosen for any symbolic reasons...though it may seem that way)
Drew Westen: When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze.
In the Blue Corner!
Jonathan Chiat: Westen's op-ed rests upon a model of American politics in which the president in the not only the most important figure, but his most powerful weapon is rhetoric. The argument appears calculated to infuriate anybody with a passing familiarity with the basics of political science. In Westen's telling, every known impediment to legislative progress -- special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion -- are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. The impediment to an era of total an uncompromising liberal success is Obama's failure to properly deploy this awesome weapon.
Westen locates Obama's inexplicable failure to properly use his storytelling power in some deep-rooted aversion to conflict. He fails to explain why every president of the postwar era has compromised, reversed, or endured the total failure of his domestic agenda.
In the Red Corner! (Color not chosen for any symbolic reasons...though it may seem that way)
Drew Westen: When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze.
In the Blue Corner!
Jonathan Chiat: Westen's op-ed rests upon a model of American politics in which the president in the not only the most important figure, but his most powerful weapon is rhetoric. The argument appears calculated to infuriate anybody with a passing familiarity with the basics of political science. In Westen's telling, every known impediment to legislative progress -- special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion -- are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. The impediment to an era of total an uncompromising liberal success is Obama's failure to properly deploy this awesome weapon.
Westen locates Obama's inexplicable failure to properly use his storytelling power in some deep-rooted aversion to conflict. He fails to explain why every president of the postwar era has compromised, reversed, or endured the total failure of his domestic agenda.
If you look at progressive circles, Westen's argument seems to be the one people want to believe. I have seen at least one prominent progressive Christian organization publicizing Westen's article, and have heard a similar line of thought from many I have talked to. Its an argument that comes from the heart. But if you read Chiat's rebuttle, its hard not to conclude that sometimes the heart is profoundly mistaken.
Every "victory" for the progressive agenda thus far has been dampened hugely by the fact that concessions had to be made (the public option in the healthcare debate comes to mind first for me). But that is the reality of the political system we inherited. To think that if Obama gave the best speech ever written in the history of mankind about the public option (which he did do a pretty good job of arguing for), we'd have it right now, is a delusion beyond delusions. Rather, maybe if the White House didn't decide to waste so much time waiting for the Senate's gang of six, we might have a different outcome (I know this stuff was a long time ago but it still stings damnit!) As Chiat points out, the primary issue to be taken up with Obama is a tactical one.
I also want to add that the economic crisis we face now is an entirely different animal than the national security crisis Bush was dealt. With an economic crisis, people are prone to all sorts of ideas about how the economy works because despite what some economists might think, the tangible answers are not as clear as "go and shoot the bad guy." When we feel like our lives are in danger, we are willing to applaud the president as he lets the rockets fly. When our jobs our in danger, we become partisan ideologues. If 9/11 never happened, would Bush have been able to convince the nation to go to war on rhetoric alone?
-Tim
No comments:
Post a Comment