Obama’s Dilemna: Responsible or Principled Politics?

Max Weber, author of "Politics as Vocation"

It sometimes feels like Barack Obama has studied Max Weber’s classic, “Politics as a Vocation,” a bit too carefully.   In his lecture, given in the aftermath of the tragedy of World War I, Weber made a strong distinction between an ethics of responsibility and an ethics of ultimate ends  – between an ethics that is based in getting practical things done politically, serving one’s constituency’s interests and understandings, and an ethics of principled politics, true to one’s core values.

Such a distinction leads Obama to clearly distinguish between an ethics of responsible governance and an ethics of imaginative and eloquent political campaigning, including attractive depictions of ultimate ends.  Obama’s reticence to use the poetry of campaigning, while he is engaged in the prose of governing, has meant that he hasn’t attacked those who have viciously attacked him.  It is only now in campaign mode that he is responding.  There are pressing questions:  has his been a responsible approach? And has his position made Obama’s (and his supporters) ends more distant?

Thus,  Brian Beutler, in a post on Talking Points Memo, applauded President Obama in his speech on the economy of September 8 in Cleveland for his direct attack on John Boehner, criticizing him “by name no less than eight times,” but laments “Complicating matters for Democrats is that, well, few Americans know who “Mr. Boehner” is. That might not be the case if Obama had given speeches like this starting a year ago. But there are still several weeks to go until election day.”

And Bob Herbert, in his op-ed. piece on Tuesday, was very pleased but also bewildered,  “ Mr. Obama linked the nation’s desperate need for jobs to the sorry state of the national infrastructure in a tone that conveyed both passion and empathy, and left me wondering, ‘Where has this guy been for the past year and a half?’”

The Method to his Madness?

Yet, it should be understood that there is a method, or at least a significant strategic decision, to the President’s madness.  He knew that he might need at least a few of his opponents support to pass his legislative agenda, and he also hoped that he could forge a broad coalition in support of necessary social, political and economic change, a hope that has been frustrated with Republicans calculating that complete opposition to all proposed reforms was the road out of their political darkness.  In his campaign, he is now willing to call them on this.

But even now, while attacking, Obama  stands by his centrist principle of bringing all people of good will together drawing upon multiple perspectives and principles to forge a commonly agreed upon approach.  He advanced in his September 8 speech one important variation on the Labor Day theme.

“This country is emerging from an incredibly difficult period in its history -– an era of irresponsibility that stretched from Wall Street to Washington, and had a devastating effect on a lot of people.  We have started turning the corner on that era.  But part of moving forward is returning to the time-honored values that built this country:  hard work and self-reliance; responsibility for ourselves, but also responsibility for one another.  It’s about moving from an attitude that said “What’s in it for me?” to one that asks, “What’s best for America?  What’s best for all our workers?  What’s best for all of our businesses? What’s best for all of our children?”  (Applause.)

These values are not Democratic or Republican.  They are not conservative or liberal values.  They are American values.  As Democrats, we take pride in what our party has accomplished over the last century:  Social Security and the minimum wage; the GI Bill and Medicare; civil rights and worker’s rights and women’s rights.  (Applause.)  But we also recognize that throughout our history, there has been a noble Republican vision as well, of what this country can be.  It was the vision of Abraham Lincoln, who set up the first land grant colleges and launched the transcontinental railroad; the vision of Teddy Roosevelt, who used the power of government to break up monopolies; the vision of Dwight Eisenhower, who helped build the Interstate Highway System.  And, yes, the vision of Ronald Reagan, who despite his aversion to government, was willing to help save Social Security for future generations — working with Democrats.  (Applause.)

These were serious leaders for serious times.  They were great politicians, but they didn’t spend all their time playing games or scoring points.  They didn’t always prey on people’s fears and anxieties.”

Dilemma and Promise

Obama has as an ultimate end of moving the center to the left, of turning the political debate from big government versus limited government, to good government versus bad government, as I explored in my last post.  To do this, he seeks to include Republicans and the Republican tradition.  Thus, he must praise them, and not just attempt to bury them, as many of his critics on the left, including me in my less deliberate moments, would like.  This is the dilemma, but also the great promise, of his political position.