I have long been intrigued by the distance between principle and practice, how people respond to the distance, and what the consequences are, of the distance and the response. This was my major concern in The Cynical Society. It is central to “the civil society as if” strategy of the democratic opposition that developed around the old Soviet bloc, which I explored in Beyond Glasnost and After the Fall. And it is also central to how I think about the politics of small things and reinventing political culture, including many of my own public engagements: from my support of Barack Obama, to my understanding of my place of work, The New School for Social Research and my understanding of this experiment in publication, Deliberately Considered. I will explain in a series of posts. Today a bit more about Obama and his Nobel Lecture, and the alternative to cynicism.

I think principle is every bit as real as practice. Therefore, in my last post, I interpreted Obama’s lecture as I did. But I fear my position may not be fully understood. A friend on Facebook objected to the fact that I took the lecture seriously. “The Nobel Address marked the Great Turn Downward, back to Cold War policies a la Arthur Schlesinger Jr. et al. A big depressing moment for many of us.”

He sees many of the problems I see in Obama’s foreign policy, I assume, though he wasn’t specific. He is probably quite critical of the way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have continued, critical of the drone policy, disappointed by the fact that Guantanamo prison is still open, and by Obama’s record on transparency and the way he has allowed concern for national security take priority over human and civil rights, at home and abroad. The clear line between Bush’s foreign policy and Obama’s, which both my friend and I sought, has not been forthcoming. And he draws a logical conclusion: “a great turn downward.”

My friend sees a familiar failure: militarism wrapped in an elegant intellectual package (the reference to Schlesinger). In the distance between perceived principled promise and practice, “the best and the brightest” seem to be at it again: sophisticated rationalization for militarism reminiscent of the Cold War and its ideology, He sees the distance between the ideal and the practice as proof that the professed ideal was a sham. Perhaps he even makes the cynical move that the fancy words are but a mask for narrow self-interest (election and re-election) serving the interest of the powerful (the neo-liberal corporate elite). Is Obama’s advancement just about serving the interests of the hegemonic corporate order? Is their advancement linked directly to his serving their interests. Are the two primary cynical observations I studied in The Cynical Society all there is? It’s not what you know but who you know, and they’re all in it for themselves.

I, when I wrote my book and now, judge the ideal more independently, connected to practice to be sure, but connected not only in a cynical way, but also connected to the possibility of critique, a way to empower critical practice. Cynicism is the opposite of criticism, a major theme of my book. And now I read the Nobel lecture with this starting point. The lecture provides a guide to critically appraise Obama and his policies, and it provides the grounds upon which to critically respond to the shortcomings of the policies. As I put it in the post: “The Nobel Laureate Obama as critic of President Obama.”

I see no reason to take the flawed actions of the Obama administration as being somehow more real than the professed complex ideals expressed in the Nobel lecture. Action and ideal interact in an important and consequential ways that suggest future possibility.

Yesterday I read a piece, “Obama’s Drone Debacle.” It reports that the drone policy has been more determined by career bureaucrats in the national security establishment than by the President and his White House. “It’s clear that the president and the attorney general both want more transparency,” says Matthew Miller, a former senior Justice Department official. “But the bureaucracy has once again thrown sand in the gears and slowed that down.” This does not relieve Obama of the responsibility for his policies, but it suggests an ongoing battle within the administration that may yield a change in direction. The article cynically highlights that Rand Paul outmaneuvered Obama in his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination to lead the CIA. This is “Obama’s debacle.” The Nobel lecture reveals the thought behind possible change.

Am I again just apologizing for the politician I admire? Perhaps, but I think there is more to it than that. For even as I am critical with my friend of directions Obama has taken, I see a leader trying to move the public and not just making empty gestures of change. I see a complicated ideal being kept alive and shaping foreign policy to a degree, if not enough for my friend and others with similar criticisms. The U.S. surely is disengaging from the disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq more quickly with Obama, than we would have with either McCain or Romney. American foreign policy is moving away from extreme militarism that Obama’s Republican opponents proposed as a matter of principle. Principles matter.

And lastly the general point, without the ideal publicly visible, there is next to no chance that it will be acted upon. I saw and reported how this animated practice in the Polish underground. It explains why I think America is not only “the cynical society” but also a democratic society, simultaneously, with democratic ideals moving action, even as manipulation and cynicism are rampant. And more close to my intellectual home, it is why The New School for Social Research is a very special institution of higher education and scholarship, even when it has faced profound challenges and has been undermined by less than enlightened leadership for long periods of time. That will be the subject of my next “Principle and Practice” post.

When I wrote The Cynical Society, I was guided by two opposing propositions: that democracy was deeply ingrained in American everyday practice, and that cynicism was as well, presenting a major challenge. This dynamic between democracy and cynicism was clearly evident in the case of the recent Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of “Obamacare.” Chief Justice John Roberts demonstrated how individual action matters. He apparently acted in a principled fashion, defying cynical interpretation. In my judgment, he made a significant principled contribution to the health of the body politic, as well as to the health of many American bodies.

I had an inkling that this could happen in April:

“I worry that this [cynical] kind of attitude has even become the common currency of the Republican appointed justices of the Supreme Court, as they express Tea Party talking points about the health insurance mandates, with Justice Scalia pondering the forced consumption of broccoli and the like. But I have hope. It seems to me that it is quite possible that the Court, with Chief Justice Roberts’s leadership, will seek to make a solid decision based on the merits and not the politics of the case, in the shadows of the Citizens United decision and Bush v. Gore. The integrity of the court, its reputation as a judicial and not a political institution, may very well rule the day.

The way the Court handles this case is a good measure of the degree cynicism has penetrated our politics and culture. My guess is that the health care law, in whole but more likely in part, will be overturned in a political 5 – 4 decision, or if the Court wants to fight against cynical interpretation, attempting to reveal principled commitment, the decision will be 6 – 3 upholding the law, with Kennedy and Roberts, joining the liberals. If the law is overturned, from my partisan point of view, the chances for a decent life for millions will be challenged. But I also worry about what this says about the state of our political culture.”

I was close to predicting the outcome. I thought Roberts was key. I was pessimistic, but had some hope. My mistake was thinking that if he affirmed the constitutionality of the law that Justice Kennedy would follow Roberts.

The talking heads on cable and the print pundits of various political orientations are now mulling over the partisan significance of this. Particularly interesting is the split among conservatives. Elite conservative pundits, David Brooks, George Will, et al., see the principled conservative grounds of the Roberts decisions. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and company see betrayal. In the long run, the elite perceive a smart move in the grounding of Roberts’s opinions. Relying upon Congress’ taxing power and restricting the use of the commerce clause serves the conservative project. Right wing populists see treason to their cause. Generally speaking, Democrat and liberal judgments are parallel with those on the right. While most see victory and support for their cause, there is concern that the precedent has been set for future conservative judgments, building upon Roberts’s actions. Of course, there are also some on the anti-Obama left who read the decision as a diabolical indication that the two factions of the corporate elite are in lockstep, solidifying the final defeat of the single payer plan, promoting the interests of the insurance companies, limiting the power of the federal government to advance social justice.

I have my own partisan judgments. I think Obamacare is flawed but that it significantly moves in the direction of decency. Millions will have access to health care, use it and be healthier, as a result of this law. The principle of universal health care will become more broadly recognized as a right. And over time the flaws in the system will be addressed, resulting in a more efficient and effective health care system, with improved public health. The Supreme Court properly let stand one of the great accomplishments of President Obama.

But as a sociologist of political culture, beyond partisanship, I see another important advance: a small but significant blow against cynicism for the democratic side of the democracy–cynicism dynamic. Roberts appeared to do two things in his judgments by going along with the conservatives in his reading of the commerce clause and by going along with the more liberal justices in confirming the constitutionality of Obamacare. On the one hand, as in all proper court decisions, he confirmed his position with reference to the constitution and to previous judgments of the courts. This is certainly open to cynical interpretation. Whether it is original intent of the founders, or precedent, or in the reading of the facts of the case, the partisan will read the case in a partisan way often unintentionally. In fact, as the most basic sociology of knowledge teaches us, for example Mannheim’s, we all inevitably do this. But, on the other hand, by going against the partisan grain, Roberts confirmed the ideal that the law exists beyond political interests and calculation, beyond the immediate politics of the day.

Ironically, Roberts may have come to this position in a highly calculated, even cynical fashion. It is possible that he found the grounds to make a decision that both was true to his conservative commitments and enhances his court’s reputation. Did he actually cynically and hypocritically strike a blow against cynicism? Did he calculate that the reputation of his court beyond his conservative enclave is worth a little flexibility and act accordingly in his own interest? Is Roberts a hypocrite? If so, I say once again, two cheers for hypocrisy!

Cynicism is a key cultural characteristic of the political right today. It’s aggressive, different from cynicisms past, much more than the enervating political orientation and questionable political tactic that I studied in the Reagan era. It is central to the “conservative” brand, first clearly presented at “fair and balanced” Fox News. It was shockingly revealed in the speech Mitt Romney gave to the Associated Press editors on Wednesday. I fear that this cynicism has also invaded the Supreme Court and think it is quite apparent in the response to the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.

Romney’s speech pivoted around the open mic exchange between Presidents Obama and Medevev of Russia. Romney sees in this the key that can unlock the mystery that is the Obama presidency:

“Barack Obama’s exchange with the Russian President raises all kinds of serious questions: What exactly does President Obama intend to do differently once he is no longer accountable to the voters? Why does “flexibility” with foreign leaders require less accountability to the American people? And, on what other issues will he state his true position only after the election is over? …

He wants us to re-elect him so we can find out what he will actually do…

With all the challenges the nation faces, this is not the time for President Obama’s hide and seek campaign…

Unlike President Obama, you don’t have to wait until after the election to find out what I believe in – or what my plans are.  I have a pro-growth agenda that will get our economy back on track – and get Americans back to work.”

Given the unsteadiness of Romney’s political commitments, this is an odd attack, as was noted by the talking heads on cable after the speech, but I think much more troubling is the way that Romney used a relativity trivial informal exchange between two presidents to provide a cynical account of Obama’s “hide and seek” politics.” This explains the basic pattern of criticism of Obama that Romney, his Republican rivals and the right-wing media have followed. Meaningful debate is avoided. Instead, cynical attacks are the common denominator, based on an understanding of the hidden Obama. Obama’s socialist agenda is denounced. His understanding of the American dream is questioned, as are his patriotism and commitment to national defense and interest. Republicans purport that you can’t believe what Obama says, because he is always hiding something. An aggressive cynicism is the interpretative mode.

As I was finishing this post last night, I noticed that Sean Hannity TV broadcast, “The Real Obama.” The show juxtaposed clips of Obama’s public statements with a purported careful exploration of their ominous real meanings. The show summarized how Romney and his Republican rivals have referred to Obama through their primary contest. It expressed the right-wing approach to Obama, the socialist, illegitimate President from Kenya, from whom our country has to be taken back.

I worry that this kind of attitude has even become the common currency of the Republican appointed justices of the Supreme Court, as they express Tea Party talking points about the health insurance mandates, with Justice Scalia pondering the forced consumption of broccoli and the like. But I have hope. It seems to me that it is quite possible that the Court, with Chief Justice Roberts’s leadership, will seek to make a solid decision based on the merits and not the politics of the case, in the shadows of the Citizens United decision and Bush v. Gore. The integrity of the court, its reputation as a judicial and not a political institution, may very well rule the day.

The way the Court handles this case is a good measure of the degree cynicism has penetrated our politics and culture. My guess is that the health care law, in whole but more likely in part, will be overturned in a political 5 – 4 decision, or if the Court wants to fight against cynical interpretation, attempting to reveal principled commitment, the decision will be 6 – 3 upholding the law, with Kennedy and Roberts, joining the liberals. If the law is overturned, from my partisan point of view, the chances for a decent life for millions will be challenged. But I also worry about what this says about the state of our political culture.

A note of explanation: I should add that I am thinking about the Supreme Court as a non-lawyer, observing the decisions of the lower courts, noting that while conservative judges and constitutional experts are split in their appraisals of the merits of the case, liberal and moderate experts and judges are just about unanimously of the mind that the case against the law has no merits based on precedent. I am also informed by Linda Greenhouse, the court reporter who has been a consistently cogent and accurate guide in understanding the Supreme Court.

In my next post in this series, I will examine the role cynicism plays in the continuing struggle with the dilemmas of race and racism in America as it has been most recently revealed in the case of Trayvon Martin. In this piece, I will be responding to Gary Alan Fine’s last post.

It’s been a big week for cynicism in the news. Involved as I was with the book party for Reinventing Political Culture and teaching preparation, I didn’t realize that this would be the case until an A.P. reporter called on Tuesday morning. I get such calls every two years or so about some cynical development in the news as a part of the election cycle, as the author of The Cynical Society, This time the journalist focused upon two headlines: the “etch a sketch” remark by a Romney campaign aide and President Obama’s open mic remark in his conversation with President Medvedev.

I perversely enjoy these periodic interviews. Because I wrote a book with cynicism in the title, I am asked to provide rapid responses to questions about latest cynical manifestations. This provides some kind of public confirmation that my academic writing has some continuing relevance beyond academic circles. Yet, I must admit, there is cynicism in the asking and the answering.

Sometimes the journalist and I have a robust interesting conversation. At other times, I am at a loss for words, because I am busy with other things, hadn’t really given much thought to the issue, or know that what I have to say will not serve the journalist’s needs. But even when I am not sure what to say, the journalist presses and I usually comply. She needs a quote to build up her piece, to get “expert opinion” because journalistic convention stipulates that she should not express her own judgment explicitly, and I recognize the convention and willingly comply, concerned primarily that my name is spelled correctly and my institutional affiliation is properly identified, hoping that the sentence or two that the journalist draws from our conversation resembles what I actually think. Cynically speaking, I do this because I know that to appear in public is good for my and The New School’s reputations, and there is always a chance that what I say may matter a little.

I have talked with Nancy Benac, the reporter who called Tuesday, previously and have generally been satisfied with what she writes about our conversations, as was the case this week, even though what she reported could have been said by any minimally articulate person. Romney’s aide’s remarks confirmed what people already think about Romney, for better and for worse.

But other things cynical were happening last week that I believe are more important with longer lasting consequences than what Benac and I discussed. I even think that there is a new form to the cynicism now as opposed to the cynicism I studied in the late 80s and early 90s. Primary pieces of evidence of this were the speeches and actions at and around the Supreme Court and surrounding the outrage of the murder of Trayvon Martin. Both are deadly serious cases and in need of deliberate response, but both have been cynically debated in ways that seriously challenge our democratic politics and culture, American political culture. A bizarre opinion piece in the Washington Times summarizes the problem.

In the judgment of Charles Hurt, President Obama had the worst week of his Presidency, “one of the worst weeks in history for a sitting president.”

[I]n one week, Mr. Obama got caught whispering promises to our enemy, incited a race war, raised serious questions about his understanding of the Constitution, and then got smacked down over his proposed budget that was so wildly reckless that even Democrats in Congress could not support it.

This is cynicism from beginning to end. Obama didn’t whisper promises to our enemy. There were no promises, and the idea of Russia as an enemy is a deeply problematic notion, more than twenty years out of date. The Obama budget failed because of a combination of political and legislative maneuvering, not because it was wildly reckless. There are real political disagreements about pressing national and international issues and they can’t be reduced to simple formula as Hurt does (Obama — bad, which explains our politics from beginning to end).

And we have serious problems in our political culture, none of which is more persistent or troubling than those surrounding the issue of race.

The President comments on the Trayvon Martin were measured. As a self-identified African American, he had to answer a question about the case carefully. He couldn’t deny the obvious, but he couldn’t interfere with the ongoing investigation of the case. George Zimmerman suspicions were apparently based on no other reason other than that Martin was black, walking while wearing a hoody. That Zimmerman has not yet been charged is outrageous. Probable cause is there. Yet Obama’s response to the question posed was understated. If he had a son, he would have looked like Martin, suggesting that he would have raised the same suspicions. Race still matters in America. Subtly pointing this out is the least the President could do. Indeed, given the charged polarized nature of our political community, what the President said was exactly what he had to say, no more, no less.

There is sincere pain in this incidence, facing a mocking cynical response. As we listen to the discussions coming out of the African American community arising from the controversy, those of us from outside the community were reminded of, or learned about, the talk all young African American men must hear to warn them about the dangers they face. The President fulfilled his responsibility by not denying the obvious, not pretending that racism still doesn’t affect the daily lives of blacks in America. Those who pretend that it doesn’t are part of the very problem that they all too often cynically deny. In 1991, I worried about an enervating cynicism. Now there is a cynicism of open aggression.

This was most clearly revealed by Newt Gingrich:

What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background.

Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him.

That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot.

It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American or if he’d been a Native American.

At some point, we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.

And also equal rights for whites, and religious freedom for Christians are, no doubt, pressing issues for the former not so honorable speaker and the talking heads on Fox News.

In my next post, I will critically appraise the new cynicism more fully, starting with race and focusing on the discussions surrounding the recent spectacles in and around the Supreme Court.