It has always been the case that the politics of America is a blend of cynicism and real democratic deliberation. I wrote about this extensively in my book, The Cynical Society.  There are the sound bytes and the serious modes of deliberation.  There are the media circuses and the deliberative chambers. And, there are slogans and extended reasonable arguments. But the proportions of the blend changes.  During the election, Obama used serious persuasion more effectively than his opponents and his predecessors as a political tool.  He consistently did this, most strikingly in his famous race speech in Philadelphia.   A provocative compilation of the words of his minister Reverend Jeremiah Wright was used to insinuate that Obama was an angry Black man, a reverse racist.  He responded with a carefully reasoned speech, addressing the problems and promise for racial understanding.

He has tried during his Presidency to do the same.  This has led to aggressive attacks by his opponents.  They attack not only in substance, but also in form, as he insists upon reasoned deliberate debate, his opponents flee from reason.  Many have wondered whether his cool reasoned response to this has been wise.  His critics within his Party, his fellow progressives, are most interesting in this regard.

There has been a concern that Obama has not been tough enough.  That he has been too open to an opposition that has been unbending.  He has offered respect and cooperation, while they have vilified and demonized him.  And when his opposition does not demonize, it refuses to condemn or distance itself from those who do.  The response to Obama is strongly ideological, irrational and demagogic, even though there are no substantive reasons why it must be this way.  It is not the case that the liberal position is necessarily principled, rational and deliberative, while the conservative one is not, but this is the shape of the political culture at this time.  The contest between Obama and the Democrats and the opposition is not only a matter of competing substantive policy positions, it is also a competition between the force of arguments and the force of manipulations.

I have to be careful here.  I am not just a disinterested observer, I realize.  I strongly support Obama on matters of race and American identity, on reform of the economy and the health care system, on the environment and mostly on foreign policy.  But I recognize that his position is a partisan one and it should be opposed by alternative partisan positions in a democratic polity.  My concern is that the opposition is not serious, but it may be effective.

On the other hand, although Obama’s partisan position is serious, but it may not be effective.  My concern has less to do with the politics of the moment, more to do with the culture of the Republic.  I think that the crucial issue here is not Obama’s success or failure or the opposition’s success or failure.  Rather, the primary democratic challenge is whether it is possible to go beyond cynical politics.  Obama’s electoral campaign was quite successful in this regard.  The nature of the partisan conflict during his Presidency has not clearly followed the same pattern.

I think he continues to pursue his political ends in a reasonable and open way, as both his opponents and his critics on the left are willing to flee reason and responsibility for the problems of our times.

The health care debate pitted the current administration against some familiar feeling foes. Though President Obama doesn’t seem to have expected it, the Republican-attack machine that distracted and embarrassed the Clinton administration is up to its old tricks. Using minute and displaced facts as well as fishing-boat whoppers to dissuade and disillusion an already frighted public, conservative lawmakers challenge this administration to fight back in kind–or risk losing the battle altogether.

Cynicism versus democracy the battle continues almost every day during the Obama Presidency.  There was a serious debate to have on economic policy and health care reform, for example.  There was a broad consensus that aggressive government action was necessary at the height of the financial crisis.  Even the leading conservative economists understood that aggressive action was necessary. (link) But there have been reasonable debates about the shape of the action, (link) and after its success, there has been a debate about what actions should follow. (link) Yet, the tone of the opposition has not generally followed this course of criticism and opposition.  Instead there have been the accusations of socialism and fascism.

On health care reform, there were crazy assertions of death panels and even a Republican senator who was engaged in a bipartisan effort at reform, warned about “pulling the plug on Grandma.” And thus serious conservatives wanting to engage in a serious debate about the issue found it impossible to do so. (link)

In the face of this gap, Obama actively acted as if he had faced a reasonable opposition for a long time, despite the evidence to the contrary, to the consternation of many of his supporters.  He has faced the same sort of Republican attack machine that the Clintons did, and he has not prepared to meet it head on.  As Paul Krugman put it “So far, at least, the Obama administration’s response to the outpouring of hate on the right has had a deer-in-the-headlights quality. It’s as if officials still can’t wrap their minds around the fact that things like this can happen to people who aren’t named Clinton, as if they keep expecting the nonsense to just go away.” (link)

But Krugman and many others who voice similar criticisms don’t recognize that there is a political cultural dilemma here.  If Obama and his supporters respond in kind, they may win the substantive battle, while weakening the power of civil discussion and careful reasoned argument in public life in the process (one of his strong points).  But if they time the response adequately, showing that all efforts were made to sustain bi partisanship without compromising principle, making clear reasonable arguments for their positions, and patiently questioning the factual truth of their critics more outrageous assertions, they could win both the substantive battle and the formal one.

They could battle and present a clear alternative to modern cynical politics.  Thus the contrast between the Obama Town Hall meetings about health care reform and the behavior of his critics in the Town Hall meeting of Congress members may in the end persuade the political leadership and the general public both on the issue and on the way to best do politics.  But this is far from certain.  An empowered opposition emerged, utilizing a new base of power.  There is the Tea Party and its use of what I call the politics of small things. More about this in future posts.