Labels for Obama aren't that helpful
Monday, December 21, 2009 at 11:28PM OP-ED: Obama's Christian Realism, By DAVID BROOKS, New York Times, December 14, 2009
Brooks' piece has captured a lot of attention, for reasons that baffle me somewhat, but then I've never liked labels for myself (they always make me wince) and I guess I don't much care for them with Obama. I'm not saying that Brooks' piece isn't correct or well written. I just read it like I listened to Obama's Oslo speech: both struck me as fine and unremarkable, but hardly worthy of the title of "doctrine," "most important speech of his life" (Brooks' notion) and the like. Neither thus struck me, at first glance, as being worth a post. I simply nodded in agreement and moved on with my day.
So why does the Brooks piece seemingly strike many as important or revealing? All I can assume is that there is a strong popular desire to locate a commonly agreed upon label for Obama WRT foreign policy (sort of a strange merging of Carter and George H.W. Bush).
In effect, Obama says he's not going to take on the entire world like Bush the Younger and the neocons--the all-comers approach to maintain primacy, "maximum dominance" (Krauthammer's term) and so on.
Okay, reasoned enough after the depletions of the previous 7 years.
And yet, Obama says there are bad people worth fighting. Fighting them is a nasty business that can soil one's soul. But still, knowing that isn't an excuse for doing nothing. When America can do something, it should, and where it can't muster the full answer on its own, it should seek help. In everything we do, though, we should seek the wider discipline of rules embodied, as much as possible, in institutions and, where they might not yet exist, in our sense of morality (just not getting too self-assured on that last bit).
This, Brooks calls "Christian realism" because Obama likes Niebuhr. In the Cold War, if you thought like this, Brooks says you were a "cold war liberal," which apparently means you were a Democrat (softer on domestic issues) while embracing the utility of defense--even interventions against "evil" (thus standing closer to Republican hawks). In sum, you'd be center-left on domestic and center-right on foreign--or classic centrist (respecting the benefit of doubt in both directions, as in, better to err on the side of being too nice to your fellow citizens and better to err on the side of being too tough with the world outside--because you just never know).
Is that particularly "Christian"? Well, I know a lot of sensible people who think that way and aren't Christian, so I'd have to say, not necessarily. Indeed, I guess I know a lot of Christians who can't muster that combination whatsoever, so, in the end, I think being balanced and moderate is more important than your faith or lack thereof, because, when you hold to those yardsticks, you tend to be fairly modest in your faith too. Not that you believe less or are less "moral" per se, just that you tend to be more humble on the subject, less certain on this or that, less willing to shove your beliefs down other people's throats. You're a classic golden rule-type, more John Mills than Niebuhr.
I might just as easily say, ditch all the religious labeling and say centrists tend to be realists in the short run and idealists in the longer run, and they adjust as they see fit more than they cling to any one "enduring" answer. So, yeah, they're harder to label.
For the domestic policy Right, Obama is--of course--a full-blown nutcase socialist for not keeping his seemingly "moderate" campaign promises. For the foreign policy Left, Obama is--of course--a full-blown nutcase militarist for not keeping his seemingly "moderate" campaign promises. To the centrists, however, Obama seems to be keeping his campaign promises fairly well, pushing where he can and compromising where he must.
Does Christian realist thus matter much as a label? It apparently works for some, along with all the other things the man's been called. Certainly it's less offensive and more accurate than most.
But I don't find any of these labels--even the more reasoned ones--to be particularly useful or revealing. Obama strikes me as being exactly who he seemed to be during the campaign. Psycho-analyzing him is fun ("He read Niebuhr like MLK!") but--to me--it's an unsatisfying pursuit. Because as soon as you slap on that label, then, as soon as he "transgresses" the implied code (What would Niebuhr say!!!!), you're yet again "baffled" or "disappointed" or "shocked" or whatever.
And, at the end of the day, I find all such reactions undue hyperbole. [Indeed, that's the very same logic Sean and I apply when we send people packing from this site, because the search will always continue, even as some are convinced THE answer has already been found.]
I voted for Obama because he seemed careful and calculating and willing to deal when it made sense. I got none of those vibes from McCain, who still strikes me as too tortured a soul--literally and figuratively--for the job. Obama continues to be that guy I voted for, shoring up things he thinks need repairing and cutting back on things he thinks have gone too far. It ain't about the money, most of the time, because being careful doesn't mean spending more or less in all matters. It just means you can offer a fairly well reasoned rationale for your choices and priorities.
And, again, I think Obama does that pretty well.
Reader Comments (6)
I enjoy your comments becasue you make me think. That being said I think you are at the edge of the grid.... you seem to occilate between practical and somewhere just sort of fantasi land. I believe you have lost a pragmatic approach to many issues
Niebhur was a theologian and moral philosopher but his books like Children of Light and the Children of Darkness managed to find an audience across a very wide part of the political spectrum. It managed to entrance neoconservatives and antiwar Religious Lefties. Nor was Cold War liberalism inspired by philosophy so much as the effect of events, especially Soviet conduct in the critical years of 1947-50. I highly doubt that President Obama would be comfortable being described the ideological soulmate of Paul Nitze ( and Nitze might object as well). It's not the same position or even policy inclination.
But I am getting what I am expecting, sneaky "mission creep" domestic policies and more multilateral foreign policy.
Domestically I think our government is going the wrong way. I won't make the mistake of blaming Obama for what happened before he ever got to Washington. Congress and the inattention of the American people are to blame for most of that.I really want Congress and the USG to stop squandering my money. A 2000 page healthcare (or any other bill) CANNOT be good for the country. Too complex, too many opportunities for corruption and backlash.(brb son is flooding the basement)
Would really like to see a return to the Constitution as a guide for Government meddling in anything.
Foreign policy issues....I'll follow Tom's lead on that. Might not agree but he certainly is better qualified to comment on such things. My lay mans opinion is Obama seems to be letting most of the overseas stuff find its own level. Working so far.
I would not call Obama centrist. He is from the left side of the fence with an agenda to do what he thinks he needs to do. I disagree with most of it. "Mission creep" good words to describe it Petrer. I would add "unintended consequences".
PS...Typepad is still goofy. Worked on other websites OK
Which is something the centrist can live with and leaves the left and right fringes flailing over.