Oh, man, this is awesome. As someone deeply, deeply, interested in the ties between philosophical pragmatism and liberalism, I think I’m going to have to read James T. Kloppenberg’s book. But the write-up in the Times of his lecture (and the book excerpt) at CUNY is at times something of a parody, as the folks at Contentions have already noted. First of all, we are told that Obama belongs in that rare pantheon of “philosopher presidents,” a “rare breed that can be found only a handful of times in American history. There’s John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Quincy Adams, then Abraham Lincoln and in the 20th century just Woodrow Wilson.”
There’s much to chuckle at. But I like the simplicity of this:
Pragmatism maintains that people are constantly devising and updating ideas to navigate the world in which they live; it embraces open-minded experimentation and continuing debate. “It is a philosophy for skeptics, not true believers,” Mr. Kloppenberg said.
Ah, yes. Barack Obama has been so supple-minded, so open to “continuing debate,” so skeptical of certainty, and so humble.
I just wonder where that Barack Obama has been for the last 20-odd months, because the guy in the Oval Office has been talking endlessly about how the “time for debate is over,” how he doesn’t want to hear from his opponents, whom he now calls “our enemies,” how he got all of his policies right, how any statement of disagreement is merely a “talking point,” or perhaps the irritable mental gesture of Americans who are so frightened they cling to their boomsticks and sky god, or simply reject “facts and science.”
Heck, you might think that someone who ran on cap-and-trade and nationalized health care before the financial crisis might have changed his agenda after the financial crisis. You know, because that’s what philosopher-president pragmatists do when circumstances change, they “update their ideas.” Instead the guy we have the in the White House insisted that he didn’t need to change a single item on his list of priorities even after reality changed so dramatically. Indeed, he spent his first year pushing for health-care reform instead of dealing with the crisis at hand. Why? Because crises are a terrible thing to waste of course. That’s one thing these “pragmatists” have been certain about from the beginning.
What were GW Bush's views on foreign policy prior to 9/11? If they were at all isolationist or non-interventionist, it seems one could readily argue that W is much *more* of a pragmatist than Obama, given the latter's dogmatic progressivism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“rare breed that can be found only a handful of times in American history. There’s John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Quincy Adams, then Abraham Lincoln and in the 20th century just Woodrow Wilson.”
With the obvious exception of Lincoln, whatever else the others may have accomplished in their political careers, it is pretty well accepted that they were lousy Presidents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou claim that Obama "ran on cap-and-trade and nationalized health care before the financial crisis", then failed to change course when "reality changed so drastically".
First of all -- I realize that you would like to pretend that the crisis erupted on Obama's watch, rather than during the Bush Administration (and as a direct result of Bush economic policies). But the financial crisis was in full swing during the time of Obama's campaign. According to the NBER, the recession began officially in December of 2007. Obama ran on those positions during the financial crisis, not before.
Secondly -- your beg the question by implicitly assuming that healthcare reform is somehow inconceivable during bad economic times. One might argue (I might!) that the recession made healthcare reform all the more important.
Finally -- you seem to think that it is impossible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Perhaps for you! But I see no evidence that Obama pushed for healthcare reform "instead of dealing with the crisis at hand". My memory is that substantial efforts were undertaken on both fronts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama's actions revolve around the socialist agenda and his self-infatuation, certainly not around practicality in the usual sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I see folks on the right complain about Obama's intransigence, the hairs raise on my neck. Just when have Republicans sincerely tried to compromise with Obama and the Dems on the Hill? With whom is Obama supposed to compromise?
Mitch McConnell recently said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." So, clearly partisanship outweighs progress on the issues. What are the Dems supposed to do with something like that?
You cant dance with someone if they're too busy trying to burn down the dance-hall.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA point-at-a-time response to AndyS:
First: Mr. Obama himself has repeatedly stated that the economic trough was far deeper than anybody anticipated. The suggestion that the economic conditions on the ground in 2009-2010 were foreseen and factored into 2008 campaign promises is risible.
Second: We're not talking about "healthcare reform" in the abstract but a specific legislative package which does some things and not others, and has a trillion-dollar pricetag attached. Some form of reform may have been a defensible legislative objective, but the administration's specific reform agenda was indefensible even on Keynesian terms.
Third: Your memory is in error. During the eighteen-month-long push for healthcare reform the administration spent precious little effort wrestling with the economy except to tell the occasional whopper about what the Recovery Act (passed in early 2008) was accomplishing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReally, this post is mis-titled. You address (correctly) the falsity of BHO's supposed "open-mindedness". Which is just fine.
But the title led me to think you were going to speak of his (capital-P) Pragmatism. You know, the William James thing. (Also embraced by Jacques Barzun & Sidney Hook, not just by jerks like Dewey.) In fact, as even Contentions got wrong, this has nothing to do with "pragmatism" in the ordinary political sense. It is a different way of understanding the nature of ideas. (Mostly, I think, bunk, but with a few useful insights; which is a better contribution to philosophy than Marx ever made.)
But the fact, that BHO is attracted to a "third way" between Realism & Nominalism, really has nothing to do with what most people read in to all this. He may very well be a Pragmatist in philosophy, but he sure as hell isn't in politics.
Yet, neither is he an ideologue. I don't remember any president who seemed so little engaged with ideas, per se. This may be a consequence of Pragmatism, but it has nothing to do with his politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "boomsticks and sky god"
Jonah--I was kinda hoping the link would refer to the film "Army of Darkness" staring the legendary Bruce Campbell.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"John Adams / Thomas Jefferson / James Madison / John Quincy Adams / Abraham Lincoln / Woodrow Wilson"
Lincoln does not belong in this hasty list, since he was quite definitely a politically shrewd statesman, as opposed to a mere "philosopher king" contemplating the clouds
I dunno about the rest although the idea of Obama being comparable to Jefferson or Madison is humorous; who said the spirit of 2008 was dead? Thomas Woodrow Wilson otoh pioneered the State of the Union lecture format adored by associate profs of all lands.
At this juncture Obama to my mind thoroughly resembles Herbert Hoover, except that Hoover was bilingual.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWouldn't a true pragmatist have recognized by now that cradle-to-grave socialism simply doesn't work?
Wouldn't a true pragmatist have recognized by now that capitalism is the greatest wealth creating, class leveling engine invented by the mind of man (thank you, Jay Nordlinger)?
Pragmatist? Philosopher? Yeah, and I'm the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@AndyS: Point 1: Obama's campaign did not begin with his nomination at the Democratic convention; he had been campaigning on cap-and-trade and nationalized health care well before that, and so well before the financial crisis became apparent.
Point 2: While you are correct that health care reform is certainly not inconceivable during bad economic times, actions that make health care dramatically more expensive and more cumbersome surely must be. Obama's "reform" does just that.
Point 3: Of course the government can work on more than one thing at a time. But we're not talking about the sum total of bureaucratic actions here; we're talking about the very influential, yet very limited political capital and "bully pulpit" media exposure of the president which are used to build consensus and promote policies to the public for acceptance. You may have a better memory than I, but it seemed to me at the time that Obama spent most of his time working for health care and very little time on jobs and the economy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow, maybe he was doing a lot of quiet "behind-the-scenes" work at the time, say, on the implementation of the stimulus. But if that's true, then it all the more boggles the mind not only that he only recently found out that there are no "shovel-ready projects", but that he doesn't have anything to offer in their place.
Jonah, liberals like Obama are congenitally open-minded. Scientists and Derb have said so. Your facts will not avail you against liberals, who are too open-minded to be swayed away from their dearly-held beliefs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSimplicity?
Pragmatically speaking, whenever I read something that too neatly fits into the category of "You-Can't-Make-This-Stuff-Up", I'm skeptical that I'm missing the grander philosophical point. Help me here. With all the talk about how divorced from reality our Ivy League elitists are, is this simply lame statement really a quotation from a Harvard pointy-head? If so, please don't encourage the fool by buying his book.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Corner certainly tests the limits of my intellect. On the one hand, it is utterly laughable that anyone could even begin to think that Obama is a pragmatist. On the other hand, he's a life-long socialist who has carefully concealed his radical socialism - even while President - in order to promote incremental policies so as to help ensure that eventually the nation is inescapably ensnared by socialism. Try as I might, I just can't wrap my brain around those two facets of his persona. Somebody please explain this for me!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGee Teddy Roosevelt was not a philosipher president? Unlike our current White House occupant who wrote two books, Teddy published absolutely nothing (sarcasm alert).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse