Conservatism is Dead: Long Live Liberalism? (Part III)

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

Posted July 16, 2008 | 01:30 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Conservatism is dying on the vine [detailed here]; liberalism is not a mainspring of compelling and mobilizing ideas [here]. Obama draws heavily on -- and contributes much to -- a little known social philosophy known as communitarianism. It is centered around the importance of community, the common good, and service.

The nature of communitarianism is best illustrated by contrasting it with identity politics, the rejection of which is both a major theme of Obama's campaign, and is symbolized by his post-racial biography and personhood. Identity politics build on what differentiates us from one another: our racial or ethnic origins; our sexual orientations; our separate past social histories. Identity politics led to attempts to form a 'rainbow' coalition, composed of various groups who considered themselves victimized -- against the declining white, male majority. Other forms of identity politics pitted citizens against immigrants. Some of the more radical versions of multiculturalism also contributed to this kind of divisive politics.

Obama's conceit is the mirror opposite of this kind of liberalism. On the stump, he repeatedly stresses that we are not from red states or blue states but from the United States. His statement, reiterated time and again, that we are not black, white, Hispanic, Christian or Jewish, but members of one overarching community, is much more than a flurry of oratory: it is a major social philosophy that seeks to draw the best out of all of us and invest it in making a better life for all.

A revival of the American community requires us to spend much less of our energy and resources on fighting one another, and invest much more of it in the common good, in those goods that serve one and all. Hence, Obama seeks not only social justice for the poor, but decent work at decent wages for one and all; he harps less on the uninsured, and seeks a health care system that will encompass all Americans; he is as open to those with a strong faith as he is to those who embrace secular humanism.

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama shows that he is well versed not only in the language of rights and entitlements but also that of obligations. He writes, "We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies...We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation."

Better yet, Obama used to stress that,

"in the end a sense of mutual understanding isn't enough. After all, talk is cheap; like any value, empathy must be acted upon." He recounted with pride that when he was a community organizer "[he] would often challenge neighborhood leaders by asking them where they put their time, energy and money." He put this key communitarian idea well when he stated: "If we aren't willing to pay a price for our values, if we aren't willing to make some sacrifices in order to realize them, then we should ask ourselves whether we truly believe in them at all."


Obama's international policies strike the same basic note. He is looking to work with our allies and to engage our adversaries in a dialogue, rather than force down our allies' throats policies the United States has generated and use our military power to forcefully change the regimes which adhere to values different than ours.

The nation is upon hard times. Its coffers are empty; creditors are at the gate; the military is exhausted and depleted; the regard with which America is held overseas is at an all time low; and major economic and security challenges pile up like so many storm clouds. The nation demands a prolonged period of restoration, one in which merely replenishing all that was squandered will entail raising taxes and keeping new expenditures under a tight leash. In plain English -- sacrifices. People will be willing to put their shoulder to the wheel only if they are convinced that their efforts are dedicated to the common good, and not to the service of one group or another.

A three-way combination of addressing climate change, environmental protection, and development of sustainable sources of energy is a model and leading common good. It is not tailored to serve any particular group or class, but to provide for all our lives -- and those of our children and their children. No wonder both liberal Gore Democrats and conservative Christian Evangelicals, the moderate left and the moderating right, can find purpose here.

Other Obama favored policies fit well into a communitarian agenda, such as dramatically expanding the opportunities for national service, drawing on faith based groups to participate in the delivery of social services, and fighting drug and alcohol abuse.

Returning the economy to a course in which everyone will be able to earn a "living wage" and all Americans will be able to gain and maintain their health insurance, two Obama goals, may sound like liberal themes. However, they are formulated as communitarian ideals because they do not call to serve only those most in need--the poor, the disadvantaged, the people of color--but all Americans. The same holds true for Obama's educational reforms. All together these amount to what Michael Kazin and Julian Zelizer called "a new social contract." (I would add paying one of the parents a wage during family leave from work when a new child is born. It is a very costly program; hence it must be gradually introduced. However, given that many European societies can afford it, it is hard to see that the United State--still richer--could not do the same).

One may argue that none of these communitarian themes are novel ones. Indeed, their echo can be heard in Bill Clinton's call for finding the common ground. Bush had a communitarian minute when he called on Americans to dedicate 4,000 hours to volunteer work during their lifetime, a noble idea he forgot as soon as the teleprompter was turned off. His compassionate conservatism lasted a few speeches longer, before it too was dumped. Much more importantly, environmentalists have long championed ecological responsibility. However, whereas in the past communitarian ideas were treated as part of a much large package, Obama makes them the main theme of his public philosophy.

Communitarianism is far from being a fully worked-out social philosophy. It is only beginning to develop its international side. It has a way to go before it is ready to reconcile its commitment not to divide the members of the community against one another and to promote social justice. However, it is a compelling social philosophy whose time has come. You can see in the faces of the millions who turn out to cheer Obama, and who may carry him -- and America -- into a new age that is neither liberal nor conservative but communitarian.


Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at The George Washington University. For additional discussion, see The New Golden Rule. Contact him at comnet@gwu.edu

 
 

Comments
16
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
- Liberal2 See Profile I'm a Fan of Liberal2

This is not an anti-Obama rant, just an amused observation from my Phil 103 course.

"...communitarianism. It is centered around the importance of community, the common good, and service...."

Guess what! That is very, very close to Marx's defintion of communism (not socialism). In a communist society, as Marx envisioned it, for one thing, there is no government, so no compulsion by government. When someone simply recognizes a public need and just do what's needed to satisfy or ameliorate it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:17 PM on 07/17/2008
- research See Profile I'm a Fan of research

Check out the Swedish "Middle Way" regulated free market capitalism with a safety net payed for by progressive taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden:_the_Middle_Way

FDR thought is was good.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:44 PM on 07/17/2008
- jtarre See Profile I'm a Fan of jtarre

But regulated free market capitalism is not free market capitalism at all.

A free market rewards a man for his success and punishes him for his errors. In a free market, a man does his best because he keeps his earnings and suffers his losses.

A "regulated free market" takes something away from him when he succeeds and gives back to the man who has erred. This discourages working for success. This hurts our economy.

A progressive tax is a double whammy because it takes even more away the more successful he becomes.

This is wealth distribution.

Let the man keep his successes, and let the one who has lost be encouraged that, if he toils and he succeeds, he too will get to keep his reward.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:32 PM on 07/17/2008
- research See Profile I'm a Fan of research

Purity is a disease.

95% of Sweden's economy is privately owned. USA??

Does freedom mean the freedom to shoot your neighbors? of course not. Grow up. Your are free to produce and market goods and services and make a profit. you are not free to game the market.

The more capital you have the more power and earnings you have FROM the capital. The society also spend more to protect you capital and rescue your Fanny.

try reading something besides Anne Rand.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 PM on 07/17/2008
- SeriousBlack See Profile I'm a Fan of SeriousBlack

"A revival of the American community requires us to spend much less of our energy and resources on fighting one another, and invest much more of it in the common good."

Well, just be prepared to fight to the death (figure of speech (just barely)) the 40% or so of Americans who are conservatives who believe in the every-man-for-himself, no government, "Mad Max" post-apocalyptic version of society.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 07/17/2008
- Binea See Profile I'm a Fan of Binea

Modern liberalism is not what you are discribing as "communitarianism" it's collectivism right ?

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."

"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees " while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism."

Ron Paul "What really divides us" December 24, 2002

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 AM on 07/17/2008
- Senzasord See Profile I'm a Fan of Senzasord

I wish you libertarians would stop using the word Liberty when really mean anarchy. What you truly crave is a society totally without government. You constantly trumpet the virtues of freedom and Liberty but are never willing to own up to the corresponding responsibilities to our country, (government) that we all incur because we are afforded our liberties. You have no absolute right to pursue your happines at the expense of everyone else. How dare you expect our government to abet you in the process.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:36 PM on 07/17/2008
- jtarre See Profile I'm a Fan of jtarre

Surely, an individual who believes in the freedom of choice in the market place, and an individual who wants to keep government from limiting choice is not an anarchist.

Government has a responsibility to protect the freedom of its citizens. Theft, vandalism, physical harassment, sexual assault, these are violations of an individual"s freedom; all these violations government prosecutes in a court of law.

On the other hand, government is not responsible for apportioning wealth. That is what socialist states do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 PM on 07/17/2008
- arvay See Profile I'm a Fan of arvay

The 20th century saw millions of people slaughtered for "isms."

So I hope we don't get caught up in this kind of ideological name-game. Obama will be a president who's fiscally prudent, socially conscious, family-friendly, pro-business, pro regulating business, sane in foreign policy etc.

Whether all that will match some definition Leon Trotsky would agree to is quite meaningless.

Let history say what president Obama did. Our job is to support and elect him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 AM on 07/17/2008
- vinny See Profile I'm a Fan of vinny

btw... there are at least four major political philosophies in the US...

socialism
liberal democratic
libertarian
neoconservative (hybrid of neoliberal economic policies and conservative social policies)

socialism is communitarianism.

Obama's FISA vote, which conserves power in the executive, and the executive funding of faith-based programs are good examples of socialist policymaking:)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 AM on 07/17/2008
- Indubio See Profile I'm a Fan of Indubio

OpenEyes appears to describe our present political situation rather well. Anyone, including Barack Obama, who believes died in the wool conservatives will ever go along with a "communitarian agenda, an agenda that is by and large liberal in dreaming. For 15 years the mantra of conservatives has been death to liberalism and this attitude has not changed in the past 6 months. Bipartisanship is a lovely notion but today bipartisanship is dead. Any and I do mean ANY compromised with anything stinking of conservatism will represent little more than a liberal capitulation--as example, the recent FISA bill but the appointments of Alito and Roberts represent two other examples. Conservatism must first be defanged before bipartisanship can be successful and this is going to take hard nosed politics. After November, Obama may have a strong mandate for a liberal agenda and at that point we'll see how effective a leader he is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 AM on 07/17/2008
- lthuedk_1 See Profile I'm a Fan of lthuedk_1

Massive and top dead center for me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 PM on 07/16/2008
- SteveFromWC See Profile I'm a Fan of SteveFromWC

You contrast the nature of communitarianism with identity politics, but then go on as though identity politics and liberalism are interchangeable. ("Obama's conceit is the mirror opposite of this kind of liberalism.") But liberalism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with identity politics.

Wikipedia defines liberalism as referring to "a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal."

And: "Different forms of liberalism...are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government."

What does any of that have to do with identity politics?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:10 PM on 07/16/2008
- Openeyes See Profile I'm a Fan of Openeyes

Sorry, but you confuse ends with means. I agree completely with where you wish to end up, however, that destination has little in common with how to get there. This is what I object to with continued calls for "bipartisanship" as if that is a goal in and of itself. It is not. Most of your objectives are liberal, thus conservatives will never sign on, never cooperate to achieve them. We need partisan politics to install these liberal, progressive policies. That fact that conservatives will disagree with these objectives guarantees that there will be devisive politics - hoping for a Kumbaya moment of bipartisanship is naive and not productive. We need to have very hard hitting politics to get to the objectives that will serve us all, and make for a better country, helping everyone (including conservatives, in spite of themselves). But we'll never get there if we insist the that the process itself has to be somehow shared, when those with whom you would share it are dedicated obstructing the very goals of the process.

We've already seen a great deal of damage done in pursuing that idea. Many democrats went along with confirming Roberts and Alito, as if being bipartisan would somehow have an effect on who was actually going to end up on the Supreme Court. It did not, and we are stuck with radically conservative justices now. We must push as hard as possible to get liberal justices, not compromise for the sake of bipartisanship.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:24 PM on 07/16/2008
- jeanrenoir See Profile I'm a Fan of jeanrenoir

This is so on target. I hope Obama's self-righteous, narrow-minded critics on the left read this. The trouble with Obama's left critics is that, like his equally self-righteous and narrow critics on the right, they only want a "community" of true believers like them. They are still caught in the destructive and childish '68 paradigm which has dominated PC college educations since the Sixties: The goal of politics is to crush the infamous thing that is those who disagree with me, because politics is about the childish and narcissistic pursuit of MY idea of "perfect" justice, etc., which entails disdain for the other side for its stupidity, its selfishness, its greed, its dumb religious faith, etc., etc,. etc. Obama's whole point is to END this stupid and destructive way of doing politics. The Civil Rights Movement and the VIetnam antiwar movement, as well as the silent majority backlash they created, must now be transcended, replacing the preaching of Jesse Jackson with the pragmatic effectiveness of his son's generation. It's time now to embrace a politics of compromise, mutual self-interest, and effective progress towards a better world for the WHOLE community: not just black and white, rich and poor, etc., but also atheists and believers, pro-choicers and pro-lifers, as well as peaceniks and hawks, not to mention the greens and the oil executives. Isn't it finally time, for all generations, to come together and MOVE ON?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 07/16/2008
- Rule Of Law See Profile I'm a Fan of Rule Of Law

I believe that the rumors of the death of Conservatism have been greatly exaggerated.

That said, your notion of the people taking better care of one another is timely. It should be plain as day that if we don't pull together, this government will surely pull us apart.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 PM on 07/16/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

 
 
Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com