Obama and the Progressives: A Curious Paradox
For millions of Americans, Barack Obama and his message have inspired intense support, enthusiasm, and even exhilaration. But there's something paradoxical about Obama's appeal to an important segment of his supporters.
Aside from African-Americans, Barack Obama's strongest support has come from affluent whites with college degrees or beyond, especially younger voters. Upscale middle-class progressives have been the core social and cultural constituency for the post-1960s "new politics" wing of the Democratic Party. In contrast to Obama's disproportionate support among professionals, academics, college students, and the like (not to mention political journalists and pundits), the core of Hillary Clinton's support turned out to be in constituencies at the heart of the classic pre-1968 New Deal coalition, above all white working-class voters (supplemented by Clinton's greater appeal to Hispanics and to middle-aged and older women). That's a compressed and incomplete picture, but few would deny that it captures a lot of the story.
These two wings of the Democratic Party's base have cohabited with varying success for the past four decades. This year they polarized fairly sharply between Clinton and Obama.
Clinton and Obama don't differ substantially in terms of specific issues and programs. But their campaigns have been organized around different orienting visions of politics and political leadership. Clinton based her campaign on the well-established model of interest-group liberalism, which she used effectively to mobilize the New Deal wing of the Democratic Party. The fact that this familiar message resonated with her supporters in tone and content isn't mysterious.
But Obama's appeal to so many upscale white progressives does have a puzzling aspect. People often talk about Obama's soaring rhetoric, but what's the content of that rhetoric? To put it in terms that the Founders would have understood immediately, Obama has made civic patriotism and republican virtue central to the message of his whole campaign. He has consistently championed a politics of solidarity, active citizenship, national community, and the common good. Like Lincoln, Obama portrays the United States as a nation defined by certain constitutive ideals and charged with the project of imperfectly but continually striving to achieve, extend, and enrich these ideals in concrete ways ("in order to form a more perfect union"). Furthermore, Obama affirms and celebrates "the promise of America" (adding that "I know the promise of America because I have lived it"), while insisting that to fulfill that promise requires constant effort, civic engagement, shared sacrifices, and conflict as well as cooperation. The most crucial requirement ("the great need of the hour," in a formulation borrowed from Martin Luther King) is active moral and political solidarity -- not only to empower oppressed and underprivileged groups, but to bind together and revitalize a more comprehensive national community.
(Obama is popular around the world, but it's no accident that he drives some hard-core anti-Americans up the wall. For example, the Australian/British journalist John Pilger dismissed Obama as "a glossy Uncle Tom" who believes, along with Clinton and McCain, that "the US is not subject to the rules of human behaviour, because it is 'a city upon a hill'"--whereas in reality it is just "a monstrous bully.")
Historically, those themes have often been prominent in American politics, including progressive, reformist, and radical politics. (Let's not forget that the Pledge of Allegiance, which Obama has pointedly quoted, was originally written by a Christian socialist.) But in recent decades they have become increasingly unfashionable in some quarters--including those that have produced many of Obama's most passionate supporters.
Nowadays many (not all) self-styled progressives distrust any patriotic talk and regard appeals to solidarity and the common good as mystifying bunk or dangerous propaganda. Instead, serious discussion of politics is supposed to focus exclusively on competing interests, and much allegedly progressive discourse has gone beyond valuing diversity to supporting an irreducibly fragmented "identity politics" based on fetishizing "difference." (The main alternatives to balkanizing ultra-"multiculturalism"--more accurately termed "plural monoculturalism," as Amartya Sen points out--are often varieties of abstract legalism or cosmopolitanism equally allergic to the notion of national community.) From this perspective, Obama's invocations of "the American people's desire to no longer be defined by our differences," and his expressed conviction that "this nation is more than the sum of its parts--that out of many, we are truly one," should sound heretical. Ditto for his insistence that we have and must pursue "common hopes" that reach across our differences, aiming for more inclusive solidarity and effective recognition of the "larger responsibility we have to one another as Americans."
Put bluntly, the core of Obama's message would appear to be completely incompatible with the proclaimed beliefs of many of his most ardent progressive supporters. (And we haven't even mentioned the religious imagery of compassion, covenant, and redemption--analyzed thoughtfully and provocatively by Philip Gorski--with which Obama sometimes links his political message.) So what gives?
Three partial explanations, not mutually exclusive, strike us as plausible. First, the fact that Obama is African-American probably helps to make his appeals to American civic patriotism (along with his religious imagery) more acceptable in progressive circles than they would be coming from a white candidate. Second, some of Obama's supporters--and critics--probably assume that all this stuff is just empty campaign rhetoric that Obama doesn't really believe himself. We suspect they're wrong about that.
But the most interesting fact is that many of Obama's progressive supporters don't simply accept or tolerate his message. They are moved, thrilled, and inspired by it. As Gorski perceptively noted, this response suggests that Obama's message speaks to profound hopes, concerns, and emotions that--for good or ill--run deeper than explicit beliefs and positions. We hope so. For decades progressive politics in America has too often crippled itself by unilaterally surrendering the discourse of national community and the common good--and, with it, some of the key animating principles of active democratic citizenship. (Todd Gitlin and others have rightly decried this folly.) If Obama can help make these notions respectable again for self-styled progressives, that alone would be a valuable contribution.
Andrei S. Markovits teaches political science, sociology, and German studies at the University of Michigan. His most recent book, on European anti-Americanism, is Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America (Princeton University Press, 2007).
Jeff Weintraub teaches social and political theory and political sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. He also blogs at: http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/
Loading comments…
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
I would say that in the past 50 years, progressives have distrusted the mantra of "national community and the common good" because it has been deployed in contexts such as the Red Scare, Vietnam, the pardoning of Richard Nixon, Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the large-scale surrender of our society over to corporate interests.
It's not the idea of community that gives me as a progressive pause--it's what we've been asked for too long to commune around.
Barack Obama has offered the country a true new deal for civic pride. He wants us to enter public service and is willing to reward people who do this just as handsomely as he wants to reward people who enter the military for the same ideal. The biggest draw of all is the way he has shown us that he has far better judgment than most leaders we've had since before Eisenhower/Nixon took over in '52. He is working for a national community around virtues we can support with our consciences. He is working for common good that is truly for the common, not the few and the privileged.
The reason you are confused, then, is because you commit the sin Bruce Lee warned about: you are fixated on the finger pointing away at the moon and missing all that heavenly glory.
Nice discussion. Reality is much more simple. For many rich white liberals it's identity politics. They are moved - consumed, even - by the idea of electing a black man as president. It proves to them that they have changed the world. It's a symbolic achievement. For others, though probably not consciously, Obama represents the new racism they embrace, namely colorblind liberalism. The symbolic achievements of identity politics and the ideology and practice of colorblind liberalism intersect, so these groups are not mutually exclusive. Rich white liberals are professionals and intellectuals, and this group is among the most deeply indoctrinated in such liberal notions as colorblindness. Because they lack a critical frame in which to analyze the world - we aren't talking about Marxists but liberals - they don't recognize colorblindness as racism. Keep in mind that this is the crowd that interprets as racism the fact that poor white rural and working people are voting for the candidate who represents the politics of the pre-1968 New Dealers. They are out of touch with traditional Democrats, the rural and working class core of the party during it heyday. They are so insulated from reality that they actually believe Obama stands a realistic chance of being elected president. I work with these people, and most of them live in a fantasy land. This would be fine if they stayed in their bubbles. Tragically, they don't and have become overrepresented in the primary process.
Not believing that Obama has a chance at winning the presidency is racism. If enough people believed as you do it would be a self fulfilling prophecy.
Listen carefully to Obama's speeches. He is not saying that racial divisions don't exist. He is saying that there are still problems but that there has been progress. That we have to strive to move past racial divisions. He is calling us to action. It took optimism to move past segregation. If civil rights leaders just sat around complaining about racism, but never did anything about it, never believed in a better world, where would we be now? It is going to take optimism. It's going to take the dream of a colorblind america to fulfill the promise of the civil rights movement.
Hillary courting the "pre-1968 New Dealers" is quite different than her actually supporting their goals.
Her record is anti-New Deal and pro-corporatist.
Talk about out of touch with reality. Jeesh.
You may want to substantiate your outrageous claims if you want to be taken seriously.
If only we knew our place! How dare we challenge the status quo!
BTW- overrepresented is called winning. Our victories are your tragedies.
How are the Obama supporters the ones who lack a critical frame to analyze the world?
Last I checked, his supporters come from populated areas and areas on the coasts and major waterways - you know, places exposed to the wider world and many different ideas and cultures.
I believe the dedicated base of the Right, on the other hand, are in remote, homogeneous places on the plains, the South, and in rural areas, where the only "critical frame" they possess are their televisions run by the corporate media and the week or so of yearly vacation they get to escape to some tourist trap closer to the action.
One group is to some extent among the different cultures of this country, experiencing things in person. The other group is in the TV room. Which one is really "separated from reality"? I was AT a 30,000-strong rally of Obama's in Minneapolis. I saw every single kind of person, young and old, black to brown to white, poor to affluent, standing in long lines for hours to see this man speak. That is as on-the-ground as you can get. And so I'll tell you confidently now, you are the one who will be getting a shock in November. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you turn off the TV, leave the car in the garage, go for a walk, and discover what things are truly like on the ground again.
I'm one of those progressives who's enthusiastic about Obama. Interesting article, but you miss the point about how liberal progressives view patriotism. We do NOT, as you say, "distrust any patriotic talk." We distrust the Bush administration's version of patriotism, which is completely different from Obama's (and ours).
I and most Obama supporters I know are excited to be excited about being American again. I mean, the fact is, the American brand has really suffered over the past 8 years, and we are thrilled that we have an opportunity to redeem ourselves.
So that's why we don't distrust his message. We're not against patriotism. We're just against Bush's definition of it.
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matt 5:16
Let us remember that when next we hear, "he says he is a Christian.
The guy is just phenomenal on every level. What can I say? I just loves me some Barack Hussein Obama!
I think you have hit on very good observations. Many of us have been loathe to be a part of the nationalist fever labeled patriotism, given that America illegally invaded a soverign country and has continued to occupy it with horrible consequences for the citizens. Add our other problems of not being a good member of the world community (environmental, financial) and you have a group of people who can empathize with Rev Wright's sentiments (9/16/11) .
Obama's multicultural, childhood experience in another country is reflected in his foreign policy/diplomacy priorities. Which progressives consider a higher priority than many.
I am perplexed with claims Obama has no substance. Tabula raza? At a charter school in Denver yesterday he was asked about immigrant children who need to learn English, his three points:
The issue is clouded by ideology which needs to be removed.
He believes all children should be bi or tri lingual.
His approach is to "look at the data and the science" to determine how best to create effective programs.
This is my preference in a candidate. They don't need to be experts in every area. I want someone who grasps the problem and the goal, and has the judgement to use science, experts and out come data to create new solutions. Obama's unique background gives him insight. He moved to Indonesia at 6, and learned the language going to school there.
count ME among the "moved, thrilled and inspired"
however, I maintain my right to be "allergic" to the Repugnants of today.
What I think is that the way Obama frames issues and inspires people will lead to a new era of progressive dominance, replacing the era of conservative dominance that started with Nixon's election in '68, reached its peak under Reagan, and its "last throes," if you will, under W.
"Nowadays many (not all) self-styled progressives distrust any patriotic talk and regard appeals to solidarity and the common good as mystifying bunk or dangerous propaganda. Instead, serious discussion of politics is supposed to focus exclusively on competing interests, and much allegedly progressive discourse has gone beyond valuing diversity to supporting an irreducibly fragmented "identity politics" based on fetishizing "differenc
This is something that perhaps you should research better. In the recent past, there has been a major push for the "plural monoculturalism" as you call it, but in the last year I've seen a major push in the opposite direction, not from the neo-con side, but from the progressives that I know, and in my OWN thinking! This is why Obama appeals to the kind of voter who would previously have found his ideals to be in complete opposition to their own ideals!
Obama supporters aren't issue voters. We don't have a particular ideological agenda or an ax to grind. We just want competent, thoughtful leadership that aspires to the ideals that America is supposed to represent. We want America to get over itself and become a better influence on the world. We're not looking for special handouts, we're looking for equal opportunity. We want accountability, transparency, and honesty from our government. We want to be empowered by the democratic process.
We are a new generation of progressives. We're not moving to the right or to the left, we're moving forward, and that's how America will rise to meet the challenges and unleash the potential of an uncertain future.
And I would like to point out that this also applies to the Democratic party as a whole. Granted, there are some who like to move to either the right or the left, but as a general rule we are trying to move forward. Hillary supporters AND Obama supporters need to recognize this similarity. We also need to recognize that george w. mccain is exactly the WRONG way to move!!
Amen!
Be well, CF
Wow, you have really missed the boat.
I choose Obama for his policy platform. He proposes to remove lobby control over government. He is proposing diplomacy before war. These stances are VERY different than Clinton or McCain. You don't need to dissect his speeches to understand why Americans believe in his plan.
But if you are so curious why 75,000 people show up to see him speak: Obama's message of service reflects us; we are not forgiving him for his message, we are thanking him for saying the things we have lived. For example, I am a progressive and proud civil servant, like many progressives I know. I also lost my brother to this war. My brother volunteered for this war because he, as part of a progressive family, believed in service. Consequently, Obama's stance that diplomacy must be attempted before sending people into war is one that resonates deeply for me.
Obama will not be transforming the people who vote for him. Obama will be representing us.
(p.s. you state: "the fact that Obama is African-American probably helps to make his appeals to American civic patriotism (along with his religious imagery) more acceptable in progressive circles." I assume you are implying that Obama is held to different standards because of his race. This is ridiculous. The world has changed (at least for my generation), and we are looking for the right president, regardless of race or gender.)
We've all been doing our small part to try and help a bit. I have a sliding scale in my business, adjusted for socioeconomics. Here is a man that can do a bigger part for way more.
The authors seem to have internalized the right-wing conflation of nationalism and patriotism, and as a result completely miss the progressive appeal of Obama. The bizarre suggestion by the authors that progressives reject "solidarity" is ridiculous-- there has always been a profound sense of civic and community responsibility among progressives, but this has been hard to reconcile with their distrust of the nationalism of the extreme right.
The difference between Obama and Clinton and McCain is that:
"Obama is a STATESMAN that happens to be a politician"
"Clinton and McCain are POLITICIANS that will NEVER be statesmen"
Too bad his vision doesn't include policy substance that will help real people. He's not progressive; he's . . . ambitious. Hillary Clinton is a true believer. We don't really know who Obama is or what he believes, do we? But I know that he used a Harry and Louise attack ad in my neighborhood because his "policy" people think 100% universal health care is not doable.
Sounds like the same old politics from the same old politicians to me.
Viva Hillary!
One step at a time. He won't tell you a pack of lies just to get a vote.
"we don't know who Obama is"...
This no longer flies. Sorry. After two incredibly personal and thorough books, hundreds of pages of policy papers, almost two decades in government, Obama has shared more about who he is than any other politician on the scene.
Do you honestly think that Obama is ambitious and Hillary is NOT??? I will grant you that Obama is ambitious, nobody who runs for President can EVER be defined as anything else, and that includes Bill, Hillary, bushco(tm) and even my favorite, Jimmy Carter!!
Clinton has a health-care plan. Obama has a health-care plan. Well, la-di-da for both of them.
The question is, which one has the better chance of getting that plan through Congress? We know that Obama has a solid record of working with both Democrats and Republicans to get things done (11 years experience in elected office, 7 for Clinton).
And we all know what happened the last time Clinton tried to get a health-care plan through Congress. She alienated Democrats and Republicans alike, and the following year Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress for the first time in 30 years.
Hillary is a true believer? You mean the Hillary that is bent on party destruction despite the fact she cannot win the primary? Or the Hillary that invoked race and gender issues to resuscitate her dying campaign? Or the Hillary that repeatedly lied on the campaign trail?
Which one is the true believer and what exactly does she believe in? Dishonesty? Power and warmongering? Dividing to conquer?
And, while you may have chosen to not look into where Obama stands - his policies, voting record, etc - a lot of us have. And we like what we see. It is your choice to refuse to do so but if you choose the path of ignorance you really should rephrase your statement to "I don't really know who Obama is or what he believes, do I?" Don't misplace your ignorance on others.
And, if you bothered to research it, 100% universal health care is not doable. Sorry to say. Obama has a realistic plan, Hillary simply panders and tells people whatever they want to hear to get their vote.
Obama is more than rhetoric and a breath of fresh air. He has vision. This election is bigger than him. God is still in control. A lot of people of trying to label him with this and that and the other. The truth of matter is, he connects to people and people understand it. This is not a fly by night or fly by the seat of your pants campaign. It is well orchestrated and very disciplined.
Together we can, because Obama said so and made us believe it is so.
And you shall reap what you "so", the rest of us actually want a president who can accomplish specific things- the presidency isn't a think tank, full of hypothesis, its a place where big issues and problems need concrete solutions-if you will pardon my interrupting your daydreamin
So, you think that 'we' can't. Can't never could. I can do anything, we can do more than that.
It's just so odd that people seem to think Obama is unable of "accomplishing" actual things--
the guy just "accomplished" the most stunning, ground-breaking, successful and competent presidential primary campaign in living memory. I'd definitely hire him to run my country.
And yet, the dreams are the first step of that specific policy! When Bill Clinton ran for President in 92 one of HIS daydreams was that every American could have health care. Hillary then went to work to create the specific policy. That policy was flawed (mostly because both Bill and Hillary were too close to the insurance industry) but it started as a dream, and moved to a policy!!
The ideas for solutions are there, if you'll take the time to read them...
www.barack
An insightful assessment that goes beyond exit polls, stereotypes and the fallderall of politics as usual. And that is the fundamental attraction of Barack Obama: his essential identity is not counter-culture, but he is FOR something that is larger than ourselves; something that embraces all the values we banty about as Americans, but have difficulty living as Americans.
I believe the authors know that the most profound changes in social progress of the kind that attempt to liberate folks come from the middle and upper middle classes: Are intellectuals the only folks that make for profound social change? Probably so. They are tpyically best equipped to see the Big Picture. Are they elitists? Not necessarily unless things like the theory of evolution, true justice under the law or the belief that no nation can be called a true democracy when 2% of the population possesses 90% of the nation's wealth. If that's elitist then I'm a large -'E' Elitist.
The magnitism of Obama is very similar to the kind of adulation FDR drew before and during his first, second and third terms. Like FDR, Obama can see beyond tribal concerns without discounting them. Like FDR, Obama tells us that fear is our greatest enemy going into the challenge to set our nation back on course.
Progressives, and many others, see that Obama (or more accurately, what Obama represents) may be our very last chance to save ourselves from ourselves .... and the kind of values the Clintons currently represent.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
