Who's the Real Idealist, Hillary or Obama?

R. J. Eskow's article in the Huffington Post raises an important question about idealism and liberalism. But it's not the one he poses, nor as he frames it. First, it's essential to clear away the falsity of his accusations against me personally. He charges that a recent interview I gave to Newsweek supporting Hillary Clinton was part of a coordinated campaign among Clinton's advisers, and that I smeared idealism as something for "suckers." Every bit of both charges is completely false.

The interview came about in a completely haphazard way, after I bumped into a former student of mine, Andrew Romano, at a literary event in Princeton. (I am a historian who teaches at Princeton University.) Out of this, Eskow fabricates a ridiculous and dark plot. He then distorts my comments out of all recognition. I never said that idealism is for suckers. I said that perfectionism and purity in politics is for suckers -- and the alibi of losers, "beautiful losers." I also said that Barack Obama -- like some other Democrats before him -- is preaching a kind of purism that rarely succeeds in American politics. (More recently, he and his premier supporter, Oprah Winfrey, have been sounding messianic as well as perfectionist.)

Perfectionism fails because most American voters want a government that will meet their needs and the nation's for the future, even if practical compromises are necessary to achieve those goals. On the Democratic side, this kind of self-righteous perfectionist appeal managed to win high office through Jimmy Carter's "I will never lie to you" campaign in 1976. But its high-mindedness contributed to Carter's failures and paved the way for right-wing reaction. Ronald Reagan easily stole Carter's anti-government themes and moralism while promising to be more effective. The politics of perfectionism on the left also succeeded in creating a splinter movement that wound up electing an even more right-wing Republican president -- the Ralph Nader campaign in 2000. Eskow's attacks on Hillary Clinton read almost word-for-word like those Nader delivered against Al Gore. His false accusation is a projection of his own role as a regular hitman for the Obama campaign, which instantly posts his negative pieces about Hillary Clinton.

Senator Hillary Clinton is a pragmatic idealist, in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy. Like them, she knows through difficult experience that the world is imperfect, and must be dealt with and improved on its own terms as well as her own wishes. Like them, she knows that if progressives are to get anything done in politics, they must face reality in order to bend it to their ends. And like them, holier-than-thou pundits are criticizing her for her pragmatic approach to solving social problems, confusing political savvy and effectiveness with a lack of idealism. Or perhaps is this simply a matter of an advocate of another candidate spreading innuendo and false charges against Hillary Clinton? Or, to put a more benign face on the attack, does it just reflect an uninformed sense of American history?

Eskow draws an infantile and phony distinction between "pragmatism" and "idealism" -- even though the greatest American presidents have always been both pragmatic and idealistic, using one to advance the other. If there is a true distinction to be drawn, it is between "pragmatic idealism" with the kind of "perfectionist idealism" Eskow claims to be superior and achievable.

His defense of perfectionism finally amounts to mere posturing, based on campaign imagery and propaganda that has absolutely nothing to do with the hard issues the country faces. Which Democratic candidate's health care proposal would leave 15 million American uninsured? Which Democratic candidate has been adopting Republican scare tactics over Social Security? Which candidate has engaged in a smear of the progressive New York Times columnist and Princeton economist, Paul Krugman, when Krugman calmly raised these issues and sought direct, factual explanations? Which Democratic candidate has been preening as some sort of "profile in courage" -- even after ducking difficult votes in the Senate? It is not the pragmatic idealist Hillary Clinton.

So it happens that the pragmatist is more idealistic than the supposed "idealist," Barack Obama. "Idealism," we learn in this case, isn't based on actual positions on the most important issues like health care and Social Security, but instead on hero worship. Bush's fiascos in international affairs and damage to government are deep and far-reaching. Will a president who has extensive experience be best equipped to handle them? Or should we imagine that there is a magic escape hatch, a transcendental flight above the inevitable and all-too-real conflicts and struggles ahead, through the sudden appearance of a hero, a man on a white horse, who will rescue us? Isn't this sort of "idealism" really a mirror image of the "idealism" of followers of George W. Bush at the peak of his presidency? Such "idealism" demands that we check our minds at the door.

Throughout American history progressive reform has moved forward through the leadership of presidents who were often assailed as less than perfect. Lincoln was derided by political perfectionists of his own time as a conniving and equivocating sell-out -- "the slave hound of Illinois," one of them called him. The very same kind of charge was leveled against FDR and JFK and LBJ. As Casey Stengel said, "You could look it up." Eskow's attack on the pragmatic side of the progressive tradition utterly ignores this history - -and would lead the tradition permanently into the political wilderness, where most of the time since 1968 it has been howling at the moon.

Eskow insists that the good should not be the enemy of the perfect. The ignorance here is frightening because that slogan or something like it has lurked behind every totalitarian government of modern times. Perfectionist ideals have had their place in American history, inspiring protest causes from abolitionism to the civil rights movement. But those who would presume to use government to impose perfection as opposed to progress have created the worst nightmares in human history. We should suppose that Eskow, in trying to tout his favorite, is just ignorant of that, too.

American progressives are idealists who understand that the best we can hope to attain is what the framers called "a more perfect Union" -- not "a perfect Union." Getting there requires the kind of pragmatism that Hillary Clinton, more than any other candidate, understands and has grappled with -- the idealism of an experienced fighter and not a perfectionist poseur.

Comments

[TekBoss]

I am voting for Edwards!

[poopdeck]

Our country cannot afford an "idealist" as our next president. What we need is another Hercules who can clean our governmental Augias-stable. Above all, the next president must be able to play the media and the public as if they were his personal fiddle to overcome congressional obstructionism which will continue no matter who is elected. That was the secret weapon of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan (although neither of the two is among my favorite presidents). Take your pick because there are few if any wannabes, Democratic or Republican, who will be able to do this.

[OtayPanky]

Yo Sean. You've been served, dude.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/oppo-piece-or-just-a_b_76586.html

[ChimpmasterDJ]

Professor Wilentz may be willing to characterize Senator Clinton as a "pragmatic idealist", but I'd say that most people have enough sense of the ridiculous to refrain from uttering such transparently sycophantic balderdash.

The Senator, professor Wilentz, is a consummate politician. It is unlikely that anything such as a scruple or principle has ever stood in her way, in her calculations for advancing her career. As a scholar of history, I'm sure you know that government by consummate politicians has yielded very mixed results. I'm sure you hope for the best, but in light of the last 16 years of American Administrations, many of us are unwilling to merely hope.

[mellene]

Unfortunately, neither of them are an idealist. The only one that might qualify in that camp is Kucinich.

[ChristopherLib]

I agree so much with this Professor Wilentz. Obama's campaign, as I see it, has run on stringent kind of idealism. I guess you could call it perfectionism, but whatever you want to call it it's not really based on getting things done, not really based on change. It's based on a message, while understandably enlightening to many, is not going to make our party stronger in the long run.

Hillary, Biden, and Edwards are three great leaders running for President who will if elected will begin to repair the damage of the Bush adminastration, who have clear doable plans to do that. They don't shy away from inspiring, but they also don't shy from talking about the real world and what realistically can be done. They're more than just nice speeches; they're what we need in this dark period of American history.

[Orikinla]

Mr. Sean Wilentz,
I read R. J. Eskow's article before reading yours, and I said you are entitled to your opinions.

Eskow is not against Hillary Clinton.
He is wise enough to know that only ignorant Americans will vote for Barack Obama.
We thank God that majority of American voters are wiser than the ignorant ones.

We are united in our support for Hillary Clinton for President.

[JLindsley]

Professor Wilentz,

The political stance that you denigrate as "idealism" I view as open minded honesty.

The approach that you tout as pragmatism, I understand as politics as usual – say or do anything that works, often the antithesis of honesty.

[homovivens]

Prof. Sean Wilentz writes: "Eskow draws an infantile and phony distinction between 'pragmatism' and 'idealism'.... If there is a true distinction to be drawn, it is between 'pragmatic idealism' with the kind of 'perfectionist idealism'..."

Prof. Wilentz proffers a false dilemma -- the fallacy of black and white (which seems to be the MO of Obama's opponents) -- between idealism and pragmatism or what he prefers, "pragmatic idealism" and "perfectionistic idealism" -- what I'd call a distinction without a difference, “pragmatically” speaking. He frames the discussion in two kinds of idealism, thus eliminating the conditions for the possibility of any meaningful engagement, i.e., pragmatism. I mean, come on, anyone who's made it to the Senate, no matter how idealistic, has got to have nurtured and/or acquired a healthy pragmatism.

Let's give a name to the tactic to paint Obama into a corner -- on his persona and on issues that require "both/and" answers: it's not pie-in-the-sky (which is what they'd have you believe); it's pie-in-the-face.

Bush/Clint­on/Bush/Fu­ll Stop: OBAMA 2008

[Dantheman99]

Kucinich is the idealist.

Clinton is a triangulator.

Obama is so lacking in vision he couldn't even come up with a universal health care plan.

But, after 8 years of a "faith-based" presidency, maybe a pragmatist isn't a bad idea.

[bigtimernc]

Mind If I drop in Mr. Professor? Don't you agree that we need our next president who can implement change by working with the Republicans in Congress to get things done in Washington? Don't you think we need someone who has a record of doing so? Obama mentioned recently that everybody has a 10-point plan but it does you no good if its sitting on a shelf collecting dust. Isn't that what happened to Senator Clinton's 1993 health care plan? I know because you are a professor the candidate who has passed and co-sponsored more legislation than any of the candidates and his name starts with an O. CHECK YOUR FACTS! Its not the YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BUT THE QUALITY OF THAT EXPERIENCE THAT COUNTS and working with Republicans can make all the difference in the world. THATS NOT JUST IDEALISM, THAT IS REALISM.

[Querent]

Message to RJ: We still love you, even if Sean did throw a hissy.

[Querent]

Part 2

"Eskow draws an infantile and phony distinction between 'pragmatism' and 'idealism' . . . " Ok, maybe the distinction is invalid. You could argue that. Or you could call RJ "infantile", which he isn't.

The thing is, Sean, you said some very interesting and valid things in your interview. You say some interesting things in your "response" to RJ. But there's no need to call RJ names and get all pissed off at him. He didn't attack you. So chill.
.

[Querent]

Part 1

I think you're getting a little fraught, Sean. RJ mentioned you in one paragraph of his blog. He said, and I quote, "Next came Sean Wilentz, a Princeton professor who is also advising the Clinton campaign. Interviewed at TIME.Com, Professor Wilentz said that Clinton's opponents represented a Democratic tradition of "beautiful loserdom," a belief that politics itself is tawdry and beneath them. He compared Obama to Adlai Stevenson." That's all RJ says about you.

Do you feel that RJ misconstrued your position? In the interview, you are quoted as saying, "But one of the problems in America is that politics has been so soured, people try to be above it all. It's like Adlai Stevenson. In some ways, Barack reminds me of Stevenson."

Interviewer: "Why?"

"There's always a Stevenson candidate. Bradley was one of them. Tsongas was one of them. They're the people who are kind of ambivalent about power. "Should I be in this or not... well, yes, because I'm going to represent something new." It's beautiful loserdom."

Seems to me, RJ fairly represented what you were saying.

From there you conjure up the following accusations:

"Out of this, Eskow fabricates a ridiculous and dark plot. He then distorts my comments out of all recognition." In fact, the dark plot is a product of your own imagination. RJ says only that he wonders whether the three statements he references are building toward a meme. The other remarks he makes are general observations about his subject matter, in which you figure only in a very minor way.

"His false accusation is a projection of his own role as a regular hitman for the Obama campaign, which instantly posts his negative pieces about Hillary Clinton." This is just bullshit. RJ is not a regular hitman for the Obama campaign, and everybody who reads him knows it. In addition, he made no false accusation against you.

continued . . .

[brucds]

Who is Sean Wilentz ?

For anyone who cares about pragmatic politics, read Obama's speech opposing the Iraq war and then consider Hillary's blindered, opportunistic carte blanche to George Bush. Obama was pragmatic - Clinton was brain-dead. The only 'idealism' Clinton pursues is the ideal of seeing herself in the Oval Office. We had 8 years of "Clintonism." The triangulatioin and narcissism of the Clinton's set the stage for the worst Presidency in the history of our country. Enough...