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

[Countess]

Anyone who considers themselves progressive and supports Mrs. Clinton is either blind or a fool. What the hell has she done as a senator to warrant the support of progressives? Supporting Bush everytime he wanted to limit the rights of Americans? Her support for massive outsourcing of American jobs? Her support for the war in Iraq? Her support for the Kyle-Lieberman resolution backed by Dick Cheney? If she is a progressive than I guess George W. Bush is to.

[KidDynamo0]

Clinton is not a pragmatist, she is just a candidate that plays to whatever side polls well. This country has been drowning in a see of panic and fear. Maybe what we need is some actual optimism and idealism. I think Obama and/or Edwards are just the ones to bring it back to America. Do you remember when people use to think America could do anything. We can't even take care of our own flood victims. The idealism is what we need on Sept 12th, and the time after. We have not been together as a country since Bush STOLE the election in 2000. Lets bury the hatchet and move forward.

www.axisofbalance.com

[prettypony]

Looks like we're going to end up with Obama. Wonder if his protector, Oprah, will be able to help him when the Republicans squash him like a bug.
I live in the Midwest and know a lot of Republicans and Independants, all of whom have already said they will never vote for Obama, they consider him way to leftist and naive, particularly in the area of National Security.
Soooo we may soon have a President Huckabee, Guilliani, Romney or McCain, who knows.

[craigdp]

Nicely said, unfortunately the more I've looked at Senator Obama, the less impressed I am.

[feelfree]

Wow.....Mr­. Wilentz that was awesome. This is certainly one of the most sane blogs I have read at this site. You sound like a thoughtful human being.

I'm sorry that you've become a target of irrational thought.

I don't get how Obama supporters put him on a pedestal. I don't see the greatness. I have heard nothing great from him on healthcare, civil rights, the infrastructure of this country, or illegal immigration. And his position on the war, just pull all the troops out, is thoughtless.

[PanMetron]

Thanks for exposing the false axes of idealism. But I would add that there is another polar distinction to make, orthonogal to idealism: loyalty vs. opportunism. Nothing is more of a betrayal to hopeful Democratic voters than to cynically exploit their idealism in the name of brazen opportunism.

I believe this is where Obama is; in all of the rumors about his religion nobody has pointed out the likely true faith: Obama worships Obama.

In his "idealistic" push for unity he proposes to further blur the distinction between Democrats and Republicans; with this approach Obama is really sacrificing the idealism of generations of loyal Democrats, and his loyalty to the Democratic party line is by his own admission very flexible - one might even say "pragmatic".

Barack Obama's zealous, idealistic followers do not yet realize that the man they are pinning their hopes on is actually willing to sacrifice the most hallowed stances of the Democratic Party if it serves his ambitious rise to power and fame.

[Hubert]

Obama, be afraid. The Clinton's have unleashed the heavyweights. Wilentz has the academic pedigree to sway some members of the chattering class to come out from the shadows to pump up Hillary's fast deflating hot-air balloon.

It looks as if Hillary has devised yet another strategy. Tap her friends in the ivory tower to develop a theory that justifies the existence of her wilting campaign.

Wilentz has answered the call and produced a short White Paper that is meant to place Hillary in a lineage of pragmatic/idealists that includes Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt the Kennedy brothers (minus Ted who comes up short),Lincoln & LBJ.

I'm surprised that Washington and Jefferson missed the cut (or will they be conjured forth in part two of the intellectual's defense of Clintonism?).

Wilentz ends his post with one last rhetorical flourish coming out in support of the idealism of Clinton (the experienced fighter) over the perfectionist posturing of Obama.

Wilentz is deaf to the fact that Americans are unlikely to send another fighter to the White House. We are tired of fighting both in Iraq and at home.

[avergejoe]

the clintons have been using JFK and FDR for years!

While passing truman and coolidge (and lieberman) policies.

enough is enough

[JimR]

You present a false choice. Neither candidate neatly fits the labels you desperately try to paint them with.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

First, Voltaire said "The perfect is the enemy of the good" and he makes me think Enlightenment more than Totalitarianism.

Next, as much as I love Paul Krugman's columns, his pieces on Obama have been anything but calm. In fact, I was nervous what he would write about Obama and Hillary because both were late in laying out their health care plans. He took it easy on Hillary's plan and blasted Obama pretty good. Since I trust Krugman's honesty and accuracy, I figure it's one point against Obama and he's still up by twenty.

Finally, Oprah-- as well as Obama-- sounds "perfectionist" and "messianic"?

Them's fightin' words!

Actually, what words are they? I would say Oprah sounded *enthusiastic* about Obama. And those words sound vaguely negative and smear-ish.

R.J. Eskow gave some pretty good advice to Hillary as far as what to do to win, I thought. Actually, I wouldn't mind Hillary winning if she did so in a way that did not tear Obama down and divide the Democratic Party. Even Kerry was able to achieve this over Dean in 2004.

Then, when it's all over, we can attend philosophy courses on idealism, perfectionism, pragmatism, and it should be fun. But something tells me neither Obama's campaign manager nor Hillary's is lying awake at night hammering out the finer aspects of those concepts.