By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, September 12th, 2010
Max Weber, author of "Politics as Vocation"
It sometimes feels like Barack Obama has studied Max Weber’s classic, “Politics as a Vocation,” a bit too carefully. In his lecture, given in the aftermath of the tragedy of World War I, Weber made a strong distinction between an ethics of responsibility and an ethics of ultimate ends – between an ethics that is based in getting practical things done politically, serving one’s constituency’s interests and understandings, and an ethics of principled politics, true to one’s core values.
Such a distinction leads Obama to clearly distinguish between an ethics of responsible governance and an ethics of imaginative and eloquent political campaigning, including attractive depictions of ultimate ends. Obama’s reticence to use the poetry of campaigning, while he is engaged in the prose of governing, has meant that he hasn’t attacked those who have viciously attacked him. It is only now in campaign mode that he is responding. There are pressing questions: has his been a responsible approach? And has his position made Obama’s (and his supporters) ends more distant?
Thus, Brian Beutler, in a post on Talking Points Memo, applauded President Obama in his speech on the economy of September 8 in Cleveland for his direct attack on John Boehner, criticizing him “by name no less than eight times,” but laments “Complicating matters for Democrats is that, well, few Americans know who “Mr. Boehner” is. That might not be the case if Obama had given speeches like this starting a year ago. But there are still several weeks to go until election day.”
And Bob Herbert, in his op-ed. piece on Tuesday, was very pleased but also bewildered, “ Mr. Obama linked the nation’s desperate need for jobs to the sorry state of the national infrastructure in a tone that conveyed both passion and empathy, and left me wondering, ‘Where has this guy been for the past year and a half?’”
The Method to his Madness?
Yet, it should be understood that there is a method, or at least a significant strategic decision, to the President’s madness. He knew that he might need at least a . . .
Read more: Obama’s Dilemna: Responsible or Principled Politics?
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, September 9th, 2010
I was planning to post today about the new peace talks between Israel and Palestine using the perspective of the politics of small things. But this will have to wait for another day. Barack Obama gave a speech on Labor Day that requires attention. It was a very strong partisan address, a forceful support of the labor movement on labor’s day, a clear proclamation of his position on the pressing issue of the day, the state of the economy, and on the strategy necessary to fix it.
The Storyline
 Obama proposed a transit plan to create jobs, reported in The New York Times as the storyline, but, it seems to me, the specific proposal was an illustration of his political message, not the message itself. The significant story: Obama was challenging the commonsense that seems to support the Republican prospects in the coming election, forcefully and clearly depicting an alternative commonsense that would support his Party’s immediate chances and also contribute to his attempt to reinvent American political culture. Far from Reagan’s “the government is not the solution but the problem,” Obama depicted how and explained why good government can help, and bad government can and has hurt. He wanted to turn the terms of debate from big government versus limited government, to good government versus bad government.
Obama is now drawing a clear line between those who support his policies and those who have been an obstacle to the change that at least Obama and his supporters believe in. He sought to draw the contrast between his administrations accomplishments and achievements, and his opposition. It was often an entertaining exercise, clearly meant to increase the level of passionate support for his overall project and to address the immediate task at hand, winning, or at least not losing badly in the upcoming elections.
The Declaration
Obama’s most telling declaration, biting in its critical thrust, revealing in its positive direction:
“When we passed a bill earlier this summer to help states save jobs — the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers and nurses and police officers and firefighters that were about to be laid off, they said no. (Applause.) . . .
Read more: Back in the Ring
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, September 8th, 2010 
This post is the third in a series. Read Part One and Part Two.
“The Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the End of Combat Operations in Iraq,” of August 31, 2010, was a speech by the head of state, addressed to a nation, about a momentous event. The President had a responsibility to deliver the speech, and the Oval office was the place to deliver it. The President had things to say that went beyond partisanship, as I tried to show yesterday. He was applying his political philosophy to the task at hand, something he first did in his anti-war speech in 2002. He fully presented his general position in his Nobel Laureate Acceptance Speech, most directly basing it on “just war theory.” (see Michael Walzer’s book, Just and Unjust Wars) Sometime in the near future, I hope to post more on that, but today, after the last two posts on Obama on Iraq, we move from the consideration of the relationship between context and text, to the text of the speech itself.
The Speech beyond Cynicism
He opens by revealing the logic of the entire speech: “Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home,” and he then develops and applies the logic. We should note how clearly the speech develops the themes that were the basis of his anti war speech and how it is addressed to a broader audience, not only those who were against the war, but also those who favored it.
About Iraq, Obama is careful. He focuses on the service and sacrifice of the American military, the defeat “of a regime that terrorized its people” and “the chance for a better future for Iraq,” and underscores that he is delivering on the promise, which he made as a candidate and which was officially agreed upon with the Iraqis, of American withdrawal from the war. His language is subdued. He notes accomplishments and dangers. He . . .
Read more: From the Head of State: a Call to Action
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, September 7th, 2010
This post is the second in a series. Read the first part here.
 President Obama’s “Address to the Nation on the End of Combat Operations in Iraq,” was consistent with his first public speech expressing his opposition to the war. He stood by the same principles, as he was fulfilling his responsibility as head of state, President for the entire nation and not only those who support him and his partisan position. To paraphrase one of his standard lines, he was not speaking as President of the Blue States or the Red States, but as President of the United States of America. The night of the address and in the days that followed, this most basic quality of his speech was overlooked. Instead, there were misleading interpretations, from Obama’s critics and his supporters, revealing a fundamental problem in our public life.
The Partisan Interpretations
From his partisan opposition, the criticism was strong. <<Obama should have declared victory,>> Senator John McCain and his interviewer Sean Hannity, agreed. (video) He should have given President Bush full credit for the victory. He should have apologized for his opposition to the surge. Lindsey Graham concurred and was particularly critical that Obama did not acknowledge the terrorists’ defeat and the need to extend our momentum in Afghanistan. (video) The emphasis on withdrawal instead of victory was the fundamental problem with the President’s speech. “It’s not about when we leave in Afghanistan. It’s about what we leave behind.” Charles Krauthammer, in the instant analysis following the speech on Fox News, observed that the speech was “both flat and odd.” Flat, because it did not celebrate the victory, but rather emphasized the withdrawal almost as a lamentation. Odd, because of the way he linked his topics, from Iraq to Afghanistan to, most disturbing for Krauthammer, tacking on an “economic pep talk.” There should have been a coherent speech about our missions abroad. Instead there was a speech by a man who is only interested in his domestic agenda. (video) And from his partisan supporters there was also serious criticism, mirroring the rage on the right. <<Obama should have declared defeat,>> Frank . . .
Read more: The End of the Iraq War
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, September 6th, 2010
This post is one in a series.
This week President Obama gave an important speech in the Oval office announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq. In October 2002, before the war was declared, he distinguished himself as one of the few political leaders to express clear opposition to the Iraq war. There is an important connection between his words and his actions, then, which I will consider in today’s post, and now, which I will consider in following posts.
The standard way to account for the connection is through cynical interpretation, explaining the texts of these speeches by referring to their context. Much is lost in such cynical interpretation–here, the two speeches are Deliberately Considered.
The Context
 On October 2, 2002, Obama was a relatively obscure politician, a State Senator considering a run for the United States Senate. He had some significant movers and shakers in Chicago eyeing him, realizing his promise. One of them, Bettylu Saltzman, who was organizing the anti-war demonstration, asked him to take part. His political advisors calculated the costs and benefits, seeing a real problem if he sought to run in a state wide race. As an African American, he might solidify his support among white liberals, fortifying the black – white coalition base of a potential run, but he may have appealed to them in any case, and he clearly would lose conservative Democratic support and the support of many independents, who at that time were overwhelmingly supporting the President and his impending war. Nonetheless, since he actually did think that war would be a big mistake, Obama decided to give the speech, notable for its moderation in his opposition to the war: “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war” was the recurring theme. (See David Remnick, The Bridge).
The moderation of the speech served his immediate purposes and it later helped his candidacy in the Democratic Presidential Primaries. On this point, David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political consultant, has bemoaned the fact that there was no decent video of the speech. Obama opposed the war, but tried to . . .
Read more: Obama on Iraq: Then and Now
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, August 27th, 2010 
The day after Obama presented his Iftar remarks, in a statement made in passing to a reporter, he “clarified” his position. He was not specifically endorsing the project, he maintained, but was standing on principle and trying to emphasize what the stakes are. (link)
“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”
This statement was interpreted as a reversal of position by the center’s opponents and by those who are critical of Obama’s every move, but also by relatively objective media reports. And some of those who had most passionately celebrated Obama’s remarks were dismayed by his apparent change of position. They all paid attention to the first sentence of his second statement and not to the second two sentences, which, I think, were more central. They paid attention to the apparent implications of the statement, but not to its meaning.
As the controversies about the center have raged, Obama’s fundamental position has been lost to the political noise. While the politics around the controversy always revolved around the question, for or against the “Ground Zero Mosque,” he at all points emphasized that free and diverse religious practices are an American right and definitive of American identity. We have paid attention to the politics of the moment.
Will it hurt the Democrats and help the Republicans? Will Rick Lazio’s bid to be the Senator from New York sink or swim on this? Will this episode confirm the suspicions about Obama coming from the left and the right? But we have not considered seriously the broader politics, beyond the obsessions of the here and now, beyond our national borders. In his second statement, Obama wanted to emphasize his concern with such broader issues, as he has tried to distance himself from the immediate controversy. The condensed nature of the passing comment led to confusion. He was trying to thread a needle, but the sensibility of public discussion was too coarse for this . . .
Read more: Obama Attempts to Walk a Fine Line in Park51 Debate
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, August 26th, 2010 
In his remarks at the Iftar Dinner at the State Dining Room of the White House, President Obama continued to discharge his responsibilities as Storyteller-in-Chief with distinction.
He clearly illuminated fundamental principles of the American polity. He highlighted their long history, and he applied the principles with their historical resonance to a pressing problem of the day. Yet, the politics of the day, concerning the so called “Ground Zero Mosque,” confused matters, and his attempt to respond to the politics has added to the confusion. I hope in the coming days and months he addresses the confusion. But, in the meanwhile, we need to remember what the issues are apart from the silly interpretations of the 24/7 news machine. His remarks should be deliberately considered.
Today, remembering the significance of the speech. Tomorrow, a consideration of the confusion which followed. Obama welcomed his guests, including members of the diplomatic corps, his administration and Congress, and offered his best wishes to Muslims from around the world for the holy month of Ramadan. He recalled the several years that the Iftar dinner has been held at the White House, as similar events have been hosted to celebrate Christmas, Passover and Diwali. He observed how these events mark the role of faith in the lives of the American people and affirm “the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs.” The events are “an affirmation of who we are as Americans,” with a long history, illuminated by Obama by citing the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Act of Establishing Religious Freedom and remembering the First Amendment of the Constitution.
This tradition of religious diversity and respect has made the United States politically strong and open to vibrant and multiple religious traditions, the President noted, making us “a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in stark contrast to the religious conflict that persists elsewhere around the globe.”
Yet, he recalled, there have been controversies, most recently . . .
Read more: Obama’s Iftar Dinner Speech
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, August 25th, 2010 
My recent reflections on the debate over the Park Islamic Cultural Center have been fueled and inspired by my personal experiences surrounding the September 11 attacks and their aftermath.
After 9/11, I despaired. As I put it in The Politics of Small Things, it hurt to think. I knew that the people who attacked the World Trade Center really were a threat, but the political responses to the threat seemed to me to be wrong.
The attack hit very close to home. Two close friends were in the Towers, one survived, a childhood friend, Steve Assael, but one was killed, Mike Asher, my closest adult friend . On that fateful day, I didn’t know what had happened to either of my friends. In the days, weeks and months that followed, as I attended to personal consequences of the attacks, I was dismayed by the public response.
A war on terrorism was declared which didn’t make much sense, as the very real threat of Al Qaeda was not sufficiently recognized by anti-war critics. Terrorism and anti-terrorism seemed to be replacing Communism and ideological anti-Communism (the most radical and resolute form of which were Fascism and Nazism), and many who were critical of these tendencies were not realisticly facing up to the challenges of the day. Simple Manichaeism again overlooked global complexity across the political spectrum. There did not seem to be any alternative, as the Republican President was getting carried away, pushed by a broad wave of popular support, and the Democrats in Congress, and reporters and commentators in the media, dared not question the patriotic effervescence.
My book, which was dedicated to Mike, was an attempt to explore how alternatives on the margins did provide grounds for hope. Specific small interactions provided alternatives to faulty grand narratives, people meeting each other on the basis of shared concerns and commitments, speaking and acting in each other’s presence, developing a capacity to act in concert, i.e. constituting political power in the sense of Hannah Arendt. I knew how important such power was in the development of the democratic . . .
Read more: Park 51 and the Politics of Small Things
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, August 24th, 2010 
Why is an Islamic community center dedicated to intercultural and interreligious understanding in any way a desecration to the memory of the victims of the attacks?
Why is the planning of the center provocative or insensitive?
There are problems with facts and truth, as I have reflected upon in my previous posts, but there are also problems with interpretation and evaluation. Given the facts, the community center can only be considered an affront if there is something fundamentally wrong with one of the great world religions. This center is clearly not the work of radical fundamentalists. Its goal is dialogue and understanding. If these are jihadists, all Muslims are. If we publicly speak and act with such interpretation, we are effectively declaring a religious war, playing the game of the religious fanatics.
And isn’t it odd that it is now, 9 years after the attacks of 2001, and not in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, that a broad fear of Muslims seems to be sweeping the country? So many major political leaders are complicit in the Islamophobia: from those who are stoking the flames, Gingrich and Palin and their media facilitators at Fox and company; to those who fear opposing the hysteria, Harry Reid and the like?
Even President Obama has not been clear about the problem (more about that in a later post). I think that Islamophobia, not Islam, now presents a clear and present danger to American democracy, not only because it compromises our fundamental principles, but also because it challenges our security. See for a report on this issue: U.S. Anti-Islam Protest Seen as Lift for Extremists
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, August 24th, 2010 
The court of public opinion has been making decisions based in myth–not fact. These sometimes bizarre rumors seem like they should be a joke, but are instead, frighteningly real. With this in mind, I want to discuss the ramifications of the debate surrounds the proposed Muslim center near the site of Ground Zero.
The battle between intelligence and ignorance has intensified since the election of Barack Obama, and it often has a surreal partisan edge, centering around the biography and the identity of the President. A disturbing report in today’s New York Times: “a new poll by the Pew Research Center finds a substantial rise in the percentage of Americans who believe, incorrectly, that Mr. Obama is Muslim. The president is Christian, but 18 percent now believe he is Muslim, up from 12 percent when he ran for the presidency and 11 percent after he was inaugurated.” (link)
This is puzzling. “Obama is a Muslim.” “He is not an American citizen.” Can people seriously believe such things? Apparently they do. They ignore the facts to the contrary, either cynically or because they allow their convictions to blind them from the stubborn truth of factuality. Mostly this seems amusing. The material for nightly satires on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. But in that a major source of news, Fox News, regularly confuses fabrication with facts and many people base their opinions upon this confusion, suggests that there is a cultural crisis, a cultural war worth fighting.
It is not primarily a partisan battle, or at least it shouldn’t be. It is a struggle to make sure that factual truth is the grounds for public life. It is in this context that I think the case of the so called Ground Zero Mosque should be understood. The controversy itself indicates a major cultural and political defeat. The struggle is to get beyond the controversy, and it seems to me that the only outcome must be to build the Park Islamic Cultural Center.
It should be clear to anyone who wants to know the facts that Barack Obama is an American citizen, born in Hawaii, raised . . .
Read more: A Proposed Mosque at Ground Zero Prompts Unfounded Debate
|
Blogroll
On the Left
On the Right
|