Yesterday, I wrote a diary, The Myth of Certainty: Obama, Liberals & Daily Kos which to my gratification generated a great deal of discussion, pro and con.
The thesis of my diary was that we liberals need to practice "Niebuhrian humility," the approach to life and politics exemplified by Reinhold Niebuhr's formulation:
If you and I disagree, at least one of us is wrong, and it may be me.
I chose to quote Niebuhr because he is President's Obama's favorite theologian (Obama's Theologian: E.J. Dionne and David Brooks on NPR), and is important to understanding the President's political philosophy.
Many commenters, fairly and understandably, took my comments to indicate approval of moral relativism and lack of commitment to liberal principles. I knew I was taking that risk, but a short diary can't get too convoluted, so I made only a first simple point. Today I would like to explore the idea further. Your input will again be appreciated.
Niebuhr's political philosphy is based on a simple proposition:
Human beings, and groups of human beings, are motivated primarily by their own self-interest. When interests conflict, the more powerful individual or group will always win, unless government levels the playing field. That leveling of the playing field is the proper function of government. The level playing field is a just society.
(That blockquote is my own summary of Niebuhr's premise).
Niebuhr was, thus, a true "liberal" in today's sense. He believed that government must use it's power of coercion, through laws and regulations, to help create something approaching a just society. The "laissez faire" attitude, and the idea that the less government the better, is flawed because it does not properly recognize human self-interest as the predominant force in society.
Barack Obama, asked what he learned from Niebuhr, said
"I take away," Obama answered in a rush of words, "the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism." Obama, Gospel and Verse
So, does Niebuhrian humility equal moral relativism? Most serious thinkers say no. Niebuhr is considered the leading American ethicist of the 20th Century. For Niebuhr, and I suggest for Obama, humility doesn't mean we don't recognize evil or injustice. But it affects how we go about remedying it.
Naive idealism tends to be a liberal flaw, but it is not an essential part of liberalism. A President has to govern with the interests of the nation and all of its citizens in mind. That means that he will (or should) work for justice, because that's ultimately in the interests of the nation and all of its citizens. But, he must do so in a way that doesn't jeopardize other goals. What Senator Obama said about Iraq applies to domestic battles as well:
I'm not against all wars; just dumb wars.
Choosing battles may be the most important decisions a President makes. Choosing his battles is what the President is doing. He doesn't want to fight "dumb wars," wars that can't be won.
Is it wise to insist on single-payer health care at a time in history when such a reform could not pass either house of Congress? I think we all realize that would not be wise.
Is it a wise idea to issue an Executive Order ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if doing so would jeopardize his relationships with the Joint Chiefs of Staff during a time of war? Maybe not. Maybe that wouldn't be in the nation's interest.
So, the President chooses to "nudge" the Chiefs toward ending DADT (in part by appointing a Republican Secretary of the Army who wants to end DADT; in part by involving Congress to build a consensus).
Is it wise to begin prosecution of Bush administration officials if doing so would jeopardize his entire agenda? Remember the Clinton impeachment? Congress got nothing done during that period. That's likely what would happen with a 2009 or 2010 prosecution of Bush officials, because Congress and the electorate would explode. No health care reform; no climate change or energy legislation; no Employee Free Choice Act.
Is it wise to prosecute Bush administration officials if those prosecutions would likely be lost? Probably not, and probably not even ethical. The first question a prosecutor must ask is, "Can I win this case?"
It's not my intention (in this diary) to discuss specific Presidential actions. Rather, it is my intention to raise issues as a way of discussing his method of governing: justice as the end, humility as the guiding principle, and national interest trumping all.
Governing by fiat can work in limited instances (stem cell research, ending torture) but not as a consistent practice. Not in a democracy.
So a President has to lead. The bully pulpit is a powerful tool of the Presidency, and Mr. Obama is good at it. But it's not the only way to lead. President Obama has community organizer skills, which he is using to build consensus for decisions that other people then make their own.
Most of us at Daily Kos realize that the absence of humility in our foreign affairs for eight years was a huge problem. It may not be as easy to translate that understanding into domestic affairs, but it is important.
President Obama has insisted that his administration not be loaded with "yes men." He has officials in the FDA and USDA who believe in genetically engineered food, and others who believe in organic farming only. He has advisers who believe in stimulus via tax cuts, and others who believe in stimulus via spending. He has advisors who cite the success of school vouchers, and others who question the success of school vouchers. George W. Bush never did that.
We don't need to be upset when the President appoints someone with whom we disagree. We should be confident enough in our ideas to believe that (a) good ideas will win when the debate is open, the decider is honest, and the administration is politically savvy, and (b) we may have something to learn from people who disagree with us.
My own personal battle in that regard has to do with the public option in health care. I think we need it. I think that the public option will save costs, because Medicare has a 3% administrative overhead and insurance companies average about 15%. But when I'm honest with myself, I have to admit that Medicare is running a huge deficit and if it set premiums at a level where it would break even, it might well be as expensive as the insurance company options. So, I have called my Senators and written my Congressman to support the public option and I have given money. But I am interested in the facts, not just in some generally accepted theory that a public option is the only way to control costs.
Bringing humility to government as an operating principle doesn't mean we don't fight hard for what we believe in. Rather, it means admitting that even my brilliant ideas have flaws, and can be made better by dialogue and debate... and by respecting the opinions of those with whom I disagree. It means always asking, "What are the implications if I'm wrong?" Lack of respect for the opposition, demonizing the opposition, is not a liberal trait. It's a fatal flaw that Republicans have made and we need not to make.
And governing with humility means being smart. Niebuhr wrote a book, Children of Light and Children of Darkness, in which he argued that the Children of Light (us, the good guys) are less wily and world-wise than the Children of Darkness. The idea that one can accomplish one's goals by simply demanding them is naive. The idea that one can bring people toward consensus by leading them to adopt the goals you want as their own is smart. It's the way community organizers work, and it's the way the best business managers work. Our only MBA president couldn't figure that out. For our community organizer President, it's second nature.