This morning, upon firing up my browser and scanning the news, I was hit by this NYT headline:
Obama tilts to center, inviting a clash of ideas
Reported cabinet choices show preference for pragmatists over ideologues
Ka-bam! That sound you heard may indeed have been a "clash of ideas": the ideas put forth in the article clashing with reality. Leaving aside the question of whether nominating Clinton and company actually represents a shift to the "center," the article immediately implies that centrists are pragmatists, and everyone else is just an ideologue. And the bias conveyed by the article, by White House Correspondent David E. Sanger, doesn't stop there. Excerpts and commentary below the fold.
WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination with the enthusiastic support of the left wing of his party, fueled by his vehement opposition to the decision to invade Iraq and by one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.
Now, his reported selections for two of the major positions in his cabinet — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and Timothy J. Geithner as secretary of the Treasury — suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues.
Well. If we are to believe that, as a serious journalist, Mr. Sanger does not presuppose anything wildly presumptive about the American electorate, we have learned that:
- Sen. Clinton and Timothy Geithner belong to the "center-right" of the party.
- Clinton and Geithner are pragmatists.
- They typify the link between ideology and pragmatism: that is, the center or center-right is more pragmatic than the left.
- The opposite of a pragmatist is an ideologue.
- Those on the left are ideologues.
- Obama's liberal voting record and opposition to the Iraq war gave the impression that he was on the left, earning him the support of ideologues.
- But now, because of these two Cabinet appointments, Obama is showing himself to be further to the right than previously thought, in terms of how he intends to govern.
And that, my friends, is just the first two paragraphs.
The ideologue vs. pragmatist dichotomy is an interesting one. I don't think anyone would claim to be an ideologue: the word has negative connotations, implying that one's behavior is stubborn, reality-blind adherence to a particular ideology (set of emotion-laden beliefs or principles of morality and governance)—in other words, what we've seen from our government for the past eight years. Pragmatism, on the other hand, is a willingness to see reason and reality, to compromise, and to do what is necessary given the circumstances. Thus, associating pragmatism with centrism is a powerful (if subtle) way to frame anything other than incremental change—not to mention those of us on the left—as naive, selfish, ill-advised, and potentially dangerous.
In other words, Mr. Sanger, and by extension the New York Times, is implying that you are an ideologue, not a pragmatist. If you, like me, consider yourself a pragmatist, but you are guided in your decisions by a progressive ideology, then I have news for you: We must not let this framing fly.
Additionally, the presumptions laid out above seem to imply that Obama—in moving to the right—is fixing to betray those of us who voted for him. Now I don't know about you, but I will be celebrating on January 20, whether Clinton agrees to join the administration or not.
A few paragraphs later, the article introduces a Violin Metaphor for Governance:
"This is the violin model: Hold power with the left hand, and play the music with your right," David J. Rothkopf, a former Clinton official who wrote a history of the National Security Council, said on Friday, as news of Mrs. Clinton’s and Mr. Geithner’s appointments leaked. "It’s teaching us something about Obama: while he wants to bring new ideas to the game, he is working from the center space of American foreign policy."
A violinist myself, I can attest to the absurdity of this metaphor. In fact, the left hand is where most of the action is, and the chin also supports the instrument to a large extent. I think a revised VMG is in order:
"Hold power with the left hand (progressive voters) and the chin (independents), and govern the same way, according to the wishes of the electorate," I, a citizen and actual violinist, say now. "Good musicianship (authenticity) requires attention to fundamentals of technique (listening to the will of the American people)."
We could also apply the VMG to journalism. If you're writing an opinion piece, then fine—make all the assumptions you want. But if your heading is ANALYSIS, then please don't forget the proper technique: try to at least justify your blanket stereotypes about right vs. left. Otherwise, you sound shrill, hollow, or just plain out of tune.