Andrew Sullivan in his blog penned a spirited defense for President Obama’s efforts to bring a civic republicanism view of American politics back to Washington. It’s worth quoting from at length:
I’ve lived in Washington for twenty years. I saw in Obama the real hope that something constructive could emerge from the corruption and decline of the recent past. I saw last night the civil tone that marks a responsible politics, rather than the glib cynicism and mock heroism that has marked us in much of the new millennium.
I saw in the civic spirit – especially among the young – a means of renewal for the republic. And I remain convinced that those who want to “reset” Obama’s agenda to the old forms with which they are comfortable have waged a take-no-prisoners war on real change and real reform.
So this fever feels to me like either the kind that precedes the final death of this republic into a carnival of FNC-directed war and debt and drama led by charismatic media-emperors or empresses – or the fever that finally ends the sickness, and restores some sense of civic responsibility and republican virtue. Last night, I saw one of the few men left able to see the depth of the crisis and not lose faith in this country’s ability to overcome it. My faith in this country – so strong in the past – is not as strong as Obama’s now.
But I sure as hell believe in fighting for it, and for him, against the forces at home and abroad that would truly end this experiment in self-government while pretending, of course, that everything is exactly the same. I believe our crisis is deeper than many now believe – because it is not just a crisis of economics, of debt, of over-reach, of an empire now running on its own steam and unstoppable by any political force, but because it is a crisis of civic virtue, a collapse of the good faith and serious, reasoned attention to problems that marks the distinction between a republic and a bread-and-circuses Ailes-Rove imperium.
I couldn’t agree more with Sullivan….I’m constantly struck by the absurdity of a strict pluralist view of politics. A “this is the way it is, and has always been” view of politics that sanctions acting in one’s self interest at the expense of the common interest. This is a form of nihlism that we don’t see as desirable in individuals. We tell our children to “work out your problems,” not “get that ice cream and be sure not to share it with anyone.” We don’t act in our workplaces as if it’s acceptable to “get mine” and “screw everyone else.” But we’ve decided that this behavior is acceptable in the political realm. I blame Machiavelli for this, but that’s another story 🙂 James Madison was right that government is necessary because “men are not angles” but Madison didn’t discount the citizen’s ability to be civic minded. In fact it was central to the maintenance of a strong republic.
Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. (Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention 1788)
Comments 3
Kenneth M. Kambara — February 1, 2010
I think this is indicative of important macrosociological questions, I feel are at the root of the incivility in politics, having to do with embeddedness and agency. I'm very much interested in how "atomized" individual agents operate within institutional structures. In one of the last vestiges of feudalism, acadème, I think it is one of the places where dysfunctional logics set in where fiefdoms in silos battle for power and resources, in essence, akin to politics. These logics inform rhetoric and tactics. I also think whenever you have silos, functional, artificial or ideological, there is the temptation to operate within self-serving, instrumentalist parameters, when the silos don't speak the same "language" or share the same objectives and there is no superstructure or set of shared values/communitas to impose "getting along."
I don't think sending ideologues in Congress copies of Bourdieu, Durkheim, or Granovetter is going to help, but I'm thinking that's where we overeducated sots come it—translating the social sciences for use in practice. I think you're right about Machiavelli. I think there's been too many "straight" readings of it, as opposed to viewing it as satire, which reduces the world to viewing capital in terms of pure power.
Charles Rozier — February 1, 2010
Isn't Lincoln the one who popularized the phrase "the better angels of our nature?"
"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
jose — February 2, 2010
Yes...thanks for pointing that out. I always get my "angels" quotes mixed up :-)