obama

Even thought the post debate flash polls declared Obama the runaway winner, I have a creeping suspicion that this presidential race is going to tighten. The McCain campaign has been remarkably undisciplined at pinning the “liberal” label on Obama. While we might be embroiled in a financial meltdown, there are certain policy positions which are do not meet what James March called the “logic of appropriateness.” One of these, support for late-term abortions, Obama handled with aplomb in last night’s debate. I’ve been wondering when the Republicans were going to go after another of Obama’s “inapprorpriate” positions in support of state laws that provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. Well, here ya go:

This all might be a little too late. it is difficult to change public perceptions of a candidate with 19 days left to go in the election. But if there is an underlying distrust or soft support among working class white, an ad like this might just be able to pry 1-2% back to McCain or to the sidelines…especially if the Dow keeps rising. I’m just sayin’.

I’ve been reading sociologist Amitai Etzioni’s thoughts on what he calls commutarianism.  He describes the Clinton presidency on the liberal blog, The Huffington Post, as defying liberal/conservative labels by being commutarian:

[Clinton] certainly did reveal some liberal proclivities, but his welfare reform was clearly in a conservative mode, and he capped most social programs in order to balance the budget. (He ended up generating a surplus which the Bush administration inherited and squandered). At other times, when looking for common ground, promoting volunteerism (AmeriCorps), and trying to defuse tensions between the races and between the religious right and the liberal secularists, Clinton was much more a communitarian than a liberal.

Communitarianism, a social philosophy centered around the concept of community, is hardly a household word and is very unlikely to become one. However, one should consider it — because Barack Obama is easily the most communitarian presidential candidate of all those we have seen for decades.

He later defines commutarianism as being focused on the importance of community, the common good, and service, contrasting it with divisive strategies such as identity politics.  

How does this fit in with the American ideal of individualism?  Hasn’t society become increasingly fragmented to the point where there isn’t a shared society or culture?  Could you just say that Clinton and Obama are simply being pragmatic in their approach?  Isn’t McCain a commutarian, as well?

Politics aside for a moment, I think there’s something to this idea of commutarianism, given sociological research on organizations, well entrenched in the workings of capitalism.  In task-oriented settings, you can have “communities of practice” that go beyond functional areas (e.g., marketing, finance, accounting, etc.) and even organizational boundaries (firms collaborating on innovations or dividing up specialized tasks).  It begs the question of what are the true drivers of collaboration in politics that go beyond immediate self-interest?  Is it trust?  Framing activities as uniting common causes?  All of the above?

I think it’s hard to be communitarian in certain contexts and one only has to look at office politics to see evidence of this.  Nevertheless, I think that as a philosophy that can be embedded in a set of values, commutarianism can foster a shift in priorities.  These shifts could be good or bad, so I don’t feel that commutarianism is a panacea.  I do feel that these shifts require a critical mass of shared values and the meanings behind them.  I don’t think a lot of this is new, but I think what is new is getting the general populace thinking and behaving in these terms and replicating this over time.

It wasn’t too long ago that Geraldine Ferraro made her infamous comment theorizing that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” Her sentiment that his race conferred advantages to him was reinforced by the writings of Shelby Steele. In his book on Obama, Steele suggests that Obama is a “bargainer.” Here is how Steele describes a bargainer:

Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America’s history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer’s race against him.

Here’s a good synopsis of Steele’s argument on NPR.

According to Steele, this perceived ability Obama has to absolve whites of past racial sins, makes him a particularly attractive candidate to many:

For many Americans — black and white — Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority.

Steele’s book title points to a downfall in a bargainer’s campaign:

bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don’t know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.)

Steele’s presumption that as the public got to know Obama, he would be exposed as the complex product of his mixed-race background that he is and his public support would fall. A look at the latest Gallup tracking poll 4 weeks out has Obama with an 11 point lead over Mccain. Why hasn’t it happened? Is Steele wrong? Has Obama had to hide his complexity to win? He has displayed a plodding, yet disciplined and effective, blandness since capturing the democratic nomination.

Steele also argues in the NPR interview that he can only win if he clearly specifies “who he is.” has he done so? You notice that “change” has largely been absent from recent Obama speeches? Has he become somewhat wonkish and more specific to address criticisms that he is merely an empty vessel of change? has the financial crisis eclipsed the main thesis of Steele’s book?

In all the years I’ve been following presidential elections, I’ve never heard someone from an audience call the candidate from the opposing party “a terrorist.”

Dana Milbank at the Washington post reported a similar incident at a Palin rally in florida where members of the crowd allegedly yelled “kill him” regarding Obama during her speech. Regardless of your political persuasion, this has to be a bit unsettling. I fear we’re charting into an emotional storm as this election draws near. My hope is that Mccain’s attack during tonight’s debate will be about Obama’s economic and social liberalism as reflected in his voting record rather than this absurd guilt by association.

All of us in academia can probably be tarred with a similar brush. Is anyone who works with someone with controversial views forced to resign their jobs? As a graduate student I taught in the Ethnic Studies department at the University of Colorado during the time Ward Churchill was a member of the department. Does that link me to Ward Churchill’s views? Should I have given up my teaching assistantship? Are all the members of the education department in which Bill Ayers teaches today complicit in his crimes and victims of poor judgment? How about all his students? Should they drop out of the university upon learning of their professor’s past?