(Where is my copy of Lionel Trilling's book? I thought I had one somewhere. Did I lend it to someone? Oh well, never mind, it'll turn up.)
I was just reading David Foster Wallace's account (in a book called "Consider the Lobster") of John McCain's 2000 campaign for the Republican nomination (against an opponent then referred to as "The Shrub"). Wallace (then writing for Rolling Stone) was far from being a supporter of McCain, but he was impressed by his personal qualities. It's difficult not to be impressed by McCain's biography - whether as a fantastic example of courage and fortitude or as a brilliant example of personal myth, or perhaps both.
So here's a thought. In the upcoming presidential election, Obama represents Sincerity while McCain represents Authenticity. Different kinds of truth.
A minority of voters might vote for McCain and Palin because they share their opinions and beliefs, but most Americans don't. The only reason McCain and Palin have the remotest chance of winning the election is because sackloads of American votes will be cast for who the candidates are, not for what they stand for. Megan Garber (Columbia Journalism Review) calls this the Authenticity Trap - " the West Wing logic of governance: that truth-to-self will somehow lead a president to effective leadership".
In contrast, people will mostly not vote for Obama because of who he is - a smooth Afro-American lawyer from Chicago with a foreign name - but because of what he (so eloquently) stands for. Adam Kirsch (New York Sun) finds Obama's book more authentic than Hillary Clinton's - but come on, how many American votes are going to be based on reading? (People didn't vote for Churchill because they'd read his books either.)
Perhaps more than any election in recent memory, this is the battle of the Enlightenment. The man who speaks from the heart for progress, hope and the American Dream against the man who was captured by the VietCong and will not tell a lie. George Lakoff (Huffington Post) thinks the Enlightenment frame isn't working so well for Obama these days, and wants the Obama campaign to stop reinforcing the Maverick frame for McCain.
Steven Shaviro has a rather different take on this. In More Electoral Ruminations, he contrasts Democrat hypocrisy with Republican cynicism, and avers that "It is not stupid to vote for McCain/Palin; rather, it is evil. Republicans are intrinsically, and necessarily, morally depraved."
Some of Shaviro's readers were shocked by this abrupt jump from the political discourse to the moral/ethical, so he tried to justify his position with a Note on Evil, claiming that Obama is the true follower of Kant, and resurfacing his argument (originally posted in 2004 - Nothing) that Kant's concept of radical evil applied exclusively to the Republicans.
For a much more coherent and compelling argument about the relationship between hypocrisy and cynicism, see David Runciman's new book on Political Hypocrisy. Runciman also finds for Obama, whom he compares with Lincoln, and quotes approvingly Obama's view that "It is only the politician who is able to speak his mind freely who knows when to compromise".
For a systems thinking view of the US election, see the POSIWID blog.
Showing posts with label sincerity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sincerity. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Tuesday, November 9, 2004
Medium and Message
As John points out here, messages from God can sometimes be unreliable. This is not a statement about God, but a statement about human weakness and error. Messages purporting to come from God may have an entirely different source (the Devil may intercept or impersonate) and are then subject to human misinterpretation.
We know that apparently sincere Christians can take opposite positions on a broad range of issues. Just look at Jimmy Carter and George W Bush. perhaps the two most sincere Christians in the White House in recent history. Whatever God is saying to these two men, it apparently provides equal support for both a strong conservative position and a strong liberal position.
Unlike John, I don't question or mock Dubya's sincerity in his faith. Of course it would be foolish to underestimate the political strength of his religious position. But we should not think that he has manipulated religious opinion by a false show of faith. Instead, we should regard it as a feature of the American system that a committed born-again Christian such as Dubya is the one who emerges triumphant from the electoral process. POSIWID: the American system is designed to produce people like Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.
There is a saying: The Voice of the People is the Voice of God. (Vox Populi, Vox Dei). The American people have spoken, and there is (like it or lump it) a strongly conservative message from just enough people to elect a Republican president and congress.
The trust equation is clearly important. But the Republican voters don't trust Bush just because he is getting messages from God. They trust him because they think they know WHAT messages he is getting from God, and HOW he will interpret these messages. And they trust God to stay focused and "on-message" - in other words, keep sending the right messages to Bush. For example, they don't expect God to waste His time talking to Bush about protecting the environment, when there are more important things to discuss.
Perhaps the ultimate American slogan is the one linking God and Trust. At first sight, reliance on God appears to take the form of hierarchical trust: there is a single central authority, from which everything flows. But the American founding fathers based their religion and their politics on a much more radical principle: individual conscience, which is a form of authentic trust.
As a European, I am not directly affected by American social policy. It is really none of my business whether or not the American people choose to have gay marriage or abortion or even stem cells and handguns. The policies that worry me and affect me are those relating to international relations, and those relating to the environment. And as far as I can tell, these policies are not coming from God or from the so-called moral majority but from a small and focused political and corporate network. The Buck Stops Here.
We know that apparently sincere Christians can take opposite positions on a broad range of issues. Just look at Jimmy Carter and George W Bush. perhaps the two most sincere Christians in the White House in recent history. Whatever God is saying to these two men, it apparently provides equal support for both a strong conservative position and a strong liberal position.
Unlike John, I don't question or mock Dubya's sincerity in his faith. Of course it would be foolish to underestimate the political strength of his religious position. But we should not think that he has manipulated religious opinion by a false show of faith. Instead, we should regard it as a feature of the American system that a committed born-again Christian such as Dubya is the one who emerges triumphant from the electoral process. POSIWID: the American system is designed to produce people like Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.
There is a saying: The Voice of the People is the Voice of God. (Vox Populi, Vox Dei). The American people have spoken, and there is (like it or lump it) a strongly conservative message from just enough people to elect a Republican president and congress.
The trust equation is clearly important. But the Republican voters don't trust Bush just because he is getting messages from God. They trust him because they think they know WHAT messages he is getting from God, and HOW he will interpret these messages. And they trust God to stay focused and "on-message" - in other words, keep sending the right messages to Bush. For example, they don't expect God to waste His time talking to Bush about protecting the environment, when there are more important things to discuss.
Perhaps the ultimate American slogan is the one linking God and Trust. At first sight, reliance on God appears to take the form of hierarchical trust: there is a single central authority, from which everything flows. But the American founding fathers based their religion and their politics on a much more radical principle: individual conscience, which is a form of authentic trust.
As a European, I am not directly affected by American social policy. It is really none of my business whether or not the American people choose to have gay marriage or abortion or even stem cells and handguns. The policies that worry me and affect me are those relating to international relations, and those relating to the environment. And as far as I can tell, these policies are not coming from God or from the so-called moral majority but from a small and focused political and corporate network. The Buck Stops Here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)