Barack Obama purely a theoretic politician

“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized [pure democracy], have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.” — James Madison, The Federalist No. 10.

Americans have been puzzling over the remarkable presidential candidacy of Barack Obama long before it got bogged down in controversy over the incendiary remarks by his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago. But both Obama’s campaign and his pastor’s opinions also raise questions about the kind of country these men think they live in, or want to live in.

The United States of America is a democratic republic, a government by the people under a written constitution. But from its very beginnings there have been those who have wished to radicalize its fundamental principles of equality and liberty, and Obama and Wright are only the latest in a long line of adherents to this long-standing dissent from the limitations of the Constitution.

Even though America is based on universal principles of right and justice, its founders never supposed that it made sense to ignore the obvious natural differences between people — of talent, disposition, determination, not to mention opinion and passion — in the pursuit of utopia. They rejected mere “ideals” in favor of practical institutional arrangements that offered political and economic incentives for fulfilling our duties as citizens and public officials.

No sensible persons consent to work or make business decisions for nothing unless they don’t need the money, and no one seeks public office without the recognition and even fame that public office (and especially the highest office) confers. Altruism is admirable and welcome as long as no one is compelled to it, or made to feel guilty because compensation is sought.

Sen. Obama has from the beginning of his drive for our nation’s highest office made the claim that he can bring us together, apparently like no one else could, past or present, in spite of the fact of that he has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. He has no history of crossing the partisan divide and is not now showing any such tendency in the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”

In other words, what Obama offers is purely theoretical, in the sense that he can bring us together even though he has not demonstrated any such capacity, and more to the point, in the face of the obvious fact that Americans disagree about who should lead us and what policies they should institute. As the quotation from James Madison makes clear, people have differing passions, as well as differing opinions.

Many are moved by Obama’s admittedly powerful rhetoric, albeit a little less sure and compelling after the effects of the Wright affair took their toll. But that rhetoric is more effective with those who think and feel like Obama who, in spite of the abstract, if not vapid, character of his speech (”change,” “make a difference,” “yes, we can”), understand or “relate to” his code. Obama’s policies all go in a liberal direction, whether in foreign affairs and defense, health care, taxes and spending, or abortion.

As abrasive and earthy as Rev. Wright’s judgments are about his country and its citizens, who form “the U.S. of KKK” or consent to a government that would deliberately infect black people with HIV/AIDS or commit such acts of terrorism abroad that “the chickens [came] home to roost” in the (one might say) counter terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 in New York City and Washington, D.C., he too is a theoretic politician.

After the nation was treated to a sampling of supposedly “out of context” remarks from his sermons and speeches in recent years, Wright counterattacked with speeches to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Press Club (and a softball interview with Bill Moyers of PBS). But while the comments were no longer “out of context,” they didn’t come off as being any less reprehensible.
Despite his strident, nay, mocking tone, Wright acknowledged the support of white people numerous times over the course of American history, and included a plea for reconciliation between the races. Like Obama, However, Wright’s hopes for a better world are purely theoretical. One does not end historic racial discrimination or long-standing hostility and misunderstanding by fanning the fires of racism, anti-Americanism and conspiracy mongering.

The U.S. Constitution has always provided the framework for striving toward what Abraham Lincoln, in citing the Declaration of Independence’s bold affirmation of equality, liberty and government by consent, called a “standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all — constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere.”

The object of democratic politics in America is not to bring everyone together but to enable majorities, through their chosen leaders, to make the best public policy possible. In theory, everyone would think and feel the same way. In practice, we differ, and the only fair method for determining the nation’s directions is by the consent of the greatest number. Specious appeals to unity or for reconciliation don’t cut it.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause”  (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.