The Visionary Minimalist?

Over at TNR, Cass Sunstein has a very good article about Obama. I say very good because it helps prove a point I have been making to my pro-Obama friends that Obama is actually pretty conservative. Sunstein’s general argument is that Obama is a minimalist when it comes to thinking about constitutional issues, or really issues of fundamental importance to us all. Minimalists “gravitate toward the least controversial grounds” for deciding cases and reject “sweeping theories about equality and the Constitution's commander-in-chief clause.” Whatever the merits or demerits this attitude has as a theory of how to be a Supreme Court Justice, when translated into the attitudes of a political leader, it’s a recipe for middle-of-the-road pragmatism that is the opposite of real change. I think phrases like the following are perfect examples:

“Like all minimalists, Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning, and accommodation--a belief directly reflected in many of his policies.”

This is a true statement only if real change means not very much change at all. What Obama does is piggyback on the word change’s radical connotation, while giving it a conservative denotation. It sounds good, but it’s really just a middle path. What Sunstein writes on Obama’s economics is another good example of this Janus-faced change. Sunstein likes that Obama thinks Dems need to think about the problems minimum wage poses to employers, while also likes that Obama prefers the Earned Income Tax Credit. But the EITC is far less useful, and more bureaucratically complex, than the minimum wage. It is also as tokenistic as anti-poverty efforts get.

“Obama's promise of change is credible in part because of his brand of minimalism.”

This makes no sense. If your first step is to reject big transformative ideas, the idea of conflict in politics, and taking a side; in other words, if what makes you a minimalist is first affirming the fundamental soundness of the status quo; then what kind of change is really possible within those boundaries? This is barely even reformism.

The only merit to Obama is a kind of rejection of the culture wars, which is really there across the board in the Dems. But really, what’s most interesting about him is that he manages to make it all about change and personality, when his politics is fundamentally managerial and technocratic. After all, if there are no real, substantive divides, and the point is to get beyond empty partisan battles to a politics of consensus, what is politics about? It becomes about intelligently administering those programs everybody ostensibly agrees about. Obama’s role is just to get everybody on board with these programs, whatever they may be, and cast anyone who objects as an uncooperative radical, hard-headed fundamentalist, out of step with the common sense. Who wants that kind of change?

It’s a very good article, actually, because it shows just how conservative Obama is. I think phrases like this are perfect examples:

“Like all minimalists, Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning, and accommodation--a belief directly reflected in many of his policies.”

This is a true statement only if real change means not very much change at all. Obama is doing to the word change what advertising does to the word revolution. Ride on the back of his radical connotation, while giving it a conservative denotation. The stuff on Obama’s economics is another good example. The EITC is a canard, the minimum wage actually useful to labor.

“Obama's promise of change is credible in part because of his brand of minimalism.”

Of course, this makes no sense. If your first step is to reject big transformative ideas, the idea of conflict in politics, and taking a side; in other words, if what makes you a minimalist is first affirming the fundamental soundness of the status quo; then what kind of change is really possible within those boundaries? This is barely even reformism.

The only merit to Obama is a kind of rejection of the culture wars, which is really there across the board in the Dems. But really, what’s most interesting about him is that he manages to make it all about change and personality, when his politics is fundamentally managerial and technocratic. After all, if there are no real, substantive divides, and the point is to get beyond empty partisan battles to a politics of consensus, what is politics about? Intelligently administering those programs everybody ostensibly agrees about. Obama’s role is just to get everybody on board with these programs, whatever they may be, and cast anyone who objects as an uncooperative radical, hard-headed fundamentalist, out of step with the common sense. Who the hell wants that?