NYT on Obama’s Pragmatism

This is a bit old, but The New York Times had a recent piece on Obama’s “pragmatism.”

Here are some of the references:

In some of his earliest skirmishes, Mr. Obama eventually chose pragmatism over fisticuffs.

….And Thursday, Mr. Obama suggested that he would not fight in Congress to renew an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. It was the latest example of the pragmatic approach he adopted after winning the presidency by promising to challenge entrenched interests and put the public good ahead of political expedience.

….Pragmatism, they add, is an Obama hallmark, and among the changes he promised — and has delivered — is a break from his predecessor’s often uncompromising style.

Posner’s New Book and Free Markets

In light of our discussion a few weeks ago on Posner and libertarianism, this review of A Failure of Capitalism is illuminating. 

As the author, Marcus Baram, points out, Posner seems to have changed his tune significantly over the last few months, recognizing a larger role for government intervention in markets.  In other words, Posner seems to be softening his libertarianism.

Obama and Latin America

From Jim Johnson’s (Notes on) Politics, Theory and Photography blog, this post entitled “The Summit Challenges Obama’s Pragmatism.”

Johnson points out that pragmatism isn’t just about predicting the future but about learning lessons from the past.

Johnson starts out by discussing this book, given to Obama by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

“Colonialism was essentially a good idea for Africa, it was a shame that we got rid of it, and the continent would have been better off under foreign rule.”

–Posted by Tom Cookson

Would European colonialism be good for Africa?

Watch this short video clip and decide for yourself: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/18424?in=16:57&out=20:04

Peter Singer (a very famous Australian philosopher at Princeton who you’ve probably heard of) and Tyler Cowen (a slightly famous American Economics Professor at George Mason University who you probably haven’t heard of) match wits on the subject.  If you’re bored, click through the entire interview, they’re at each others throats throughout and they talk about some really big, interesting ideas regarding world poverty and the implications of accepting a Utilitarian system of ethics (for the philosophy people).

I’m not sure what I think about this myself, even though I’ve done a lot stuff about Singer and frequently cite his opinions in arguments, Cowen makes some really good points.

-Tom Cookson

Money, Status, Sex and Happiness

–Posted by Tom Cookson

Anyone who needs a primer on the psychology of happiness should check out this video clip:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7422?&in=01:08:08&out=01:25:07

This is a discussion between liberal Mark Kleiman (UCLA’s expert professor on Drugs and Public Policy) on the left and Libertarian Megan McArdle (journalist for The Atlantic Monthly and economics expert) on the right, about what makes people really happy in a society.

If you listen carefully, you’ll notice that this is actually a clear, beautifully articulated version a pathetic incoherent rant I went out on a few weeks ago in class — even with the same exact examples I gave (the burned MIT professor; Fox’s “The Swan”), but this time they are sourced. I saw this when it was first published in 2007, and it really got me thinking, and I thought I had the exchange mostly memorized until discovered I was unable reproduce it in class.

Anyway, what does happiness have to do with Obama? Politics and economics is all about maximizing the happiness of a population–not just giving them what they want. Pragmatism has a lot to do with maximizing your own well being–or finding happiness–so knowing about it is important.

-Tom Cookson

Obama’s Pragmatism in Practise

Posted by Anna Raugalis

Here’s an interesting article I found on the NYT website about Obama’s calm attitude in the White House. At the beginning of the quarter we talked a little about the Pragmatic Mood and this article talks a little bit about how Obama fits into this.

Despite Major Plans, Obama Taking Softer Stands

-Anna Raugalis

Barack Obama @ Google

Posted by Peter Erickson

Illinois Senator and 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama visits Google’s Mountain View, CA, headquarters to deliver his innovation agenda, speak with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and take questions from Google employees. This event took place on November 14, 2007, as part of the Candidates@Google series.

Bob on Barack

Posted by Anna Raugalis

Here’s a pretty interesting interview with Bob Dylan where he talks about Obama’s Dreams From My Father. Dylan brings up previous Presidents autobiographies, something we haven’t really talked about in class but something I think we could consider.

Bob Dylan on Barack Obama

-Anna Raugalis

Obama’s Inaugural Address

Posted by Peter Erickson

I just wanted to link everyone to the video and transcript of Obama’s Inaugural Address:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/

Specifically relating to what Dewey suggested about living our day-to-day lives democratically, Obama claims, “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”  He sees that the values involved in both the means and the ends are important, and elaborates that, “Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake.”

Also, I wanted to comment quickly on his opponents’ counter-argument to this claim; specifically, that Bill O’Reilly said shortly thereafter, “I didn’t like the line about ‘we don’t need to compromise our values to protect ourselves.’ I think sometimes we do.”  It shows the divide between liberal pragmatism that Obama represents and the absolutist, ends-justify-means conservative agenda of the Bush Administration.  Not to make humor of the point, but I think Jon Stewart summed it up nicely: “If you don’t stick to your values when tested, they’re not values! They’re hobbies.”  I think John Dewey would agree fervently with this point.

A question…

Posted by Brandon Pace

I’m not sure if I can post questions and opinions here on the blog.. but I’m going to shoot one anyway.

I was reading the WhiteHouse.gov to see some answers from Obama to questions asked by Americans. I was looking for this question and answer for a long time:

SPEAKER: This next question — an area close to your heart — health care reform.  From Richard in California:  “Why can we not have a universal health care system, like many European countries, where people are treated based on needs rather than financial resources?”

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I was in this room last month in what we called a health care forum.  And we brought all the members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats who were interested in this issue; we brought together various constituency groups, insurance companies, drug companies, you name it.  And my message to them was:  Now is the time to reform the health care system — not four years from now, not eight years from now, not 20 years from now.  Now.

And the reason — (laughter) — the reason that I think it is so important is that the high costs of health care are a huge drag on our economy.  It’s a drag on our families.  I can’t tell you how many personal stories that I hear about people who are working, maybe have two parents working and yet still don’t have health care.  And the decisions that they have to make — excruciating decisions about whether or not somebody goes to a doctor — it makes them less productive, it makes them less mobile in terms of being able to take new jobs or start a new business because they’re worried about hanging on to their health care.  So it’s a drag on families.

But it’s a drag on businesses, as well.  There’s not a small business or large business out here who hasn’t seen their health care costs skyrocket, and it cuts into their profits.

And it’s a drag on the federal budget and the state budgets.  That’s the thing that is going to potentially break the bank here in the United States.  Medicare and Medicaid, if we don’t get control of that, that is the biggest driver of our long-term deficits.

So when people — when you hear this budget debate that’s taking place right now, and folks say, oh, you know, President Obama’s budget, he’s increasing money for veterans and he’s increasing money for education, and he’s doing all these things that — that’s going to bust the budget, what they don’t understand is, is that if you add up the recovery package that we’ve already passed and you add up the various proposals I have to grow the economy through clean energy and all that stuff that we’re doing, that amounts to a fraction of the long-term deficit and debt that we’re facing.  The lion’s share of it has to do with Medicare and Medicaid and the huge, rising cost of health care.  So our attitude is, better to pay now and make an investment in improving the health care system rather than waiting and finding ourselves in a situation where we can’t fix it.

Now, the question is, if you’re going to fix it, why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?  I actually want a universal health care system; that is our goal.  I think we should be able to provide health insurance to every American that they can afford and that provides them high quality.

So I think we can accomplish it.  Now, whether we do it exactly the way European countries do or Canada does is a different question, because there are a variety of ways to get to universal health care coverage.

A lot of people think that in order to get universal health care, it means that you have to have what’s called a single-payer system of some sort.  And so Canada is the classic example:  Basically, everybody pays a lot of taxes into the health care system, but if you’re a Canadian, you’re automatically covered.  And so you go in — England has a similar — a variation on this same type of system.  You go in and you just say, “I’m sick,” and somebody treats you, and that’s it.

The problem is, is that we have what’s called a legacy, a set of institutions that aren’t that easily transformed.  Let me just see a show of hands:  How many people here have health insurance through your employer?  Okay, so the majority of Americans, sort of — partly for historical accident.  I won’t go into — FDR had imposed wage controls during war time in World War II.  People were — companies were trying to figure out how to attract workers.  And they said, well, maybe we’ll provide health care as a benefit.

And so what evolved in America was an employer-based system.  It may not be the best system if we were designing it from scratch.  But that’s what everybody is accustomed to.  That’s what everybody is used to.  It works for a lot of Americans.  And so I don’t think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to and the vast majority of people already have.  Rather, what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps.

And I’m looking to Congress to work with me to find that optimal system.  I made some proposals during the campaign about how we can lower costs through information technologies; how we can lower costs through reforms in how we reimburse doctors so that they’re not getting paid just for the number of operations they’re doing, but for whether they’re quality outcomes; investing in prevention so that kids with asthma aren’t going to the emergency room, but they’re getting regular checkups.

So there are a whole host of things that we can do to cut costs, use that money that we’re saving then to provide more coverage to more people.  And my expectation is, is that I will have a health care bill to sign this year.  That’s what we’re going to be fighting for.  That’s what we’re going to be striving for.

I understand that Obama do want universal health care, but he said that he really don’t want to “transform” because Americans “are used to employer-based insurance.” I appreciate it that Obama is working hard on this issue, but… I feel that it’s not right. We need universal health care NOW.

I’m sorry if I am criticizing him, but I, as an American and a full-time college student, really do want universal health care. I am willing to pay high taxes similar to Canada and European countries because I’m so sick of seeing people suffering in many conditions and many ways–especially when the hospitals or insurance companies deny care to millions of Americans. This is very sick. VERY SICK. I personally do have insurance (Medicaid & Medicare) but it’s operated by the Commonwealth of Kentucky — and do you know what that means? I cannot receive any health care here in New York State. If I get very sick or need a surgery or whatever, I have to fly for 5 hours to get to Kentucky to seek immediate medical help. This is not right.

Remember, I’m willing to pay high taxes–so I don’t have to worry about my health care and be happy to see that everybody gets the care they need and deserve. I visited Canada twice (Niagara Falls and Toronto) and their taxes aren’t too bad as I thought–it’s really the same thing as if you are paying for your health insurance in America.

My question is–why did Obama decide to leave the system alone to be the “employer-based” system instead of transforming it to a brand-new system that guarantees all Americans the highest health care provided we deserve? Is it because the greedy insurance companies want to stay in America and make a lot of money by dening millions of people the health care they NEED? Or what?

I want to hear all of your opinions.

New York Times Reference to Dewey and Rorty

This is from a recent review by Charles Morris of Richard John Neuhaus’ American Babylon.  The link to the review is here.  It’s interesting for a few passing references to Dewey and Rorty.

The book apparently raises issues we discussed yesterday:  what is the connection between morality and politics?  Does morality have a place in public life?

Neuhaus starts with Dewey and even refers to American exceptionalism:

Violently compressed, Neuhaus’s argument proceeds as follows: Political entities come with a narrative and, usually, a sense of purpose. The original, religion-drenched narrative of America — the “New Israel” —was later secularized by people like Walt Whitman and John Dewey. But as Neuhaus notes, Dewey was “only one step away from the Protestant pulpit” and was very much in the tradition of “American exceptionalism.” America wasn’t just a geographic location but an entity with goals it was marching toward, and goals come infused with an ought.

In contrast, Richard Rorty takes a much more cynical (or realistic) approach toward morality:

The fulcrum of “American Babylon” is, in effect, a simulated debate between Neuhaus and the American philosopher Richard Rorty (who died in 2007). Rorty argues precisely that we do just make up morality, and that there is no way to privilege one citizen’s first principles over any others….

Richard Rorty

Rorty holds that, as with Oakland, Calif., there is no there “out there.” The smartest people are therefore “ironists.” The ironist believes that we know nothing except our own vocabularies, that “nothing has an intrinsic nature, a real essence,” that concepts like “just” and “rational” are simply “the language games of one’s time.” An ironist may worry “that she has been . . . taught the wrong language game,” but “she cannot give a criterion of wrongness”….

Rorty concedes practical problems with his position. No society would want to bring up its children so as “to make them continually dubious” about their upbringing. So he suggests that ironists consciously separate their public and private vocabularies. Neuhaus is hugely skeptical, for elite values have a way of colonizing the rest of society. “Contemporaries beyond numbering,” he writes, “most of whom have never heard of Richard Rorty, are living their lives in the mode of the . . . ironism he depicted with such rare and chilling candor.”

That’s a good example of why people have a problem with Rorty, and why Dewey and Rorty continue to be important figures for understanding American thought.

Richard Posner

We’ll be reading Richard Posner on Tuesday, so a few words are in order.

Posner is known as a legal pragmatist; he’s also known for combining law and economics.  As  I mentioned in class, he has a reputation for cutting across standard political distinctions.  His wikipedia entry is here.

It’s important that he isn’t just a legal scholar but a real, honest-to-goodness judge, serving on the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Like the early pragmatists, he combines his theorizing with first hand knowledge of what he’s talking about.

He’s also a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School (his home page is here) where Obama also taught.

And, finally, he somehow finds time to contribute to a blog that he shares with Gary Becker, the Nobel prize winning economist.

Posner is important for a couple of reasons:  first, he anchors what is probably the more conservative end of pragmatic philosophy; second, he has probably had the most real effect of any living pragmatist.

George Packer on Obama

As I mentioned in class today, George Packer has a comment on “Obamaism” in the most recent New Yorker.

Referring to critical readings of Obama coming from, among others, Paul Krugman, Packer writes:

In this reading, Obama lacks the courage of his activist impulses, and his hesitations will play right into the hands of his enemies. The usual reply to such criticism is that Obama is basically a pragmatist, who will do what he thinks can work. But pragmatism is a description of a temperament, not an explanation of a world view.

Packer’s right, of course, to mention “temperament”:  that term bulks large in James’ Pragmatism. But he’s wrong, I think, to say that pragmatism is only a temperament.  After all, the history of pragmatism from James on shows that it is also a world view and, even more than that, a rather coherent philosophy.  One need look no farther than the writings of Richard Posner to see that pragmatism is a lot more than a “temperament” (whatever one thinks of Posner’s views on legal reasoning.

Still, the entire essay is worth reading, especially when Packer also reminds us of what conservatism once stood for.

Obama’s Race Speech

Here is a captioned video of Obama’s “Race Speech” in four parts.