One part of this vision is equality. Equality is a founding principle of this country, but it has several different meanings. This distinction is nowhere more important, philosophically, than in the splitting of modern "liberalism," which favors equality of outcome and equality between groups, and liberalism classically conceived, which favors equality of individuals before the law. These separate conceptions--which both sides conceive of as being obvious--have never been on more open display than in the recent bans on racial preferences/affirmative action passed in California and Michigan. Obama is a standard-issue modern liberal on this issue, mostly emphasizing differences between rich and poor. In order to serve this conception of equality, the loser is to be liberty; more income will be confiscated in order to redistribute it to others.
A second characteristic of Obama's vision is that it is a moral vision of politics. In this vision, Americans will treat their bodies better, other people better, their environment better, their neighbors better. In terms of health, this will mean, inevitably, state attacks on activities that harm people's health, mostly unpopular things like smoking and overeating. (Not drinking or marijuana, though, as two examples, mostly for political reasons.) It will mean mandates against activities perceived as "harming" the environment--whatever that means at the time. It will mean treating the world as though all national leaders, however they came to power and whatever their policies are, have concerns that are as legitimate as our own, even--and especially--when they don't. Finally, helping other people is the sort of morality that most Americans can line up behind. However, the question of whether that is a proper job for the government is a legitimate question--though it won't be treated that way. And Obama's vision is for an increased governmental role in charity. In all these cases, the loser--again--is liberty.
This brings us to the most frightening part, to me, of Obama's vision, which is unity. Unity, again, is nice, but what kind of unity is it? There is partisan unity, and there is bipartisan unity. Bipartisan unity is when members of the two major philosophical persuasions can agree on something; partisan unity is when members of one philosophical persuasion all agree on something. Obama's, clearly, is not a bipartisan unity. And why not? His moral vision cannot be disagreed with, at the risk of sounding unsympathetic to those who are less fortunate. And this is the danger: that those who belong to one of the dominant philosophical traditions will actually be ostracized in the name of unity. In fact, this is just what is happening whenever Obama shoots back at McCain for criticizing him. That is a perilous road.
Here, again, the loser is freedom of thought and debate--if not in code, at least in the social realm. This is the defining characteristic of Barack Obama's vision: we have certain moral values, and these will be emphasized at the expense of freedom. In the light of the last hundred years of history, this should be absolutely terrifying.
Posts
