The Need for Progressive Realism

Yes, Obama was moderate, a nd s till t he l ofty sounding rhetoric made us feel that change really was possible. Hope was in the air. With time, we didn't so much argue about the policies of his administration, many of which seemed fair and forward-looking. Rather, we took issue with the unwillingness to fight, the folding of the hand before the cards were played, the untoward interest in compromise with those who sought his political demise, and the combination of heady discourse with reliance on advisers peddling conventional economic wisdom geared toward the rich.

Often, one side argued that the pressures and powers must be so rough—particularly the pressure to compromise with the demands of corporate capitalism and other entrenched interests—that the best one can do is what Obama was doing: articulate and appeal to the ideals that make us feel good about our moral selves yet minimize the deep structural economic divisions that shape American politics and American society. The other side took the position that the hesitancy, the frequent unwillingness to fight, was mostly a result of Obama's temperament and character, and probably also life experiences, rather than the pervasive power and influence of private interests. In other words, our discussions often turn on the question of whether Obama would do more if he could, or whether Obama's eagerness to compromise leads him away from a coherent analysis of the realities of American society, and thus blinds him to what could and really needs to be done.

In his article for Tikkun and at more length in his book The Obama Question, Gary Dorrien characterizes Obama as a "communitarian, mostly of a progressive-leaning type"— that is, one who sees American domestic life from a worldview focused on the common good and thus seeks commonalities, compromise, measured deliberation on common goals, and shared solutions in spite of real differences, even in a polarized political and economic climate. Here, Dorrien brings an important new explanatory element into this ongoing argument. Obama acts as he does because he sees the domestic world as he does, and he seeks to create common space for moral and political discourse. Even while Dorrien appreciates elements of Obama's worldview, he sees its limitations, insisting that the "big issues that loom ahead will have to be fought over" and that "the party of the common good must struggle with conviction for a just society."

Obama, shown here shaking hands with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), has approached his presidency with an orientation toward compromise. "Conciliation was not merely his default mode," Gary Dorrien writes. "It was his chief operating mode."

Dorrien's characterization of Obama's domestic vision as one often focused on the search for an illusive common good helps shed light on another question about Obama: why his domestic approach seems so different from his international approach. Internationally his thought is characterized by a clear and often nuanced understanding of the changing role and place of the United States in the international arena. This shift in American self-perception, which begins to view the United States as one international actor among many with both competing and complementary interests, has been generally well received internationally and has been greeted with relief by many inside the United States. At the same time, Obama's actions internationally are often characterized by decisiveness and even aggressiveness in what he views as serving American interests (whether one agrees with him or not is another question).

This too, Dorrien's analysis suggests, can be understood at least partially as a matter of worldview: internationally, Obama is very much a political realist (with a fondness for American exceptionalism). Dorrien observes that in Obama's thought, "as in Niebuhr's, liberal internationalism and realism fold together since working together is what actually works to secure American interests."

Given the multitude and depth of the challenges this country faces today, and the political and economic polarization in the United States today, the worldview best suited for clear-eyed leadership seems to be that of...