- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Michael Lind's analysis of Obama's "timid liberalism" is strikingly redolent of ideology about what liberalism should be, and sadly misses the boat when it comes to Obama's dedication to liberal objectives. The problem is that this ideology is hardly applicable to the times; it is no longer 1935 and we are not dealing with the problems of 1935. It's not 1965 either, and we're not trying to put a man on the moon.
We are no longer in the age of monolithic problems with singular monolithic solutions. Our government & society is hardly equipped to handle all the complexities of modern education, global warming, or modern health care.
Maybe Obama is a timid liberal, as defined a generation ago. But he's an audacious, awe-inspiring progressive. He certainly believes in the public sector, in that his focus is on what benefits the public sector. But his key emphasis is on WHAT WORKS, not how it's done. He has consistently approaches issues with a moral imperative that matches most of our dreams of a more progressive society, but has also thought long and hard about what he needs to do to achieve them. I see this in Obama, and this is why I think he holds so much promise for bettering our society.
The idea that we should try to solve the problems according to the presumption that "government management = good" without regard to what works to be irresponsible, baffling, and dangerous. We "liberals" should be mindful of making this distinction between liberal goals & aspirations, and the ways in which we make those things happen.
I think George Lakoff (republished on fivethirtyeight.com) hit the nail on the head when he tried to identify the traits of Obama that make him so appealing to those of us who seek a better, more just society.
