A Communitarian in the White House?
If the current lineup holds, the Democrats will be represented in the forthcoming national elections by a communitarian. Hillary’s communitarian leanings have been long known. They are especially well spelled out in her book It Takes A Village. She also delivered the keynote address at the 1996 meeting of the Communitarian Network, met frequently with communitarian thinkers, especially William Galston, and read Michael Sandel (and even yours truly).
Barack Obama showed great familiarity with communitarian ideas and thinkers during a meeting at the home of Susan Ness and Larry Schneider in Bethesda, MD. However, given that this was a private meeting, I consider it inapposite to quote what he said. But one is of course free to quote his book The Audacity of Hope, which lays out his communitarian leanings in clear and strong terms:
If we Americans are individualistic at heart, if we instinctively chafe against a past of tribal allegiances, traditions, customs, and cases, it would be a mistake to assume that this is all we are. Our individualism has always been bound by a set of communal values, the glue upon which every healthy society depends. We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies. We value community, the neighborliness that expresses itself through raising the bar or coaching the soccer team. We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation. We value a faith in something bigger than ourselves, whether that something expresses itself in formal religion or ethical precepts. And we value the constellation of behaviors that express our mutual regard for another: honesty, fairness, humility, kindness, courtesy, and compassion.
He added:
In every society (and in every individual), these twin strands- the individualistic and the communal, autonomy and solidarity- are in tension, and it has been one of the blessings of America that the circumstances of our nation’s birth allowed us to negotiate these tensions better than most. A communitarian perspective recognizes that the preservation of individual liberty depends on the active maintenance of the institutions of civil society where citizens learn respect for others as well as self-respect; where we acquire a lively sense of our personal and civic responsibilities, along with an appreciation of our own rights and the rights of others; where we develop the skills of self-government as well as the habit of governing ourselves, and learn to serve others-- not just self.
David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, who is more conversant with communitarian ideas than any other columnist, recently declared Obama the communitarian candidate, in sharp contrast to Republican John McCain. Brooks’ notes are of special import, as his niche in the New York Times is as the defender of conservative causes and ideas. Brooks writes:
Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and the webs of influence. These sorts of links are invisible to some of his rivals, but Obama is a communitarian. He believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you’ll get a nation standing up. The key word in any Obama speech is “you.” Other politicians talk about what they will do if elected. Obama talks about what you can do if you join together. Like a community organizer on a national scale, he is trying to move people beyond their cynicism, make them believe in themselves, mobilize their common energies.
Brooks contrasts Obama with McCain, noting that “while Obama seeks solidarity with groups, McCain resists conformity. He fights fiercely, though not always successfully, against political pressures in order to remain honest, brave and forthright.” In short, McCain is an individualist.
The elections are a year away. There are going to be many twists and turns, but in the end the American people will choose a communitarian—unless a third party candidate siphons off many Democratic votes, the Supreme Court denies voting rights to many who are poor, less educated, and from a minority background (and hence have no government issued photo ID), Americans are swayed by the thousands of troops coming hope from Iraq (as Bush draws down the surge), the economy picks up and global climate cools down. That is, communitarians should not uncork the champagne quite yet, but they can safely put a bottle or two into the fridge. At least many more people will learn a lot more about communitarian ideas—what more can we ask for…?
Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at George Washington University and the author of From Empire to Community and The New Golden Rule.













Uh, David Brooks is the one most conversant in communitarian ideas? And that doesn't give you pause, professor.
I guess communitarianism has always been dangerously close to authoritarianism. Remember, it's Etzioni who posted here about having national identification card requirements (and he dismissed civil liberties objections to that) and he's also the guy who posted here in favor of good samaritan laws where people could be punished for not rendering aid to others.
I've always been disturbed by Etzioni's willingness to go beyond saying what he'd like to see and to instead say that people should think, feel and behave in a certain way. This has also frequently disturbed me about Obama. I just hate it when a public intellectual or president tries to go about the business of healing my soul. No thank you. Leave my soul alone and get to work on a healthcare plan and bringing our troops our of Iraq.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Clinton nor Obama is advocating community at the expense of individual liberty, at least the version codified in our laws. Both are in fact advocating restoring some balance, bringing back the needed proportion of community interest that has been denigrated, denied, destroyed by conservative "I've got mine" policies.
Yes, let's have a bit more acknowledgement of community.
January 14, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear. We will ultimately have two choices in November. Either continue the conservative policies of deregulation, privatization and every-man-for-himself; or admit that we are all in this together and start restoring the public sphere. Perhaps it is a good omen that even an ad campaign for pickup trucks has a John Melencamp soundtrack.
January 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 14, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"McCain resists conformity," except when he reverses position to support the Christian right or Bush. Well, I'm glad that Etzioni for once is supporting a relatively liberal position, community instead of war. But even so, does he have to do it except from the standpoint of right-wing commentators and getting right-wing politicians elected? Why is this person respected?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 14, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
I'm something of a communitarian myself, but I can understand people's reactions against it. Often, it seems to them (and perhaps accurately) that it amounts to government that has been captured by certain busybodies sticking its nose in where it's not wanted. "It takes a village," for example, is abhorred by many because it sounds like government interjecting itself between parents and their children.
.
Real community would be mostly a person-to-person thing, with some ultimate expression, perhaps and only in a secondary role, through government. It also would cultivate virtues, things like reverence for life, humility before God, respect for the sanctity of marriage (things that promote and advance Western civilization and much beloved--at least so they say--by conservatives) at the expense of identity politics, multi-culturalism and an overweening, precious sense of self worth and the highly cultivated sense of endless victimization beloved by liberals.
.
On the other hand, community would mean mastering, taming and putting in its proper place the market so that it serves everyone's interest, not just those of the capitalist. You'd see things like corporate boards in which only workers and communities are represented and limits on the ratio of highest- and lowest-compensated citizens (Aristotle liked 5-to-1, which seems about right). Thus, for instance, globalization in any form would vanish. So communitarianism would gore a lot of right-wing sacred oxen as well.
.
In short, communitarianism would go well beyond the notion that each individual is endowed with the right to an individual pursuit of happiness in some kind of societal vacuum enforced only by the police. It's not just yet another label for the sadly familiar palliative politics of our watered-down Democratic Party.
.
Communitarianism, I think, is radical, radical stuff. It cuts off at the knees American liberal and conservative politics. As such, it's not something that a politician of any stripe--including Chicago machine pol Barack Obama--is capable of articulating in a remotely meaningful or honest way.
January 15, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink