As our token idealist, I would like to draw your attention to a nice editorial in Saturday’s New York Times by Susan Neiman. She talks about a very old and heavily discussed trans-Atlantic divide. She describes old Europe’s world-weariness and how it has caused resistance to Obama’s superstar, savior image. Europeans are uncomfortable with Obama’s apparent blind optimism.
Midway through the piece Neiman makes a distinction between optimism and idealism. She defines the distinction at the end: optimists refuse to acknowledge reality; idealists remind us that it isn’t fixed. Neiman argues that Obama’s speech was not mere optimism but instead, “he was using the past to remind us all that we need not resign ourselves to the way things are now.” What makes America great, according to Obama, is our loyalty is less tied to the tribes of our birth. Instead, it is tied to a particular idea: we are not bound to our allotted station in the natural ordering. We are the true authors of our own lives.
At the end of the piece Neiman hopes that Europeans will see the difference between optimism and the American idealism Obama has come to embody. This idealism reminded me of the idealism of two great Europeans of the past. In his review of Democracy in America John Stuart Mill writes,
By Democracy, M. de Tocqueville does not, in general, mean any particular form of government. He can conceive a Democracy under an absolute monarch…. By democracy M. de Tocqueville understands equality of conditions, the absence of all aristocracy, whether constituted by political privileges, or by superiority in individual importance and social power. It is towards Democracy in this sense, towards equality between man and man, that he conceives society to be irresistibly traveling.
I also read Susan Neiman’s article and I agreed wholeheartedly. Idealism vs. optimism is a nice distinction and I too would consider myself an idealist in that sense.
However I assume you’re responding to my “If Barack Obama were President…” post? If so, I think it’s very important to distinguish between criticizing Barack Obama and criticizing his supporters.
Criticizing Obama himself was not my intent although I did point out and will point out again that I strongly disagree with several of his positions. But Obama’s hope for cooperation between Americans and Europeans, for a peaceful solution to the Iraq war, etc. is exactly what I want in a president. If he doesn’t hope (and work) for better results, you’re right, things will stay the way they are, which isn’t very good.
That said, my primary objective was to criticize those who believe Obama will be some sort of savior and support him for that reason. In my view they expect too much and unfairly credit Obama with certain skills that I’m not sure he has. In our process of evaluating the two candidates it’s important to strip away the media constructions (McCain’s a maverick, Obama’s our savior) and try to understand the reality of the candidate (McCain’s a party-line Republican on most issues, Obama isn’t close to perfect).
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hope for more or hold either candidate to a higher standard. On the contrary, we should criticize those Obama supporters who are already satisfied by what he’s offering. I’m not satisfied – I’m not convinced he can deliver on his lofty promises – and so I’m critical of others who have bought in so easily.
i always thought optimism was finding the silver lining in an acknowledged reality, but thats a differnet discussion. definitions aside, the argument is interesting, and something i agree with.
avschwarm – I like this distinction, and your piece here.
I think the notion of an “American Idealism” is really moving, and more important than it might first appear: cynicism is often attractive, but it really doesn’t add as much value at the end of the day as it might seem (though I would argue that it’s an important disciplining process, which I’ll discuss a bit more some other time); idealism, on the other hand, even if it doesn’t lead to success often, still adds a lot of value in expectation.
Jaf2106 – I agree with your points. Re. Obama, I think that his idealism could ultimately result in disappointment if people don’t recognize that there is work and sacrifice involved in achieving the vision he articulates for America. He’s not a savior or a silver bullet; but there is some hope that he’ll be the sort of leader that will induce value changes, either directly or through the campaign process, that will get us to affirmatively support the sorts of policies his vision implies. I think the risk is that his supporters won’t recognize that there are often tradeoffs, especially in the short-term (and often somewhat persistent), to achieving those goals. I don’t know how to bound that risk, though.