America is broken. Even if we pull through the current economic crisis, recovery won’t last absent an overhaul of our primary institutions.
• One out of ten Americans is now unemployed and the recovery is expected to be jobless.
• Fifty million Americans have no health insurance; two million, no home.
• Two million Americans are in jail.
• Our public schools have fallen behind those of most developed nations.
• Higher education is priced out of reach of the middle class.
• Our infrastructure is in an advanced state of disrepair.
• We rank first in greenhouse gas emissions.
• Immigration, once our pride, is now our shame.
• We’re living on credit and leaving the debt to our children.
The crisis is compounded by corruption of the democratic process. Politicians who owe their seats to private and corporate money are not easily persuaded to put the public interest over the special interests of their benefactors.
If our predicament were one in which there was an emergent consensus about the proper remedy, President Obama might be able to orchestrate an epochal makeover–as President Johnson did in the civil rights crisis. Most Americans knew then that African-Americans were victims of racism and that segregation was wrong. But today, reformers are themselves divided and many of the issues are of such complexity as to defy broad public comprehension.
Despite his formidable rhetorical gifts, President Obama has yet to tell us how to repair our broken institutions. But he may be doing something equally important. He may be showing us the way. America’s problems run deep, and solutions will have to be grounded in a new politics–the politics of dignity.
President Obama is a herald of the politics of dignity. He’s an instinctive dignitarian. Not libertarian, not egalitarian. Dignitarian. It matters not when and how he acquired his dignitarian manner, or that he may not conform to it one hundred percent of the time. What matters is that in his personal relations and political positions he sets an example of respecting human dignity, regardless of role or rank.
It was Obama’s inclusiveness that first brought him to national attention. As the keynote speaker of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, then Illinois State Senator Obama struck a dignitarian note. In asking us to see ourselves not as citizens of red states or blue states, but rather as citizens of the United States, Obama gave us a preview of a new politics of dignity that can extricate us from our current crises. The dignitarian politics that seems to come naturally to President Obama represents not a compromise, but a synthesis of libertarian and egalitarian politics, and in doing so provides an analysis that reconciles conservatism and liberalism.
Dignity for whom? you ask. Dignity for all. For blacks and whites, for men and women, for gays and straights, for young and old, for rich and poor, for immigrants and the native-born, for conservatives and progressives. Obama is also trying to engage friend and foe alike in a global dignitarian dialogue. Dignity for all.
What is the politics of dignity that President Obama exemplifies? It goes far beyond good manners, respect, and civility, though it includes these. Dignity is achieved by methodically eliminating indignities–interpersonal, institutional, societal, and international.
The American people know that indignities their nation has inflicted on the world have diminished America’s stature. And, they know that the daily humiliations that they and their fellow citizens are enduring are incompatible with lives of dignity and signify institutional failure.
How could Obama’s presidency address the indignities that manifest as unemployment, corporate corruption, failed schools, no health insurance, foreclosure, homelessness, recidivism, and the subversion of our democracy by moneyed special interests?
To combat indignity, we need to be clear about its cause. The cause of indignity is not power, nor is it power differences. It is rather the abuse of power. To oppose indignity, we do not have to eliminate differences in power, nor the differences in rank that merely reflect them. Persons of high rank who treat their subordinates with dignity are admired, if not loved.
Rank, in itself, is not the culprit. The problem is rank abuse, and it has grown to epidemic proportions. Abuses of rank have no place in a dignitarian world. Taking a page from the women’s movement, if we are to combat rank abuse effectively, we must give it a distinctive name, preferably one that puts perpetrators on the defensive. By analogy with racism, sexism, and ageism, abuse of the power inherent in rank is rankism. Once you have a name for it, you see it everywhere.
The outrage over bonuses for failed Wall Street executives is indignation over rankism. The power of lobbyists to override the democratic will of the people is rankism. The deregulation of the financial industry, which made a virtue of self-aggrandizement and facilitated predatory loans and Ponzi schemes, led to the financial ruin of millions and created the worst recession in four score years.
As racism denigrated and disadvantaged blacks, and sexism disenfranchised and restricted women, so rankism marginalizes and exploits the working poor, keeping them in their place while their low pay effectively subsidizes everyone else. As class membranes become less permeable, resignation, cynicism, and indignation mount.
An America in which the American Dream has become a mirage is not an America worthy of the name. The achievability of that dream is what made this country the envy of the world and made us, its citizens, proud. Making that dream good again is a challenge comparable to overcoming the second-class citizenship that has limited blacks, women, gays, and others. Building a dignitarian society is democracy’s next evolutionary step.
A dignitarian society will naturally conduct itself differently on the world stage. Nowhere is rankism more dangerous than in foreign relations. International terrorism has multiple, complex causes, but one factor over which we do have a say is rankism between nations. There is no fury like that borne of chronic humiliation. President Obama’s demeanor suggests that he understands that a vital part of a strong defense is not giving offense in the first place. His speeches abroad have begun to restore good will toward the United States, and while good will alone does not constitute a national defense, it surely beats the ill- will that we have garnered in recent years.
President Johnson, following his personal instincts, led his fellow countrymen through an about-face on segregation. Much as overcoming a legacy of racism is the work of several generations, so too is the task of building a dignitarian society. President Obama knows that solutions won’t arise out of politics as usual. His personification of dignitarian politics resonates not only with Americans but around the world. The next step is to turn from exemplifying the politics of dignity to enunciating its policy implications and molding them into a legislative agenda for a dignitarian America.



9 Comments




Oh noes! Not again!
I guess I go by actions rather than projection. Single payer advocates have been excluded, censored, and personally insulted by Obama.
Then, we can go on to DADT.
And after that, we can go on to Gitmo and torture. Lotta dignity there!
This concept was a crock when Paul Rosenberg excerpted it over at Open Left, and it’s the same crock over there.
Choosing to miss the point not once but twice makes me suspect that you take satisfaction in the put-down. Such one-upmanship is the opposite of the dignitarian style the I think Obama exemplifies, not always, to be sure, but more than most politicians. But the whole point of the piece is that style is not substance. Obama has not translated his, let’s call it his “instinct for interpersonal dignity” into policy. The objective of the piece is to get him to delve into dignitarian politics, grasp the underlying analysis, and then apply it to get America out of the very deep hole we’re in (the opening bullet points). By now you are probably wondering what I mean by “dignitarian politics.” Like libertarian or egalitarian politics that’s a longer story. I’ve written a couple of books about it.
Obama has to work with a very fractious Congress, whose members are subservient to those who pay for their campaigns. I think he’d opt for single-payer in a heartbeat if he thought he could get it through Congress. The public plan can be expanded into single payer and that’s why it is being opposed so strenuously. It is correctly seen as a Trojan Horse for single-payer.
You write as if Obama had unilateral power. On the other hand, he could simply go all out for single-payer, bet his presidency on it so to speak. If it worked, he’d be a hero to the left and eventually to the country. If it failed, he’d have no dry powder for some other very important struggles coming up. I think one can legitimately differ on which legislative strategy is better. I’m sure the alternatives are being fought over within his inner circle. But he is no czar, just an American president.
Robert, you’re the one who missed the points. lambert hit it with among other issues, torture and Gitmo, the heart of the unitary executive. Next time, I’d suggest you read a blog before selecting a “tone” with which to post. emptywheel and bmaz show where Obama’s administration stands on torture and the unitary executive. Neither is a “dignified” postion. Your
condescending lecturepost simply paints us as dfh’s that don’t know how to be “dignified.” Most here support Obama’s tough love for Detroit and his really outstanding Cairo speech. In addition to what lambert mentioned, his willingness to keep troops in the Middle East and bail out the banksters are both unacceptable and unsustainable. He’s setting himself up to get clobbered by the deficit hawks who want to raid Medicare and Social Security. When you ignore the larger issues you force me to ask, are you ignorant, or are you carrying water for the corpratists?A lot of us here haven’t lost all hope in Obama. IMHO, the tone of your post, especially, does nothing to improve his standing with us.
FYI, Dignity is the name of a GLBT group trying to live as practicing Roman Catholics.
One of the cornerstones of FDL is DADT and related GLBT issues. To post about “dignity,” here and not mention that, makes you appear like you are unfamiliar with this community.
Hey robertwfuller, have some props, a very interesting argument, and worthy of more respect from those who set themselves up as radical leaders.
If only Barack Obama and his closest advisors actually had the courage of your convictions, we would be in a much better place, and the fury of the “we must achieve adical solutions right now, by magical fiat and not by laying out the tremendous work involved” crowd would truly be undeserved.
As I’ve argued in these files, Obama should be the greatest salesman for DEEP REFORM — for which your “dignitarian” positions would have a lot to contribute — Obama should be the greatest salesman for deep reform IN HIS OWN BEST INTEREST, because as an economic historian the only way to a full recovery with jobs and productivity is through the deepest possible reforms in health care, energy, education and tax policy. Even apparently unrelated issues like campaign finance reform could contribute mightily to a healthier polity which would be conducive to our, our children’s and our grandchildren’s economic prosperity over the next four or five decades.
Unfortunately Obama has not yet absorbed your and my visions, and has surrounded himself with shirkers and elitists and centrist cowards, and thus the radical criticisms have a core of relevance.
Robert W. Fuller’s distinction between somebodies and nobodies is exactly what blogging is all about…
It’s the message of this particular medium.
Almost everybody who posts a reader’s blog on a site like “The Seminal” is a certifiable nobody, unknown outside an infinitesimal circle of similarly situated commenters and bloggers, and most of the blogs “published” here don’t even attract as many readers as an article in a high-school newspaper.
Blog-junkies like me may know that lambertstrether has developed a relatively comprehensive and coherent world-view in hundreds of essays, and the tutelary mythos of blogging suggests that at least a shadow of one of his best ideas might cross the magical threshold of political influence, but this never happens.
Most of us would be satisfied with a very small voice in the councils where life and death policies are constructed, and shouldn’t it be possible that in some moment of indecision an exceptional flight of brilliance or plain good sense might amplify our very small voices above the momentary confusion of Congressional or even Presidential advisors and alter the course of events by at least a fraction of a degree?
But this never happens. Our influence isn’t microscopic, it’s zero.
We’re nobodies.
Dr. Fuller’s work is currently focused on this crucial difference, between something and nothing, between somebodies and nobodies, and it obviously behooves us essentially inaudible bloggers on readers’ blogs like “The Seminal” to pay careful attention to his diagnosis and prescription for our irrelevance, although we may entirely disagree with his optimistic assessment of Barack Obama.
Jacob, can you provide a link to where Prof. Fuller was when FDL was fighting to make Ned Lamont a U.S. Senator from CT? Can you provide a link to where Prof. Fuller was on our failed fight against FISA? Can you provide a link to Prof. Fuller’s efforts in favor of “choice,” but against torture, Prop 8, and the unitary executive?
Amen. And Obama does not want to fix it.
Bush Renditions Even
Uglier Than Imagined and US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships and Is there a CIA prison on Diego Garcia? documented the fact that Robert Gates is a war criminal. Yet despite being made aware of this before and during the transition, Obama kept him.Can you imagine keeping Goebbels or Pol Pot on staff?
Dignity? Obama is in favor of dignity? Tell that to Abed Hamed Mowhoush, Abdul Jameel, Fashad Mohammed, Manadel al-Jamadi, Nagem Sadoon Hatab, Abdul Wali, Habibullah, Dilawar, Sajid Kadhim Bori al-Bawi, Obeed Hethere Radad, Mohammed Sayari and Zaidoun Hassoun. The government of the United States tortured them to death, but Obama refuses to prosecute. He is “looking forward”. He is looking away. He is enabling torturers and extraordinary rendition in contravention of US and international law.
Yet you say he believes in human dignity. I worked on his campaign and yet I can no longer believe the simplest concepts of human decency have any relevance to the man.
I don’t know much about what Dr. Fuller has been doing for the last few years, but a little research will probably convince you that he has been fighting the good fight against racism and hunger and oppression for more than 40 years. I think he’s wrong about Obama, and so what?
Robert W. Fuller is absolutely one of the good guys, and his books about rankism are painfully relevant to bloggers like you and me, BooRadley, and all the lost causes we support.