By Alexander Perepechko
Published on December 25, 2014
Unlike his vision of the development of the technosphere, Obama’s idea of the development of anthropos (human beings) is less apparent. Nevertheless, he makes several hints pertaining to anthropos. For example, he states: “When times change, so must we.” (Inaugural, 2013). This change needs to be a collective action in response to the call of history and an uncertain future. Therefore, Obama’s hope for change is related to a left-wing political ideology.
Political ideologies of the major American parties replicate communitarianism and individualism, two of America’s major political traditions. Communitarianism emphasizes the role of the community or group in defining individuals, collective action and group rights and is marked by leftist perspectives on economic issues and a number of social matters. Communitarian elites represent the state as a benign entity, implement egalitarian and communitarian ideology in society, and encourage citizens to self-sacrifice in the name of supreme group interests. Individualism’s highest espoused value is defending and preserving the personal and economic liberty and freedom of individuals. The Democratic Party leadership departs from communitarianism. The Republican Party establishment claims the supremacy of the individual above all else.
Obama looks at anthropos (human beings) through a group lens. In my opinion, his communitarianism has at least two peculiarities.
The first peculiarity is connected to Obama’s vision of American multiculturalism and the melting pot. Recall that according to multiculturalism, various cultures in a society merit equal respect. America is a melting pot, where different people or different cultures come together and mix (assimilate) but remain distinct in some aspect. These two processes have played a vital role in nation- and state-building in many western countries. While multiculturalism and the melting pot utterly failed in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom (Williams, 2014), these doctrines have not yet done damage in the United States. Obama regards the American society as consisting of diverse cultural groups (women, gays, immigrants, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and others), created on dissimilar criteria. Numerically these groups can be both minorities (for example, blacks) or majorities (women). These groups can be real or surrogate. The number of these groups tends to grow. Rights of old and newly created groups need to be protected. Groups need to be equal in terms of political rights and in some cases – but not all (for example, immigrants) – economics.
The second peculiarity is about ideological groups and the value of a human life. It is known that a revision of the ideological spectrum, an alteration of Second World War results, and a rewriting of political history are a full time job for multiple left leaning think tanks, political organizations, institutions, and academics in the United States. They keep an eye on political ideological mutations in Europe and other parts of the world. For example, several Eastern European countries initiated international condemnation of the crimes of totalitarian communist regimes. In 2006, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) passed Resolution 1481, wherein these regimes were condemned (see Anti-Communism, 2005; Need, 2006). This resolution was supported by liberals. Finally, many Europeans equated fascism and communism (Veterans, 2008).
Today, the consequences of this equation of fascism and communism can be seen in the urban landscapes of European cities. Indeed, during my trip to Berlin in 2010 I could not find in the Reichstag and surrounding area any physical symbols in memory of Eastern Europeans who died fighting fascist regimes. For example, about 3 million Belarusians died in the Second World War. Pursuing different ends through similar brutal means does not automatically assign fascism and communism to the same type of political regime. By boxing together fascism and communism in his inaugural speech, Obama echoes a new trend in liberal ideology. Does humanism still have value for liberals? If not, then liberalism has mutated into post-modernism, which makes any social and political norms and regulators problematic.
Therefore, anthropos (human beings) for Obama are a set of groups to deal with. The values of different groups can be revised and, as in the example of ideological groups (fascism and communism), even merged. Groups can be created, manipulated, lifted up, and lifted down.
What means can be used to implement changes in anthropos and the technosphere? According to Vilfredo Pareto (1984: 56), one of the founding fathers of the Machiavellian school, we are regulated and governed by officials divided into two groups: some officials prefer to rule primarily through consensus and the others choose to rule through force. Consensus is the central political principle of Modernity, and the social order in western countries is in fact built by consensus politics. But even in these countries, the social order fluctuates between these two poles. Obama obviously hopes that working with leaders of both parties and making compromises would solve issues pertaining to the technosphere and anthropos. He hopes to switch politics away from Bush’s preference to govern through the use of force in the aftermath of September 11th and offers several consensus-based mechanisms. What mechanisms does Obama have in mind to change the technosphere and anthropos?
Consensus-based mechanisms to change technosphere involve legislative, executive, and business actors and procedures. For example, to drive new research and technology to shift cars and trucks off oil for good Obama proposes to fund an Energy Security Trust. To attract private capital to fix crucial elements of an aging infrastructure (ports, pipelines, schools), the President suggests a Partnership to Rebuild America. He encourages a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act. One more example is the President’s American Jobs Act agenda.
Obama’s vision of the transformation of anthropos is driven by his communitarianism. He identifies groups and determines policies to emancipate these groups. These policies to measure and manage anthropos are sometimes related to affirmative action, a concept shaped by contemporary left liberal ideologists in defiance of history or tradition. He focuses his attention on men of color (Black, Hispanic, Asian); gays; immigrants; children; and women. These groups are not just Democratic Party voters and contributors but also beneficiaries of affirmative action policies. Obama supports a new initiative to help more young men of color to reach their full potential. He considers same-sex marriage crucial to preserving human rights in the United States. The President pushes for comprehensive immigration reform. To protect children, Obama encourages bipartisan work on tough new laws on buying guns. He asks Congress to change the Higher Education Act, so that certain colleges can receive certain types of federal aid. He talks about applying Germany’s training programs, where high school students graduate with the equivalent of a technical degree from a community college and are prepared for a job. Obama gives an example of an application of this model on American soil: New York Public Schools, the City University of New York, and IBM created a successful training program at the P-Tech in Brooklyn. The President welcomes the Violence Against Women Act passed by the Senate and calls for more legislation to equalize women’s and men’s pay. Thus Obama is focused on grooming effective leaders – the new elite – in an increasingly diverse American society. And we know that new elites pursue new agendas and want to establish new rules.
Initial analysis of these documents, highlighting Obama’s second term, does not answer the questions asked at the beginning of my previous post. Why did Barack Obama not take the initiative in reforming the American ruling class? Why could he not find ways to reach consensus among clashing political elites? Why did he choose to abandon normative politics and switch to post-modernism? Are theorists of elites right that in a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic socially complex state the ruling class should be recruited almost exclusively from the dominant majority? However, this initial analysis allows us to take the next step.
Anti-communism in Europe? The revival of a spectre. Marxism-Leninism Today. The Electronic Journal of Marxist-Leninist Thought, September, 4, 2005. Available at http://mltoday.com/anti-communism-in-europe-the-revival-of-a-spectre
Inaugural Address by President Barack Obama. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, January, 21, 2013. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama
Need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes. Parliamentary Assembly. Council of Europe. Resolution 1481, January, 25, 2006. Available at http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/Eres1481.htm
Pareto, V. (1984) The transformation of democracy. London: Transaction Books.
Veterans equalize Nazism, Communism. The Baltic Times, August, 05, 2008. Available at http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/21008/#.VHwuTzHF8YM
Williams, W. E. Multiculturalism is a failure. Townhall.com, September, 17, 2014. Available at http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/09/17/multiculturalism-is-a-failure-n1891941/page/full