What has Obama done? - A constructive response to an Obama skeptic’s question posed as if no constructive response were possible
August 13, 2008
by Robert A. Letcher, 13 August 2008
In a brief discussion earlier today, I mentioned to an acquaintance that I was writing an essay about Obama. She asked me a few questions that I read as libertarian leaning. Then I asked her what she thought about Obama, and she replied with that same question I’ve heard and, I suppose, we’ve all heard, so many times: what has Obama done? You know, the kind of question that is really an assertion, in effect, a declaration that Obama hasn’t done enough to qualify for being President.
How does one even begin to reply? Now please don’t let me give you a false impression here. I am completely supportive of Obama’s candidacy. Indeed, I think Obama is the best candidate I’ve ever had opportunity to vote for.
This suggests one approach to replying to the question: Tell the person what convinced me. Begin, perhaps, with what I’ve written in several We! columns (most recently in “Don’t misunderestimate the division thing”). Obama’s rhetorical skills are essential for any successful effort to help the country, and the world, come together to work together and sacrifice together toward remedying profoundly difficult shared problems across divisions exacerbated by eight years of W and his misleadingly characterized “compassionate conservatism”. Then, throw in the increased excitement Obama has generated, and how that increased excitement has translated into substantial increases in voter registration and in voting as such. Next, note that this is supposed to be what democracy is supposed to be about. Finally, finish up with an assertion that reinvigorating democracy “over here” is the most important accomplishment any President could bring about for the country, now, and Obama is the candidate more capable by far of leading the country and bringing it about.
But that approach treats the other person as if she or he were a lot like me: an Obama supporter. But, in the case of my acquaintance, her question made it very clear that she was not an Obama supporter. Reducing her to merely a mindless clone of me, even if I thought I were going about it politely, wasn’t likely to be received as sufficiently respectful to entice her to explore Obama’s qualifications with me.
There is another way: respectfully ask questions. Respectfully, in what sense? As if there were more than one reasonable answer. Which questions to ask?
I would suggest starting with what I refer to as “the first question of critical thinking”: What counts as [X]? In this case, the question is, what counts as an accomplishment that qualifies a person for being President? Listen carefully to the person’s reply, as it is likely to convey insights helpful in nuancing subsequent discussion. Besides, people like to be listened to! Follow up by seeking clarification: How does he or she go about distinguishing accomplishments that he or she would count as qualifying a person for being President from accomplishments that would not count? Again, listen carefully to the person’s reply.
Continue the discussion by asking whether the person has updated their criteria to account for specific new realities, and if so, how? Inquire into whether a candidate might, in meeting the person’s criteria, have brought about some less desirable accomplishments along the way, whether intentionally or inadvertently.
Then ask whether the person’s candidate has demonstrated openness to learning. Ask whether Presidents should be like Generals, always fighting the last war. While you’re on the subject, ask whether Generals and National Security Advisors, Secretaries of State, etc. should be like that. Ask how the person’s candidate has demonstrated capacity to learn how to read the nuance of new situations, even as they attempt to play a leading role in shaping new situations as they arise.
Finally, ask what further skills, temperament and inclinations the person sees as being crucial for governing successfully, which is even more important at this moment in history for the future of this country and indeed, for the whole world, than even being elected successfully. Ask the person to prioritize these factors and the accomplishments that seemed so crucial to the person when the conversation began and then to re-evaluate the candidates accordingly. Do the same yourself.
Asking questions takes patience, from all parties to a conversation. But it’s the only way I can think of to constructively break into what seems like a self-validating argument against Obama’s accomplishments. Asking questions helps to expose tacit assumptions, opening up discussions. People like to be asked sincere questions; sincere in the sense that the questioner is actually interested in listening to an answer. Clearly, not all such discussions will get somewhere, but in my view, engaging in them is the best way for us to affect Obama skeptics.
It’s also the best way for Obama to affect Obama skeptics.
Comments
Comments »
-
Bob's Bail Out Plan by bobl-tlm
-
How Do You Like Deregulation Now? graphic politics by Dicky Neely
No comments yet.