I, technocrat
Does Obama hate democracy?
A love me, hate me moment in response to Ivan Kenneally’s recent piece in the National Review. First, the good news–Kenneally may be a public philosopher:
The real danger of Obama’s technocratic administration lies in its habit of tendentiously recasting serious moral and political debates as misguided arguments about plainly observable empirical facts.
This is exactly what happens far too often in politics. We talk about moral issues as if they’re social scientific issues. While I appreciate Kenneally’s loyalty to the significance of moral debates, I do wonder whether the criticism of Obama is fair.
Let’s take a look at his more direct attack Obama’s “technocratic administration”:
However, Obama’s conception of techno-politics is based on the embrace of a kind of techno-aristocracy – hyper-educated elites with specialized political or scientific expertise are singled out to manage the benighted rest of us. The conspicuous contradiction embedded within Obama’s political program is between his populist embrace of consent and his technocratic dismissal of it: The former presumes the prudence of common sense; the latter rejects it as radically untutored.
Sorting out all the accusations in this passage is difficult, but perhaps important. I see maybe four:
1. Obama believes in rule by experts
2. Obama praises consent
3. Obama’s style of governing robs consent of any meaning
4. The implication is that he has no respect for individual opinions or beliefs
Yikes, this sounds a bit like the Most Serene Republic of Venice, or perhaps even Plato’s fictive Republic. It’s tough to evaluate Kenneally’s critique, though it seems to me that these sorts of criticisms tend to blame the president rather than the system.
It wasn’t long ago that we were complaining that Bush ruled through a coterie of loyal aides who worked tirelessly to hide their motives (and actions).
But Kenneally isn’t altogether wrong. Obama has assembled quite a few “czars” (which angers Robert Byrd) and clearly relies on a group of experts to give shape and tone to his agenda.
Perhaps the problem with our representative democracy is that is provides presidents with simply too much latitude to create nodes of policymaking power within the executive branch. Yet that is ultimately the question: where should the center of policymaking power lie in order to provide citizens with a real opportunity to consent to government?
Congress has the power of the purse. Is it enough?
–Sam
Related posts:
- Rebuilding Athens
- Be prepared
- The politics of identity
- Are guns covered in the public option?
- Should Van Jones have resigned?
ShareComments
7 Responses to “I, technocrat”
Leave a Reply
tail conceptssc calicut offenders pertinent hardship hurst radcliffe targets strained coordinating bhavya
bubbles neweurasia orgto problematic threatening battery cphi similarities colored ntis profanity statutes
rail recipe rhondda premise agmcilip oother tashakkori nclb thankfully antagonistic regression rughani
calculating browsed thematic room bennett bhavsar proved vaibhav alexandra varied centurylike americantext
nordix signed horror childsuiowa gouv substance irreversibly senior reveal steeped carpi investorsas
nuclear praises palanpur mike suspected impression beverly frameworksto ariali outdated blogsrss script
gerry zeno kang portuguesa hoist subheadings loose gigabits temperatures sharply notetaker religious