Barack Obama ran for office promising to heal the breach that divides Americans. It was at the core of his candidacy. What we have gotten instead is, according to polling data, the most polarizing president in our lifetime. Unable to defend his record or offer a compelling vision for the future, he and his allies have premised his re-election campaign on creating division among Americans based on class. His hope is to stoke the embers of resentment and envy, most especially among the middle class toward the wealthy. And he’s having some success at it.
According to a new Pew Research Center survey, about two-thirds of Americans now believe there are “strong conflicts” between rich and poor in the United States — an increase of about 50 percent from a 2009 survey. Not only have perceptions of class conflict grown more prevalent; so, too, has the belief that these disputes are intense. (An important caveat in the survey is that while we’ve seen a significant shift in public perceptions of class conflict in American life, they do not necessarily signal an increase in grievances toward the wealthy. Key attitudes toward the wealthy have remained largely unchanged.)
I mention all of this in the context of the importance of the bonds of affection that ultimately need to exist among citizens in a free country. In doing so, let’s stipulate that in an election year in particular, differences will be emphasized and rhetoric will get hot. And let’s grant, too, that everyone, on all sides, has contributed to our divisions. The issue is less that we have differences; what matters is the manner in which we express them and whether, at some point, we find our way back together again.
This topic is on my mind in part because of the publication of an excellent recent book, Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life, by Nicholas Phillipson. The book devotes a chapter to the influence Francis Hutcheson, a professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow University, played in Smith’s intellectual development. Among Hutcheson’s main philosophical opponents in the 18th century was Bernard Mandeville, a brilliant and witty satirist whose aim was to demolish the belief that sociable affections were based on benevolence. Mandeville believed the natural depravity of human beings led to an endless capacity for self-delusion and hypocrisy.
What bothered Hutcheson wasn’t simply what he viewed as the boundless cynicism of Mandeville; it was that, according to Phillipson, Mandeville’s words “posed a mortal threat to true moral philosophy by encouraging citizens to distrust their own and others’ motives, thus undermining those natural feelings of friendship and sociability on which trust, order and liberty depended.” Professor Hutcheson was determined to show that benevolently inclined societies were capable of a high degree of self-regulation and were therefore not in need of absolute monarchs. He wanted to develop a theory of sociability and virtue that would act as a counterweight to Mandevillian cynicism. And Smith himself would later emphasize the importance of government in fostering “the sociable dispositions of its subjects.” It’s not at all surprising, then, that Adam Smith’s first great work was not The Wealth of Nations but The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which made the case for sympathy as a foundation for human relationships. Politics plays a role in all this, which brings us to the here and now.
Set aside my own critique of Obama, which his supporters will undoubtedly consider to be unfair and selective. Most people would still agree, I think, that the president has a unique role in the life of our nation. He has a role, different than any other, when it comes to deepening rather than attenuating the bonds of trust among Americans. And the role government can play in fostering the sociable dispositions of its subjects is quite an interesting and important topic, to which far too little attention is paid.
This is admittedly a complicated area, as some of our greatest presidents pursued policies that caused deep divisions. President Lincoln is a particularly fascinating case study. He presided over a Civil War that led to the death of around 620,000 people in a nation of roughly 30 million. And yet, as the Lincoln biographer Ronald C. White, Jr. has said, his second inaugural address called the whole nation to account and offered a moral framework for peace and reconciliation. When passions were at their highest and the North was at its strongest, Lincoln held out a path for reunification instead of revenge.
I would simply suggest that Hutcheson and Smith were on to something important in what they sought to achieve. Even, and maybe especially, in the midst of an intense election, we need to keep in mind that liberty depends on some degree of sympathy and trust, sociability and attachment to those with whom we disagree. That charity is better than malice. That repeatedly accusing the opposition of putting party ahead of country isn’t helpful. And that our presidents must be especially careful to employ rhetoric that doesn’t cut too deeply or leave wounds that will be difficult to heal. Because when all is said and done, we are one people.
Thank you for this thought provoking article. It seems to me that politics has changed in my lifetime (for the more divisive). I can think of examples of negativity going back to 1960 — but, back then it was "the missile gap" on one side and "a Catholic President will take orders from the Pope" on the other — meaning attacks on the candidate or policy (like in 1960, Republicans are soft on defense). Tricky Dick, clumsy Gerald Ford, Jimmy "more quips from the wimp" Carter, amiable dunce Reagan … and then it stops being attacks on the person or policy and we have "A vast right wing conspiracy," questioning the people one disagrees with … which is the beginning of opponents considered enemies and unfit to even exist. So I'm not sure the historians who say politics used to be a lot worse than it is today are correct — meaning as rude as it may be to call Jackson's wife an adultress, we now have a President who seems to want a part of the population to gather with torches and pitchforks and march on another part of the people.
I wonder if there is a relationship between the attention paid to politics by the voting public and the level of acrimony among candidates. I'm guessing that when voters are literate and informed and paying attention politicians will be more civil and constrained to the bounds of constructive debate. When there is a significant portion of voters who are not capable of or motivated to knowing the difference the politicians can see benefit in divisiveness and slander. So if the behavior of politicians is getting worse it becomes just as much an indication that all is not well with the voting public. Was there once more civility? My guess is not. But the reasons why voters are able to be manipulated may have changed. Literacy rates were lower in the early years of our country's history and communication was not nearly as accurate and timely as now, but today we have apathy and distractions that create the same kind of opportunities for those who want to win at any cost.
"That repeatedly accusing the opposition of putting party ahead of country isn’t helpful. And that our presidents must be especially careful to employ rhetoric that doesn’t cut too deeply or leave wounds that will be difficult to heal." n n–Please, Peter. You are suggesting that Obama is merely not "helpful" when he accuses Republicans of putting party ahead of country? Or that is is merely not being "careful" when he uses that rhetoric? Did it ever occur to you that he is saying these things quite deliberately? You really think HE puts country ahead of party, but somehow the words just don't come out quite right and he accuses Republicans of quasi treason because of lack of care? Let's be blunt: Obama puts himself, and his party, ahead of the country more than any President in American history. And especially when he has the gall to accuse his political opponents of the very thing he is guilty of, everyone should not hesitate to "call him out" on it, to use a phrase of a famous American.
Interesting article. n n'we need to keep in mind that liberty depends on some degree of sympathy and trust, sociability and attachment to those with whom we disagree. That charity is better than malice.' This is all true and essential to a civil society but what does have to with the government? All of this applies to all citizens and their daily interactions with one another but it's not necessarily related to the workings of the State. n nThe essence of politics is power. Power to overcome your political opposition, power to impose legislation. President Obama may be a divisive President but he still is a competent politician – he managed to get himself elected to hightest office in the land. n nCynicism in politics or cynicism about politics doesnt necessarily mean regular citizens resent and distrust each other. Government is not society. Government is an appendage on society. While government is an unfathomably large and powerful agency, the vast majority of daily meaningfull daily interaction is non-governmental. Most governments consume and destroy, some contribute to a civil society. Governments come and governments go but society and people carry on in spite of it all.
All you have to do is go to the biggest pro-Obama sites: Huff Post, Kos, etc., and read the articles–not to mention the comments! The stuff is poisonous and very divisive.
Excellent point about trust. It's true that order and liberty depend on trust, therefore, those who betray our trust are not just hurting one person, they are hurting all of society. However, politicians have to earn our trust and not publicly pretend to care while hurting us with poisonous policies in secret negotiations of crony capitalism.
Contrast the comments of our current president with that of his predecessor: George W. always acknowledged the legitimate disagreements that his policies generated, and never demonized his opponents. He had class. Enough said.