10 June 08
Imagine one way in which the discussion during the prolonged primary competition might have gone better. The candidates need not have boxed themselves in on taxes, on talking to Iran, on talking to Hamas, on supporting Israel without qualification, as they all have done, except for Obama’s keeping a free hand about talking to Iran. They could have committed themselves to aims, not policies, and so kept some freedom to modify their policies according to circumstances. Thus, they could have said they would aim, by whatever means circumstances seemed to offer as productive, at establishing peaceful relations with Iran and dissuading Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons. Could any of the candidates have done this alone? Any one of them could have resisted examples of intransigence set by other candidates or foisted upon them by reckless commentators like Gibson and Stephanopoulos. The defense, of keeping some freedom of maneuver, is a powerful one, and implies directing the reproach of unfruitful rigidity against candidates who do not try to keep this freedom. Given a little luck and persistence, the defense, and commitment to aims not policies, might spread from candidate to candidate; and win the respect of the commentators. A big improvement in the style of debate could come from a small number of personal choices.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It seems that commentators and opposition candidates push for policies over aims in order to concretize the debate. When one candidate puts forward an aim (e.g. candidate x says, "In my presidency, we will have universal health coverage"), one argument against that aim is to attack it for being impractical (candidate y says, "Candidate x wants universal health coverage, but this aim is impossible to accomplish from a policy standpoint"). Commentators and opposition candidates hope to cut down any position that seems to be on shaky ground. This isn't to say, however, that aims-talk is less important than policy-talk, because it seems you're definitely right regarding the importance of aims and that aims-talk would improve the substance of the debates. It also isn't to say that aims are necessarily on shaky ground but only that they seem to be.
One encouraging position of Obama's is his self-avowed pragmatism. If it is true that he's a pragmatist concerning governance, then he should be able to provide flexible policy-making depending on the many contingencies that will surely arise between now and the time the policy will actually need to be drawn up and implemented. However, I've felt like he's begun to commit himself more and more to specific policies, which is a bit discouraging to me. This increase could be helped along through pressure from McCain, commentators, and, previously, Clinton.
I suppose the trick is to put forward aims that aren't too susceptible to criticisms of being vague or impractical. If one can do that, then one can skirt the policy-talk altogether.
Isn't the problem with aims that people largely agree on many of them, as long as they are broadly defined? (My aim is national prosperity, world peace, and a pony for everyone.) People more often disagree on what might count as a reasonable means to any particular aim, which is where policy comes in. The more precisely you define an aim itself, too, the closer it gets to being a policy after all.
If a candidate were simply to state, as you suggest, that his aim was "dissuading Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons", a citizen would rightly want to know precisely in what that dissuasion would consist, on the spectrum of diplomacy to bombing. (Furthermore, for this example as for others, a statement only of the aim does not distinguish candidates from one another.)
Some citizens might even consider, in some contexts, that an inept (in their view) plan to pursue a good (in their view) aim would have worse consequences than not pursuing the aim at all.
Post a Comment