October 2, 2008
The Hansen Report: Modern versus Postmodern Politics
Can differences between McCain and Obama be explained by worldview categories?
Tweet
You can listen to every stump speech and read every position paper, but nothing compares to evaluating presidential candidates side-by-side during a debate. Their contrasting styles and views emerge in ways you hadn't noticed during the long primary season. The candidates practice their lines and prepare their strategies, but the format allows for precious moments of spontaneity and even humor. The best candidates deftly address issues in ways that lodge them in the public consciousness.
Perhaps the best example of this is President Reagan, who in 1984 famously said, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." His 56-year-old opponent, Walter Mondale, could only look on in laughter.
The first debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama provided no such memorable moments. But it did highlight important distinctions between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Namely, McCain and Obama represent key differences between modern and postmodern cultures. Analyzing their debate through this lens reveals similarities to the church's own debates about how to respond to shifting cultures.
Obama spoke with empathy about the personal effects of the current financial crisis on Main Street America. He advocated greater oversight for Wall Street. McCain, too, said he wants oversight, but he emphasized different reasons for the crisis. He spoke of individual greed and said the government needs to hold the failed executives accountable. As the debate progressed, McCain spoke passionately about members of Congress who perpetuate the "evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending." McCain underscored personal morals where Obama accentuated communal values.
Obama consistently drew attention to points of agreement with McCain. He credited McCain for opposing President Bush on torture, for example. By contrast, McCain chided Obama for not understanding the issues and for displaying naïveté. He perpetuated the Right vs. Left dichotomy by describing Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. While Obama sought to build consensus, McCain pointed out their differences.
The debate's most contentious moments came when Obama reiterated his intent to "meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing, if I think it's going to keep America safe." Despite taking a political beating for this view from Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama willingly contrasted himself with McCain:
But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough, direct diplomacy with Iran, and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain. This notion--by not talking to people we are punishing them--has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States.
"So let me get this right," McCain responded. "We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, 'We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,' and we say, 'No, you're not'? Oh, please."
McCain is a man of action and frank talk. Obama sees intrinsic value in engagement, which may even produce unexpected tangible consensus. You could plug in certain pastors and see the same differences.
Nationalism is a key reality of the modern world. But postmodernism prioritizes the global community. McCain hammered Obama for advocating precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, which McCain said would result in a host of horrendous consequences for America and the Middle East. He promised to seek American "victory and honor." Obama was more concerned about America's global reputation. Near the end of the debate, he shared a story about his Kenyan father writing letters so he could attend an American college. At the time, Obama said, America offered hope that hard work could pay off. "The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world," Obama said. "I don't think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same."
In their exchanges, Obama called McCain by his first name, drawing attention to his personality. McCain never reciprocated, indicating respect for Obama's office but not necessarily for Obama himself. This difference highlighted Obama's preference to question McCain's judgment and prudence as McCain drew attention to his own experience and record. McCain even mocked intuition and President Bush when explaining his views on Russia.
"I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a 'K,' a 'G,' and a 'B,'" McCain said. "And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior."
Not everything in the debate can be framed as the difference between a modern and postmodern worldview. But like our church debates, a little awareness about perspective goes a long way toward understanding. The November election's results may help church leaders gauge the mood of their own constituencies. A tougher challenge is knowing when and how to confront those cultural assumptions for our own good and for the sake of the gospel.
Collin Hansen is a CT editor at large and author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists (Crossway, 2008).
Posted by UrL Scaramanga on October 2, 2008
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1561
Comments
Simply put, yes this actually is a good way to deliniate between McCain and Obama. McCain and repubs in general hold to a hyper modern certainty and they fail to realize there epistemology is not 'self evident' thus they are unaware of the categorical a priori assumptions that constructs thei worldview. Obama is more reflective, nuanced, and understands complexity in the world. The Rick Warren forum put these two epistemological differences on display. McCain used soundbite rhetoric and answered the questoins before w
Warren could finish. Obama framed the question in an attempt to show us his starting point. Then walkes us through how he arrives at his position. Those who thought nuanced answers were weak hold a modern epistemology and those who appreciated the nuance and informativeness of Obama lean towards postmodern approaches to rationality.
Posted by: sam at October 2, 2008
So is it modern or postmodern to pick and choose parts from the debate to make your point???? The debate I saw had plenty of partisan politics on BOTH sides. And plenty of things you ascribed to McCain being said by Obama as well.
Nice try though...
Posted by: Pomo at October 2, 2008
Well, Mr. Hansen, you have disarmed me, and I can find nothing to disagree with...I think you caught the spirit of the debate, but I also find that the comparisons to the Church lends a decent perspective that I hadn't considered before.
You gave me something to think about.
Posted by: sheerahkahn at October 2, 2008
I agree that there is certainly a need for nuance and reflection, and we need to recognize the complexity of the issues we face in the 21st century. But I'm somewhat concerned about an unstated assumption I'm picking up on among some of us post-moderns that BECAUSE Obama is more nuanced and reflexive and understands complexity, he's conclusions are more valid. Similarly, just because because McCain is certain about what he believes, that shouldn't automatically invalidate HIS conclusions. In the end, desite their differing worldviews, they are BOTH politicians; and, as pomo pointed out, there are partisan politics on BOTH sides. I'm still waiting for the canditate who will TRULY transcend all that, but that candidate most likely wouldn't be able to win the nomination of either party...
Posted by: Fernando Villegas at October 2, 2008
I saw very little if any difference between what I've heard in stump speeches and the debates for either candidate. In either situation you have to sort out between what is posturing (lying) and words that match up with previous action. On this basis, the differences are many. Of what importance are "nuancing" and broad generalizations such as "postmodern", when there is a more substantive issue to watch for - truth versus lying. It is quite common among many to elevate style over substance, even among believers who have been instructed to focus on truth.
Posted by: Tim at October 2, 2008
nice article. good insight.
Posted by: Kurt at October 2, 2008
Thank goodness no one is going to televise our church debates.
Posted by: Mark Goodyear at October 3, 2008
The problem is that we're still emerging from the modern world into the post-modern. We're not completely there yet, so Obama's nuances look naive, and McCain's absolutes look rigid.
Posted by: Kenton at October 3, 2008
I thank you for your analysis and I think that you make several good points. I think that within the context of modern/post-modern there is the implied (and assumed) generational differences. But, what about the transitions within both liberalism and conservatism as well? Also, what about Sarah Palin who is the youngest of all the Presidential/Vice-Presidential candidates... How would you assess her debate with Joe Biden? (Wouldn't a Palin-Obama debate be very interesting?)
Posted by: Jim Kane at October 4, 2008
Wouldn't it have been much simpler and briefer to say you endorse Obama?
Posted by: RDM at October 4, 2008
While this kind of analysis can sometimes be helpful, I wonder if it doesn't end up reinforcing nice little boxes that we can apply to all the complicated areas of life in faith and in politics. If we aren't careful we could end up with something like this:
Traditional / [Emergent?]
Republican / Democrat
Modern / Postmodern
In other words, if you consider yourself a traditional (what exactly is the preferred designation for those suspicious of what used to be called Emergent?), you must vote democratic and argue for modern against postmodern assumptions. If you consider yourself emergent (if the term is dead, what are we now using in its place?), you must vote democratic and challenge modern assumptions with post-modern ones. There probably are a fair number of people who could be accurately described by these two sets of descriptors, but it also leaves out a lot of folks as well. What about the traditional/modern/democrats? What about the emergent/postmodern/republicans? We need to be careful about implying that these folks are being inconsistent in their voting.
It also frames the election in terms of philosophical categories, rather than political ones. A vote for McCain become a vote for modernity and a vote for Obama becomes one for postmodernity. If Obama is elected, Mr. Hansen seems to be implying, pastors should see that as a gauge of their congregations's feelings about modernity and postmodernity. (Please tell me I'm wrong). Pastors should then begin thinking about how to "challenge" the cultural assumptions" behind this. I think this is simply wrong. If Obama wins, it will say much more about people's opinion of the republican party than about their cultural assumptions. Pastors should not use national political outcomes to judge the cultural assumptions of their individual churches. In short, positing a tight connection between postmodern ideas and Obama does not account for the complexity of either canindate or help church leaders understand the assumptions of their members.
Posted by: T.J. at October 5, 2008
Collin,
I don't agree with several of the points you make regarding the Obama and McCain worldviews - but I think the following point is extremely valid!
"a little awareness about perspective goes a long way toward understanding. The November election's results may help church leaders gauge the mood of their own constituencies. A tougher challenge is knowing when and how to confront those cultural assumptions for our own good and for the sake of the gospel."
Posted by: Andy at October 6, 2008
I do find this a fascinating topic, while at the same time there has always been a clear divorce in my mind of things political and things religious, especially considering how much evil seems to be present in politics.
Posted by: ScotlandGuy at October 21, 2008