Why President Obama's Mosque Speech Was a Mistake

Talleyrand once famously remarked that a certain action by an opponent was “worse than a crime – it was a blunder.” Was this remark famous because Talleyrand, already famous, could be expected to make famous pronouncements? Or was it famous because writers over the years have declared it to be so, and repeated it enough so that it became ipso facto famous? This is not an issue that we need tarry over, except I will add my own twist here and say that it became famous because it revealed the essence and character of the man. It summed up, in a flash, in one of those sudden illuminations in which you catch he deeper meaning of something or what makes a person tick. In Talleyrand’s case we see him to be a cunning, wily, and delightfully cynical man who is what we might today call a professional politician. In short, he deems it possible or even likely that politicians might have to act in ways that are unsavory and at times even criminal by ordinary standards in order to achieve a larger end. Politics is the arena where “morals and power meet and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises.” What is important is that the politician act knowingly, weighs the consequences, and run the calculated risks that are inevitably involved. A blunder is a hasty action taken impulsively or without adequate weighing of the risks and the secondary and tertiary implications of the action.

And it is in this latter category, we have to say, that President Obama’s Mosque Speech fits. What was actually at issue in this situation – was it freedom of religion or the exercise of a property right? What was the appropriate level of government to deal with the problem? Notice that I concede here that this is not a Hobbes law of the jungle: the disposition of property, and the recognition of rights to a piece of property, especially in a crowded urban area, must be conferred by law --that is to say, by the collective action of the polity within the framework of the constitutional scheme of things. Supreme Court Justice David Souter once gave a speech in which he deplored the lack of knowledge of civics and referred to what he learned as a boy attending town meetings in New Hampshire with his parents. He said he understood early on that there were different areas of governmental competence. If you wanted to get a road repaired because it had potholes from the severe New Hampshire winter, you did not go to the sheriff or the school superintendent. Secondly he learned that there were different levels of government. You had to know whether the road was a county road or a state road because this would affect how to approach the problem. Finally he learned perhaps the most important thing, namely, that the whole purpose of the town hall meetings, and of government itself, was to give citizens a sense of participation, the feeling that they could affect things or at least owed their officials feedback on government action or inaction.

On Being Angry at All the Anger

In 1976, there was a movie Network in which the lead character stuck his head out of his tenement window and shouted, “I’m mad as hell and I can’t take it anymore!” This was taken to symbolize the pent up fury in the body politic at various injustices and oppressive bureaucracies, a proper reflection of the spirit of the 1960s. Never mind for the moment that already the public was sick and tired of youth being sick and tired, and had reacted to the rage of the 1960s by electing even the reviled Richard Nixon as president. But let’s get back to the movie which at this pont got a little silly. All of the gentleman’s neighbor stuck their heads out of their windows and joined in the general anger. They apparently were mad as hell, too, and couldn’t take it any more.

We may put aside for the moment why everybody was mad as hell, and what exactly was the “it” that they couldn’t take. I was living in New York at the time where I was a professor of public law and government at Columbia University and I lived in a university apartment building very much like the setup in the movie. I asked myself at the time what I would have done if someone shouted out of the window at his neighbors. I would have called the cops and said there was a nut screaming at his neighbors. Well, no, actually, since New York City was (and is) a tolerant place, I probably would’ve ignored it if this was first offense. There were enough crazy people in the city and the best thing to do was to ignore them. They were for the most part harmless cranks walking around talking to themselves, not unlike many of the rest of us who weren’t as obviously crazy at first glance. If there was a repeated offense I might have called the University Housing Office and reported that a nut was disturbing the peace by shouting out the window. Only if the offense continued, and the university proved ineffectual, would I have called the police. Under no circumstances would other New Yorkers start shouting in unison and causing a general ruckus.

Now let’s return to what was supposedly making people angry. Was it the nasty establishment that was suppressing the urge of progressive youth to rise up and dismantle all social institutions? Or was the “it” that was causing such angst perhaps the normal rules that permitted a diverse group of people to live peaceably? I dare say that most of us are used to the fact that our business firms, schools, families, government agencies, and workplaces generally have some sort of rules, formal and informal, that make it possible for business to be conducted and for people to enjoy the benefits of a free society.

The present anger that is making everybody mad as hell is making me mad as hell. I’m mad at the left for being mad at Wall Street, the banks, big oil, big Pharma, etc. I’m mad at the right for being mad at the left. I wish everybody would stop being mad for a while and start thinking about what is wrong and what might reasonably might be done about it. Of course I will be ignored and I will certainly be mad about my being ignored about being mad at people for being mad. When this anger becomes a little less angry I will pronounce the solutions for each of our problems. I know you can hardly wait, and I will only give this small hint for now. I promise not to have more solutions than there are problems. This novel doctrine should set me apart from most of my brethren and sisteren in the blogosphere!

Myths in Need of Debunking

One of the more irritating features of the current scene is the ease with which myths are propagated and the tenacity they display once circulated. Consider the following sample:

Myth 1 - We are in the grip of a terrible partisan divide unprecedented in its scope and intensity.

This is nonsense. I urge you, dear reader, to look at Bruce Ackerman’s book on the 1800 election and the tensions that nearly destroyed the early republic. Then read Gordon Wood’s magisterial work Empire of Liberty covering the period of American history from 1789 to 1815. And also take a gander at the scurrilous profess of the day. Nothing in the contemporary scene remotely compares to the intensity of those early battles. We need not refer to the Civil War, the populist revolt of the later 19^th century, the Red Scare, etc., etc.

Myth 2 - America is anti-immigrant and Islamophobic.

Again this is poppycock. America is distinctly not anti-immigrant. Many Americans fear a comprehensive immigration policy, true enough, but a comprehensive reform package is neither possible nor desirable. Small steps could be taken, such as making soldiers eligible for a fast tract to citizenship if they volunteer for the armed forces. The idea that Americans are Islamophobic is silly, a product partly of politicians who should not be lecturing people to be tolerant, etc. We are tolerant, and don’t like to be told that we aren’t. There are more Muslims in the US than Episcopalians, and Muslims are generally professionals and well integrated into American society. The Mosque business (I will write a longer blog on this topic) was stirred up by the politicians jumping in and inflaming the issue. Perhaps it can be argued that President Obama had no choice and had to comment. I think he had a choice and displayed poor political judgment by jumping in, and then waffling away from his supposedly bold position. He was denounced by his friends in the media more than he was praised for the original clear defense. It is a local zoning matter. National politicians, stay out of it!

Myth 3 - The Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party.

Not so. This is a political tactic by the left to scare voters back to the fold. It won’t work. Voters are upset and will vote in droves against incumbents, and especially Democratic incumbents. The Republicans have been since Reagan a coalition of fiscal conservatives and cultural conservatives, the former from the west, middle-west and some left in the North. The cultural conservatives are heavily located in the south but not exclusively so. This coalition has cracks and awkward seams, but so has every coalition in American political history. The Tea Party is a collection of disparate elements, but they are neither coherent enough nor powerful enough to “take over” the Republican Party. If you hold hearings and bash the banks, Wall Street, big business, etc., is it any wonder that people are going to feel angry, too? The people didn’t understand that the politicians are engaged in mock anger to their “courage” in fighting the interests.

Myth 4 - Money controls politics and corporate interests are running amuck since the Citizens United case.

I will comment at greater length on this point, but the best scholarship of the role of interest groups is that the left and right groups end to battle themselves to a draw, neutralizing each other by and large. In any case, legislators don’t vote on the basis of money along or largely, and voters don’t vote that way either. Elections are still mostly won, not bought. Big business has not rushed into politics since the Supreme Court decided Citizens United; the big firms have stayed largely on the sidelines. They naturally don’t want their shareholders complaining about funds being wasted in electoral activity. Some medium and small firms have been more active in forming 501(c.)(3) organizations, but why should they not? The hysteria on the left over corporate power grabs is astounding and leaves one gasping.

Myth 5 - Politicians have never been so corrupt, and the political system is dysfunctional.

Politicians in general are more like Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts than their more lusty and cynical forbearers. There is much less corruption than at any time in the past. The political system is not dysfunctional. This again is largely propaganda from the political left but also now taken up by the Tea Party because outcomes don’t match somebody’s rather extreme views. We can’t get Cap and Trade because the House bill, what a bad bill that most Americans, not just politicians, didn’t and don’t like – and for very good reasons. The Tea Party says politics reflects the self interests of the insiders and there should be no taxes or almost no taxes. Well, I have news for them You can’t run a society with government, and you can’t run a government without taxes. The issue of the filibuster I will take up another time at greater length. In the meantime prepare yourself by reading Sara Binder and Steve Smith’s book on that peculiar device (and summarized well in the current New Review of Books article by Michael Tomsky). Government is not as bad as it may sometimes seem, and life is not as irrational as well all think from time to time. Go back and consult your Spinoza and understand the limits of necessity.

The Origins and Philosophy of This Blog

Bruce (Cousin Brucie) L. R. Smith...Why you ask, would a grown and presumably sane man want to start a blog? Don’t we have enough nonsense in the blogosphere already? These perfectly reasonable deserve an answer. A proper respect for the opinions of mankind….as the framers of our constitution might (did) say. In the first place I’m probably not grown up in any sense other than chronologically. If you look at the splendid biography of Machiavelli Nicolo’s Smile by Maurizio Piroli, you will see on the cover an enigmatic, mischievous smile on Machiavelli’s face. This, as the author goes on to argue, tips us off to the impish personality of the man who certainly was a lot of fun. Now if you look closely at my picture on the blog you will notice that you have a wicked child here, a pixie like person full of mischief, probably a contrarian, someone you are not sure of but perhaps not altogether dumb. Now I do have certain knowledge on various subjects but no doubt I have more opinions than I have knowledge. I will leave it to you, Dear Reader, to determine whether I address something I know at any given point or am simply opining.


There is clearly much nonsense spoken and written these days, in the newspapers, on TV, and not least in blogs. At the obvious risk of adding to the confusion (if anyone reads this blog) I venture to declare that I am tired of the nonsense and plan to “set the record straight,” as the politicians say. What will I blog about? Well, mostly things I once studied –- politics, philosophy, history, economics, literature, and learning (its institutions, frames of reference, etc.). I’m not writing here for my academic colleagues or writing scholarship – that’s another domain where I will remain active (I hope). Here I will write quickly, without the help of an editor (except occasionally for the spell check) and in a more accessible vein.