July 7, 2008

Stories vs. Visions

By: James Poulos

Check out Robert Sibley’s piece in the Ottawa Citizen:

Obama has defined himself as the “man of destiny,” the candidate who can overcome racial divisions, bring home the troops and persuade terrorists to the ways of peace. This makes Obama’s story one of redemption and salvation. He speaks to a deep-seated desire on the part of Americans for a happier story, a safer place, than the one they have lived with since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.

The desire for a happy ending is understandable, but unlike Waldman, who hopes Americans are “transported” by Obama’s story, I find such longing problematic. Obama’s narrative reflects a notion that political theorist Michael Oakeshott famously warned against: the idea that politics is about finding a safe harbour.

It is not. There is no such anchorage in this world. Politics is about keeping the ship of state afloat. To regard politics as a means of redemption and politicians as saviours is dangerous. This was the horrific lesson of the 20th century, but even at a less extreme level the notion of salvation through politics is harmful. When the post-election realities of wielding power become evident, as inevitably they must, there is a bitter backlash from those disappointed that the person whose story they made their own has not produced the desired ending. The result is a sense of betrayal that fosters cynicism about politics and politicians, and, ultimately, corrodes support for liberal democracy.

The story to which Americans need to subscribe in this election year is that they cannot assuage their anxieties by indulging in political fantasy.

A story — in this case, an election-year narrative — tells us how we’ve come to be where we are. A vision imagines for us a comprehensive picture of where we should be. Conservatives incline toward working up a policy program that derives from the right story. Liberals incline toward deriving policy programs from the right vision. Or so I’d argue. But with Bush and after, has that distinction collapsed?