I have been having a discussion with other rhetorical scholars, a Politico reporter, as well as discussions with various interested observers. I've developed some ideas about the Obama philosophy that I believe will help us understand what to expect from this man as he continues to govern for the next few years. The benefits of these observations, I believe, will be to help us put his relationship with Republicans into perspective.
In short, my thesis is that he is quite honest when he says says we need to rise above ideologies or "worn out dogmas." That, however, is not in and of itself an ideology. Nope. His "ideology" is really an anti-ideology. He doesn't fall comfortably into categories of right or left wing thought. He's a scholar of the enlightenment tradition. He's an empiricist. He believes in evidence and results.
I think if you get this, you could actually begin writing his speeches.
I was called immediately following the election by a reporter at Politico. She asked me what I thought about Obama's repeated use of the phrase, "Well, look..." I thought it was a great question because I'd actually given it some thought. I made two observations. First, "Well, look..." is "visio-centric." Second, I explained that it marked an amazing break from the Bush administration.
Regarding visio-centrism, that means that culturally, he places more emphasis on the viewed than the felt. Motivation for action is obtained externally as opposed to internally. In cultural theory, this is termed a "perspectival" presupposition. It is the attitude of the enlightenment that broke with the "pre-perspectival" attitude that preceded it, also known as "mytho-logic." The "pre-perspectival" is an attitude that values metaphysical or internally obtained catalysts for action. What this means, ultimately, is that Obama seeks evidence to support his proposals. His proposals don't come before the evidence - it's the other way around.
As for my second point, this marks an enormous break from George W. Bush, as George Bush governed according to mythologic. If you will expand your understanding of mythology to mean "a story used to explain reality," then he used free-market mythology, for instance, to govern (or not govern).
Support for this comes not only from his use of the phrase, "Well, look." It can also be seen in two aspects of his inaugural address. First, in his explicit statements to this effect. Second, in the not-necessarily balanced, but diverse and not-necessarily liberal ideas in his inaugural address.
First, let's take a look at his rhetoric. "Worn out dogmas," goes far beyond the inaugural necessity to heal the nation by transcending difference. This statement maligns the those differences as does, "Stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply..." Here, he's criticizing the notion of ideology. While he's particularly rough in his oblique references to the Bush administration, this doesn't exempt Democrats from the criticism. This observation is further buttressed by these statements: 1) "... we will restore science to its rightful place," 2) "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works," and 3) " What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility." With these three statements, he's not only transcending political difference, which is to be expected in an inaugural, but he's further denouncing dogma: dogmas of faith and dogmas of government's size. The "era of responsibility" has a very specific meaning, and it's implicit in the word. Responsibility is an approach to understanding that emphasizes transparency and accountability to intersubjective realities ("and do our business in the light of day") - not dogma or metaphysics.
Second, the policy content of his inaugural address involves much more than a mere attempt to forge a peace between left and right following an election. He makes substantive remarks in his inaugural that should make liberals realize that his measure for judging policy is efficacy - outcomes that improve the lives of people. As such, dogma and ideology are meaningless. As such, in many respects, he's not necessarily liberal. For example, he states, "Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end." Here, he's making clear that he has no allegiance to specific policies, even though many federal policies are considered, "owned" or "branded" by the parties. He also states, "Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched." This indicates his strong support for capitalism. Third, he says, "Our healthcare is too costly." The problem for many isn't the cost of healthcare but its availability. You can make healthcare more affordable in the form of insurance, but the insurance doesn't have to cover anything. Moreover, he also makes NO reference to social sacrifice, social obligation - no references to collective efforts. The reference to sacrifice is on the part of workers; "the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job..."
Obama's "Responsiblity Philosophy" is going to be a point of angst for liberals, as they find him aligning with Republicans. We already know that the vast majority of his economic advisors are free-market economists. This philosophy will also have him calling liberals out to curtail their own proposals. I don't think this is going to result in a Carter-Congress tension of the late '70s, as I believe Obama does have a natural alignment with the Democratic party because of his ethnicity and his community work.
Some readers will disagree with this argument as it is only based on his "rhetoric." Still, I would defend my argument on the grounds that there is no better way of understanding how a person will govern than by paying attention to what the politician says.