Unger’s meaningless betrayal

Robert Mangabeira Unger - "Beyond Obama"

I’ve cued the above YouTube video the point where Professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger -- journalistically identified as “Obama’s Former Harvard Law School Professor,” one of the greater names in American letters over the last generation or two -- enunciates his words of betrayal: “President Obama must be defeated.” To my ear Unger’s pronunciation bears the residue of practiced de-Latinization, most clearly and perhaps tellingly audible in the shift of accent off the expected penultimate syllable of the President’s surname. (The de-Latinization of the professor’s first name in the video title ironically reinforces awareness of such linguistic nuance.) The wrong-sounding rhythm at this all-important naming of the new enemy, the traitor-tyrant-president, subtly emphasizes the foreignness, the “alien”-ness of (alienation betrayed by) Unger’s own message and method, even as he proceeds to a bill of particulars against the President in phrases that echo the quintessentially American indictment of a tyrant from 236 years ago.

Unger is committing no treason, not against against our elected tyrant nor against our democratic capitalist tyranny nor against our exceptional way of life. His betrayal is of philosophy, if likely offered from the highest allegiance to its precepts and requirements as he has understood them his whole life long. Garry Wills’ response to Unger therefore has the problem exactly in reverse, re-produces the mistake in mirror image: Unger does not suffer from or exemplify “The Curse of Political Purity.” His problem is more an organic impurity, a discursively suicidal mixture of political and philosophical blood types through the medium of polemics.

Wills’ idea that Unger or a thousand Ungers might do to Barack Obama what Ralph Nader supposedly did to Al Gore or what H. Ross Perot supposedly did to George Herbert Walker Bush depends first upon a presumption of inerrant knowledge of the counter-factual. Second and at least as debilitating, it depends upon a presumption of the immediate political significance of intellectuals in general. Wills may be right that Unger’s political recommendations are unsound, but Wills shares Unger’s unlikely assumption that they can or ought to matter. Yet Unger or anti-Unger are about as likely to bear on President Óbama’s re-election prospects as the words “voice of democratic prophecy” are likely to appear on a bumper sticker in Ohio or sound out from an attack ad on Florida television. Not that the meaning of democratic prophecy and the content of Unger’s political critique are irrelevant: They are or would be in a sense too relevant. Their importance and to the political point their implementation would seem to lie well beyond the capacities of a single electoral contest to absorb. To the extent they imply an element of “worse, the better” revolutionism, an express willingness to take casualties while setting the stage for a greater battle, they would be by definition beyond the capacities of the political system itself.

Alexandre Kojève (“Tyranny and Wisdom,” emphases in the original) provided a clearer, or at least more reasonable, conception:

…[I]t would be perfectly unreasonable for the Statesman to want to deny the philosophical value of a theory solely because it cannot be implemented “as is” in a given political situation… It would be equally unreasonable for the philosopher to condemn Tyranny as such “on principle,” since a “tyranny” can be “condemned” or “justified” only within the context of a concrete political situation. Generally speaking, it would be unreasonable if, solely in terms of his philosophy, the philosopher were in any way whatsoever to criticize the concrete political measures taken by the statesman, regardless of whether or not he is a tyrant, especially when he takes them so that the very ideal advocated by the philosopher might be actualized at some future time. In both cases the judgments passed on philosophy or on politics would be incompetent… As for the “mediating” intellectuals, they would be unreasonable if they did not recognize the philosopher’s right to judge the philosophical value of their theories, or the statesman’s right to choose the theories which he regards as capable of being actualized in the given circumstances and to discard the rest, even “tyrannically.”

Unger still wants to answer the young Marx’s call upon philosophers not just to understand the world, but to change it. Wills wants to walk the same path that Unger, with impressive clarity, has marked out -- for instance, in the six minutes of the YouTube that few even of the mediating intellectuals, like me focused on the “betrayal,” will consider -- but Wills wants to walk that path more slowly and carefully, lest America stumble off it into Rick Perry’s Texas (a left-liberal’s toxic hellhole and little else) -- perhaps never to emerge, perhaps to dwell there needlessly long at needless human cost. The President… has appointments. The masses, who would collectively have both to speak and to hear a truly “democratic” prophecy also seem to have other business -- always up until the day that they do not anymore. On that day, if it ever comes, the Statesman may find Unger or some tincture of Unger to hand. Before that day, if it ever comes, there is no choice for the Statesman but to ignore his advice, perhaps while keeping the essence of his thought in view, from whatever more or less appropriate distance.

As for the rest of us, in the meantime enjoyment of the luxury of not counting enough for us to estimate the degree with any yet-discovered microscopic instrument, we can do whatever we want with Unger. It would be reasonable of us not to take seriously that part of what he says that cannot be taken seriously, that part which will tend to be what he and others most want to take most seriously.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

10 comments on “Unger’s meaningless betrayal

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. How can it be a betrayal, yes he has advanced the goals of ‘fundamental transformation’ significantly, but at a certain point, it’s
    a pyrrhic victory,

  2. “worse-the better” revolutionism. There will be lots of casualties. And no NBA. There’s already no House. What kind of healthcare do you think there will be during the revolution? My brother and his wife pay $800 each a month with a $5000 deductible. Right there, the revolution saves them $1600 but like me, he needs to have several basil cell skin cancer thingies removed each year. Not sure a revolutionary medic can handle that.

    • Any qualified doctor so deaf to the voice of democratic prophecy that he or she refuses to operate on basil cell skin cancer thingies, or any other thingies, for whatever the patient or the party of democratic prophecy deems appropriate payment, in cash or in kind, can be taken out and shot, his or her body hung by the Achilles from a streetlight, for exemplary purposes, to the joyous gratification of the People.

      So we got you covered.

        • One more thing:
          No surprise, I actually sympathize with the professors dissatisfaction with Obama. I just don’t see how he can justify pushing the worse-the better revolution overtly the way he does. He’s not ready for that. As you always remind me, I’m not ready for that and I’m a whole lot more ready than him. But what other way to view it is there but to understand his intent as a provocation to make things worse so they can get better? Do you think that’s how he sees it?

          • He’s an incredibly brilliant dude whose books inspired and shook legal theorists at the highest levels, and he’s also put his money where his mouth is, having spent, I believe, years trying to organize new kinds of democratic initiatives in Latin America. So, I have a lot of respect for him. I don’t exclude the possibility, however, that he’s nuttier than Lamar at this point, or, if not nutty, that he’s been driven to the equivalent of it by the same frustration he’s identified and sought to fight at every phase of a long career approaching its end, the same thing that everyone breaks his or her teeth on who ventures a bite, of bringing an excruciatingly clear understanding of what’s wrong and what would be right into proximity with what actually can be done. It is very much the problem that Kojève and Strauss were addressing in their dialogue, and that kind of drove Kojève a little or a lot crazy, too, despite his having delineated a much more reasonable way of conceiving it.

  3. Unger is not a candidate, unlike Perot or Nader, and he’s been until recently rather silent on his one time pupil, what it shows is in the end, everyone deserts you, when the lifeboats go out,

1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Unger’s meaningless betrayal"
  1. […] Log in ← Unger’s meaningless betrayal […]

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins