Obama's Positivism

In the past several months, during the transition, two characteristics have emerged that have caught my attention. One is the President is interested in talking to anyone from the intellectual elite, right, left, or center. A sit down dinner at George Will's house with Bill Kristol and David Brooks being just the kind of thing I am thinking of. His appointments have struck the same tone, selecting well respected experts, including Bush Administration folks, rather than selections calculated to please his base.

Throughout the campaign, and mentioned again during the Inauguration, was a declaration of a post-partisan approach: "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply." The combination of an appreciation of expertise and intellectualism plus a rejection of ideology is often a signal of Positivism.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works (...)." Is this pragmatism, or Pragmatism? The philosophy of Pragmatism being an American variety of Positivism.

In government, the most common variety of Positivism is Technocracy. The fact that Obama was always very nebulous (Hope and Change) and short on actual explanations on the how can now be read as meaning there never was any agenda more specific than to put the experts in charge. Technocracy is the form of government where the experts decide policy and administrate its implementation. Technocracy, like all other forms of Positivism fancies itself scientific, and hence non-partisan.

Obama said "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." To him, politics is not a process in which interested groups meat, contest, dispute, and sometimes compromise. Such a notion is petty, false, and worn out. Rather disinterested experts will be the arbiters of policy and the intrusion of the pubic into the affairs of government will be regarded as ungrateful, petty interference.

Discarding the will of the people, all to common for the technocrat, for the expert opinion arrived at scientifically by the best and brightest might be worth it, if it worked. It does not. Experts possess a general expertise about abstract examples, general circumstances, but no one is an expert in their own circumstances but themselves. Great plans devised by benevolent experts are always a mess.

Do not impose experts on the people, but let the people decide themselves, through the political process and through the market.