Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > February > 03 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: A response to Goldberg on Obama
Jonah Goldberg has a column saying Obama is an ideologue whether he admits it or not. This after Obama said “I am not an ideologue” at his meeting with House Republicans Friday.
But Goldberg really doesn’t get at the point in contention. His point is that Obama is an ideologue in the sense that everybody with a strong political orientation is an ideologue.
“The president invokes his or America’s ‘values’ to justify a ban on waterboarding, passage of universal health care, sustaining legalized abortion, higher taxes for the wealthy, gay equality and — coming soon — a more expedient system for selecting a college football champion. Those all involve pursuing ideological ends.”
That is an extraordinarily broad definition of ideology. The word came into usage not as a synonym for “set of values” but as a reference to very specific doctrines like communism and socialism.
It has evolved. Liberals use it about conservatives to mean people who have predictable, knee-jerk responses to everything, always — in the economic realm, at least — saying the problem is too much government. Conservatives paint liberals as people who always think more government is the answer.
Obama was saying, that’s not who I am. If you’ve got a small-government solution, great; let’s hear it.
Some surely will find that disingenuous, to one degree or another. Fine. Goldberg will probably write that column one day, if he hasn’t. Ultimately, it matter less what the Republican writers say, than what the Republican politicians do, by way of taking Obama up on his offer.
Why write the column Goldberg wrote, all semantics? Presumably because the conservatives would rather oppose an ideologue than a pragmatist. Better to paint your opponent as someone in the grip of controversial values than as an open-minded fact monger.
But there’s more. As Goldberg’s column suggests, he’s perfectly happy to be considered an ideologue, even if he knows the word has a certain negative connotation to most people. (He’s not running for office, after all, just playing to a niche of readers.) He’s probably pretty typical of conservative columnists in that regard.
Most liberals, though, really do not think of themselves as ideologues. They will admit to having different values from conservatives, but they insist they are committed to no ideology as way of promoting those values, but to whatever works. Sometimes, in these times, that means government action. But many are eager to tell you all the realms in which they are leery of government.
For me, if anybody cares, liberalism is the very antithesis of ideology, not of conservatism. Open-mindedness is the whole point, albiet in pursuit of certain values, roughly categorized, I suppose, as humanist. But I do think liberalism sometimes hardens into something very much like ideology. I think Obama was saying, in part, that he is aware of that possibility and tries to guard against it.
Permalink | Comments (26) | Post your comment | Categories: Martin Gottlieb, National Politics
Comments
By Emmett Thornton Beaver
February 3, 2010 10:19 PM | Link to this
Thank you Martin Gottlobe.
By red
February 3, 2010 10:40 PM | Link to this
I don’t understand where you’re going martin or the guy you wrote about. I’m just a dumb conservative who’s sick of listening to a president that doesn’t listen to anyone other than his radical advisors. He’s doing his best to destroy ‘The American Way’ and right all the perceived wrongs he’s had in his life.
By TRS
February 4, 2010 12:46 AM | Link to this
Ideology tends to refer to the way in which people think about the world and their ideal concept of how to live in the world. Wiki notes it directs ones goals, expectations and actions. In short, it is a worldview. Everyone has one. You can’t live in the world without one. Each of us believe we are open minded; yet, in processing, we turn to our worldviews for answers. For example in healthcare, the Prez said if their is a small gvmt solution, tell him; however, he heard them all and rejected them. Using the public option argument as an example, the Prez wanted to create one entity to provide competition for the main health carriers whereas Republicans wanted to provide 1300+ sources of competition by allowing for the sale of health insurance across state lines. I would seem a pragmatist would understand that 1300 sources are better than one; yet, because of the Prez ideological bent, his worldview if you will, he chose to believe that one gvmt run plan was better than 1300 private competitors. That doesn’t seem very pragmatic to me.
By Philman
February 4, 2010 4:38 AM | Link to this
Thank You TRS
By Kurt
February 4, 2010 6:33 AM | Link to this
OK—-Martin, small government solution, hers’s two, get the fair tax into law, and drill here, and refine here. Both you and the community organizer are against it, but it would ignite this economy. Obama is a lying Marxist ivory towered thereist, who despises his own country, and not even a full grown man, but a man-child
By bstew
February 4, 2010 8:34 AM | Link to this
kurt, this is a perfect post to illustrate why people like you cannot be taken seriouslty. you present two very logical ideas that may or may not have the desired effect and then you write a sentence that is so stupid it made me laugh out loud. i realize this is the opinion page but i am going to give you a fact. there are people who i would imagine don’t agree with much of what you have to say that are not marxist, do not hate this country and are full grown adults. shocking i know. i also think i can help you find that man-child with daddy issues you are looking for. he lives in crawford, texas.
By bobby
February 4, 2010 9:08 AM | Link to this
Timothy Geitner Pragmatism- A couple of weeks after hearing a sermon on “Knowing my own Hidden Secrets and Lies and Deceit” a man wrote the following letter to the IRS: I have been unable to sleep knowing that I cheated on my income taxes. I understand my taxable income and have enclosed a check for $150. If I can’t sleep I will send the rest…………Whatever works!
By PRW
February 4, 2010 9:11 AM | Link to this
TRS, Your example proves just the opposite. Obama never made the public option an imperative and kept saying that even to Democrats.
By PRW
February 4, 2010 9:19 AM | Link to this
KURT, Do you even know what a Marxist believes? Your diatribe is a bit shrill and childish
By keithfromxenia
February 4, 2010 9:22 AM | Link to this
it is good to know that the writers of the ddn are available to defend the reputation of the president. obama does not need a pr firm as long as gottlieb is around.
By joe_mamma
February 4, 2010 9:23 AM | Link to this
Martin, I guess you and President Obama can spin it anyway you want. Only you two really know what you believe in your hearts. Both of you can continue to swear up and down that you aren’t always for bigger government. The problem is that whatever problem you write about and whatever problem the President talks about invariably your answers are for there to be more government involvement in our lives.
By Raoul
February 4, 2010 10:07 AM | Link to this
Martin, I applaud your defense of liberalism. I am envious of liberals because they can soar above any argument by declaring themselves ‘tolerant’, ‘open-minded’ ‘humanists’, which, we are all to presume, means their great love and tolerance of fellow man trumps all debate over worldly, trivial matters such as how to fairly tax citizens, regulate earnings for those that make too much, re-distribute the wealth of some to others, and chastise those that oppose them by labeling them racist, greedy, and unenlightened. This is how Chris Matthews can say “I forgot he (BO) was Black for an hour” while gushing over his SOTU speech. Why, how can anyone claim Chris Matthews said something that even hints of racism? After all, he is a liberal- Progressive-Humanist, and therefore incapable of such things. I congratulate all liberals for their enlightenment. But pragmatic? I think a truer definition of liberalism is ‘the opposite of pragmatism’.
By Stephen Lahanas
February 4, 2010 10:18 AM | Link to this
The more pertinent question is whether politicians today (Obama included) are overly partisan, not whether they are ideologues. Partisanship has less to do with ideology than it used to but it has much to do with how well or poorly the overall political process functions. In regards to whether Liberals have an ideology I’d say not one that fits within the old notions - it is something more akin to Populism but it has yet to be properly defined, which of course makes it easier for Conservatives to define Liberals however they wish to.
By It's all very well in theory,but it doen;t work in practice
February 4, 2010 10:19 AM | Link to this
Raoul,Thank you for another spanking. Martin
By Leslie
February 4, 2010 1:52 PM | Link to this
I realize this is just an opinion piece, but wow so naive and close minded. I’ve watched the Senate and the House on C-SPAN. I’ve seen the videos all over the internet. Martin you are in clear denial if you think the democrats have been open and honest. You are incomplete denial if you really believe Obama has reached out to the republicans or even the people that did not vote for Obama. From day one Obama’s actions have made it clear that he does not care and even looks down on all of us that do not agree with him. He has no intentions of compromising. It is a joke to say he has reached across the aisle. Martin, Obama is like my Dad. Tells you he loves you then begins to beat the living you know what out of you. Kicks you like a dog, looks at you with disgust. You see my father’s words meant nothing because his actions totally negated his words. Just like Obama. He has no intentions of working with republicans or independents. Martin you are part of the problem because you rally and support the abuse. You even actually justify the abuse.
By S. Freud
February 4, 2010 2:25 PM | Link to this
Leslie, One word…. THERAPY.
By Martin Gottlieb
February 4, 2010 2:28 PM | Link to this
Leslie, I guess this comment is about a column I wrote the other day about compromise, rather than this one.——————————————- It’s true that the Democrats didn’t reach out to the Republicans last year. They took the attitude that, since they had won the election, they had the responsibility to govern. They couldn’t, after all, go back to their constituents in two years and say, “We couldn’t get anything done because the Republicans didn’t cooperate.” That was particularly true in the House.——————————————— I’d have to guess that if the positions of the two parties were reversed, the Republicans would have done the same thing. Actually, when the Republicans took over the House (and Senate) in 1994, Speaker Newt Gingrich very explicitly SAID there would be “no compromise.” Went out of his way to say. It sticks in memory because it was so weird, because the Democrats still had the presidency. —————————————- The strategy turns out to have a sharp downside: the minority party freaks out, which scares independent voters about the majority party. They see the majority as power mad; they want bipartisanship and compromise. The Democrats felt they were bending over backwards to reach all manner compromises, but they were all within the party.
By bobby
February 4, 2010 2:39 PM | Link to this
Mr. Gottlieb, I agree that there was some bending over going on last year,but I question the direction and who was doing what to whom.
By scoobydo
February 4, 2010 3:40 PM | Link to this
Democrats didn’t reach out to the Republicans last year? Really, so all that crap the healthcare bill turned in to in the senate all the negotiations with Democrats. Interesting BUT WRONG as usual. Republicans have voted together to block Democrats’ attempts to pass legislation more often than any Congress in history. On December 18, Republicans broke the modern-day record for the most filibusters in history, and then there is this little gem, Obama also criticized Republicans for opposing a bill to create a bipartisan commission on reducing the deficit, saying that seven GOP senators who once co-sponsored the bill then voted against it because it was supported by Democrats.
By record setting?
February 4, 2010 3:58 PM | Link to this
“On December 18, Republicans broke the modern-day record for the most filibusters in history”—- Actually, that’s false. The democrats (with the addition of independent Lieberman) held a super majority. The democrats could have passed any legislation without a single republican vote.
By irishguy
February 4, 2010 6:40 PM | Link to this
Martin, I’ve meet one or two “open minded” liberals. The vast majority tend to view we conservatives as knuckle dragging neanderthals.
By Paul
February 5, 2010 9:12 AM | Link to this
Martin,I appreciate your response. I rarely find myself agreeing with you. What is it about the conservative response that pisses you off? Why are liberals so defiant of conservative ideas? Most Americans consider themselves to be conservative (not republican). Why do guys like you have to always criticize members of the media that offer a different opinion? Is there anything that Goldberg offered you found interesting or agreed with? Or is it the fact that he was critical of the President.
By Martin Gottlieb
February 5, 2010 3:50 PM | Link to this
Paul, All I said about Goldberg was that he’s using the word “ideologue” differently than Obama. That’s not exactly a scathing attack. Then I followed up with a response that grants the heart of the best critique I saw among the responses to my post. And I get, what do you have against conservatives?—————————————————- As for why I took issue with Goldberg: Taking issue is what we do. The Internet offers a new opportunity. So often, the columnists talk past each other, not engaging (except in shoutfests on television). I think responding to a column fosters the discipline of actually addressing somebody else’s points, as opposed to inventing an opposition straw man and destroying it, the most common form of commentary. At any rate, people get a variety of views, the whole idea of our enterprise.——————————————————— The lists are long of criticisms we’ve made of Democrats and liberals and their ideas, and of praise of Republicans and conservatives and their ideas, not to mention the vast quantities of Republicans we endorse. ———————————————————- That said, I do find that many conservative columnists are particularly egregious as to the quality of their arguments. (This does not apply to the Goldberg column.) Seems to me that many proceed, like talk radio people, with no concern about making sense, only about giving a certain audience what makes it feel good. That makes them awfully juicy targets.
By dclay
February 5, 2010 3:52 PM | Link to this
The liberals’ actions clearly reveal a consistent adherence to an ideology. Generally speaking, the principle components of liberal ideology are that corporate profits and individual wealth are both evil; wealth, in fact, must be redistributed; growth of government is necessary and good; and the rights of the individual are subordinate to the greater society. These ideas have caused every president since Jimmy Carter to punish the very businesses that provide goods and services. Carter had his obsession with “windfall profit taxes” against oil companies; and one of the first acts of the Obama administration was to levy outrageous taxes on tobacco, another industry hated by liberals. The liberals seek to create a dependency on government. That is why they want to reduce our wealth by way of taxes and redistribution; eliminate our right to self-defense; and restrict our right to pursue happiness, especially if that happiness comes from enjoying a cigar (just ask Michael Jordan), driving a fast car, or building a profitable business. Jimmy Carter tried to accuse the American people of harboring a “malaise.” He never stopped to think, as liberals seldom do, that the liberal ideology created,and still creates, a despair among free Americans.
By Philman
February 6, 2010 5:16 AM | Link to this
It’s great to see you actually keep up with the responses Marty, so tell me have you taken the time to read any of the writings of Obama and his czars, while I admit I have not I have listened to some that have , I think that gives us a better understanding to what a person belives, than just listening to their political speeches, would you agree?
By null
February 7, 2010 1:13 PM | Link to this
Martin, That you refer to liberalism as being open minded is the very testament to how wrapped up you have become in your little world. To say liberals are more open minded is just plain bunk. When was the last time anyone on the left embraced a conservative viewpoint or opinion? Your tone is once again condesending and reinforces why so many refuse to pay for the liberal rag you work for.