Kosmopolitis
As James is being attacked from all sides (most especially in his own comboxes) for ridiculing the phrase “citizen of the world” as nonsense, I have to say a few more things beyond what I have already said. The least compelling arguments advanced against James’ view are that former Presidents have used this same phrase. Well, yes, former Presidents have used vapid phrases many times, so I suppose you could say that Obama gave a good audition for his prospective position, but what can it mean to say that one is a citizen of the world? The most compelling argument I have seen is…well, actually, there isn’t any particularly compelling argument in support of this phrase. That phrase implies that all “citizens” of the world have obligations of one kind or another to the rest of the non-existent world-polity, even though “citizens of the world” do not share in the same political life.
It has become a conventional line that presumably well-meaning people say, but it has no substance, not least because it was coined by a man for whom all forms of loyalty were arbitrary and irrational*. While its modern usage often suggests an affinity for or loyalty to other places besides or even in addition to one’s own community, the word came into being to define the repudiation of political and social bonds. To trace kosmopolitis back to its origins is to trace it to those who believed all forms of social and political obligation to be worthless, which is often the opposite of what people who fancy themselves “cosmopolitan” actually support. In fact, the broad and universal sort of character that acknowledges and respects the diversity of the world that people think has something to do with cosmopolitanism is more appropriately defined by such words as ecumenical or catholic. Strangely, though perhaps not so surprisingly, those who identify with some form of cosmopolitanism tend to be the same people who would like to see the world’s political and cultural diversity reduced to a monoculture of managed democratic capitalism, which confirms that there is something essentially intolerant and destructive of established cultures and traditions in the cosmopolitan view. The phrase is meaningless, but the idea that the phrase hints at is quite undesirable.
*This is not a total rejection of Cynicism, which bears some intriguing similarities to modern philosophical pessimism and Christian asceticism.
A little overanalytical, Mr. Larison?
I wasn’t particularly stirred one way or another by Obama saying that in addition to being a proud American citizen he was also “a citizen of the world.” So I cannot for the life of me understand why it sets off alarm bells for you.
It hints, you say at “monocultures of managed democratic capitalism”? And because it was coined by the ideologically suspect Tom Paine (who knew?), “a man for whom all forms of loyalty were arbitrary and irrational,” [footnote duly noted.] therefore Obama is guilty (by association with Tom Paine) of being loyal to nothing and no one? This is what you suggest, without saying.
This is of a piece, seems to me, with insidious suggestions that Obama is un-American and, what was it last week? Arrogant or elite?
Anyway, why can’t Obama merely be saying, we Americans are curious about you (Germans, Jordanians, Afghanis, British)? Willing to listen and learn? We like you and we play well with others and here I am looking and sounding presidential.
This is what you suggest, without saying.
Hardly. Mr. Larison is just pointing out that the phrase is meaningless and responding to the arguments given by those who would defend its use.
Anyway, why can’t Obama merely be saying, we Americans are curious about you (Germans, Jordanians, Afghanis, British)? Willing to listen and learn? We like you and we play well with others and here I am looking and sounding presidential.
Then he should have said that instead of resorting to a trite phrase.
The person I was referring to in the post above was Diogenes, who was reportedly the first to use the word. The reason why “citizen of the world” is objectionable is that it implies a very distorted and false view of the world that I find very troubling. I don’t care who says it–it is an unfortunate and unnecessary phrase. Obama’s use of it is not terribly important, but I don’t like it and I agree with James that it was a mistake insofar as *every* reference to being a “citizen of the world” is a mistake.
He could have said, “I am a proud citizen of the U.S., but also a friend to the world.” That might still sound treacly to some, but it is far more defensible.
Ok, well: Diogenes. And Diogenes having first coined the term, which you find objectionable on a close reading familiar to few, makes Obama guilty of what exactly, by association?
What’s potentially sinister (or vapid) to you is just innocuous speechifying to me.
Could you concede that the speech was largely harmless?
He did just call it “not terribly important” …
It doesn’t really make Obama “guilty” of anything except unfortunate phrasing and probably poor political judgement. My original point about the “citizen of the world” phrase was that it was just the most obvious problem Obama had in the speech–the paeans to globalisation contained in the speech are potentially far more damaging when it comes to the election.
The speech would have been largely harmless if he hadn’t made a series of fairly clear foreign policy commitments regarding a number of countries. Those are the real problems with the speech. I am talking about the “citizen of the world” comment mostly because I have found the responses to criticism of it to be not at all persuasive.
All right. I’m mollified. Thank you.
Let’s be clear about this. The reason Reagan and Bush can use the phrase and Obama can’t is because they are white conservatives and Obama is a black liberal whose father wasn’t a US citizen. The fear that Obama might actually mean there’s a human polity beyond national borders has only to do with his ethnic background and liberal views, which conservative America despises on both counts. Let’s cut through all the b.s. and be honest about it.
conradg:
Maybe your time would be better spent over at National Review or some other “conservative” website since you think you know something about conservatives. For paleos and trad cons, Reagan and Bush would hardly be considered conservative. And even average “conservatives” are wary of anything that smacks of internationalism even when a Republican mouths it. It’s the principle, not the speaker. Save your cry of racism for something real.
I don’t want anyone to use the phrase, and I don’t like it when anyone does. I don’t want *anyone* to think that “there’s a human polity beyond national borders” or that all local political bonds are meaningless, and if that isn’t what people mean when they use the phrase I would prefer if they just stopped using it. Obviously, this blog was not around when Reagan and Bush used it, or else I would have been critical of their uses as well.
tedschan,
When talking about electoral politics, I use the term “conservative” to refer to those who have dominated that label for the last 60 years or so. If you want to lead a revolution against such people, be my guest, but don’t expect the rest of us to see political conservatism as anything but dominated by many of the worst elements of American politics, racists included, until that actually happens. If you think these kinds of reactions to Obama are really anything other than coded racism, I’d advise you to take your head out of the sand and look around. You offer no reason at all why on the national political scene, rather than in some meeting of Ron Paul devotees, that Reagan’s and Bush’s use of these same terms and concepts raises no ire or even eyebrows, while Obama’s does. You can call it a double-standard, but it’s based on racial fears. When Reagan says he’s a citizen of the world, people take comfort that at least a white man is in charge. But a cosmopolitan world in which dark-skinned people are in charge, that’s a little too much for some people to take.
If you think these kinds of reactions to Obama are really anything other than coded racism, I’d advise you to take your head out of the sand and look around.
I’d rather much not judge the state of other people’s souls. You can do so, but for someone who claims to be so enlightened, it’s rather presumptuous.
It raised no eyebrows among standard-issue Republicans and most conservatives when Reagan and Bush used the phrase because Reagan and Bush were Republicans. Then again, the sorts of people who found Bush’s talk of a “new world order” disconcerting would have also found the “citizen of the world” language very dissatisfying. I would stress that the people who dislike this phrase the most have been consistent on this point over the years.
Had Reagan and Bush been Democrats, you can pretty much guarantee that the partisan incentive would have been there to rake them over the coals for saying things that could be spun as showing a lack of patriotism or weaker loyalty. I will agree with conradg up to a point, in that this phrase would not have been noticed and would not be the subject of much discussion in mainstream conservative circles if Obama were not already being targeted with both fair critiques and illegitimate smears regarding his values.
All those Obama boosters who were so keen to emphasise Obama’s background and how “internationalism ran in his veins” (as I believe one Canadian politician said of him) are presumably going to start regretting it, because Obama is unusually vulnerable for a Democratic nominee to this critique. That is why I originally called the remark a blunder, because it is not the kind of thing that Obama should be saying if he wants to undermine this line of attack. He can’t win an Americanism bidding war with McCain, but he can avoid giving his opponents ammunition.
Daniel,
I’m not suggesting your objection to the phrase is racist, or based on anything but principled criticism. But any national furor on this issue is, indeed, based on racial coding and racial fears, seeing as how when prominent white conservatives use the same term, hardly anyone seems to care.
I do disagree with your notion that there is no such thing as a “citizen of the world” in our political identity. We have overlapping levels of political involvement, the last (so far, until extraterrestials establish diplomatic relations) being our joint citizenship of the planet. We are, indeed, a family, all of us cousins of varying degrees of separation. National boundaries are traditional, but in the end transcended by our common humanity. I think you would have a point if you think Obama is suggesting we erase our smaller forms of citizenship and embrace only the largest, but that’s precisely the point he was not making. Our levels of citizenship include family, neighborhood, town, county, state, regional, national, language, continental, and finally, worldwide. I see no harm in reminding people of this when talking about international relations. It would be quite a different thing if this were brought up as an argument against local zoning ordinances.
tedschan,
Inferring racism to conservative electoral politicians after the history of the last 60 years is hardly a stretch of one’s soul-reading powers.
Now you’re limiting it to just politicians, instead of the mass of average “conservative” Americans. That’s a dodge. As for politicians, yes, I don’t judge them either. Justify your generalizations all you want, you don’t have much actual support for them.
conradg,
There’s no denying that racism motivates some people’s opposition and/or depth of opposition to Obama. There’s also no denying that racism is seen by some as a useful tool to help defeat Obama in the election.
But, it’s silly to think that racism is necessarily what motivates the “national furor” over this phrase just because “white conservatives” such as Bush and Reagan didn’t get such criticism when they used it. Do you think that a white liberal presidential candidate, John Kerry for example, would get a free pass on this from the “usual suspects” (NRO, Republican-oriented conservative bloggers, talk radio, etc)?
The people turning things like this into an issue aren’t overly bothered by consistency. They are interested supporting their side, attacking the other side, and being on the winning side come November. It hardly matters what Obama does; he’ll be attacked for it. If he doesn’t go abroad, it highlights his lack of foreign policy experience. If he goes abroad, it’s purely a campaign stunt. Strangely, I don’t recall many Republicans spinning McCain’s recent overseas trips in that manner.
What’s more, calling racism everytime you see this sort of inconsistency just makes you look like a bad stereotype. Save it for the obvious cases — there’s no shortage of those.
Daniel,
In my original post I attributed this national political objection not only to racism, but to the caricatures of liberalism that tend to go hand in hand with the noxious forms of conservative political demagoguery in this country. Frankly, I doubt the term would have the same resonance with a white politician of either party, especially seeing as how Obama phrased it as “A citizen of the United States, and a citizen of the world”. As you have remarked earlier, it’s just basic boilerplate internationalism, wholy appropriate in an address to an international audience, but out of Obama’s mouth there’s some crazed sense that it means brown-skinned people will rule the world. Fortunately, I don’t think it’s negative connontations won’t carry much further beyond certain reactionary circles that wouldn’t vote for him in any case. Most Americans understand that we need to act as participants in world politics, not outsiders who cannot see themselves as part of a larger world of relations. Part of the change people want to see in our foreign policy is more openness and responsibility, rather than dictating to others and making enemies in the process. It’s kind of obvious how that has alienated our allies around the world. Obama is just making assurances that the US will be a responsible member of the international community.
tedschan,
No, I’m limiting it to the kind of political rhetoric that politicians use to capitalize on the ordinary fears that many in the conservative “base” feel, and a number of others outside that base as well. We are seeing that kind of rhetoric and that kind of appeal in play here on this issue.
Ratufa,
I don’t limit it to racism. It’s also anti-liberal propaganda as well. It’s both. Pretending there’s no racism here is just being deliberately obtuse. Something about this whole election, however, seems to require that no one ever mention racism, as if it isn’t a big factor in so many of these “furors” over Obama’s phrasings.
“seems to require that no one ever mention racism”
I assume that you have forgotten the primaries, right? Racism was being mentioned constantly–frequently by Obama supporters, sometimes by the campaign (when it was accusing the Clintons of race-baiting) and more often by pundits. Much of the reaction to the New Yorker cover had everything to do with acknowledging the role of racism in the election. There are plenty of other examples. Whatever else you want to say about this, let’s not say that no one can talk about the role of racism in the election.
It may have a role in some of the reactions to this use of the phrase, but it is not terribly different from when the GOP jumped on Kerry for talking about a “global test,” and you can see critics linking the two phrases today. Kerry’s remark was arguably much more innocuous, but it created a firestorm of criticism from the right along much the same lines. Does hostility to Obama’s background add to this in some cases? It likely does. But I would stress, as I did during the blow-up over Wright, any time the GOP and mainstream conservatives are going crazy about something, it is more likely because of Americanism/anti-Americanism rather than being because of anything else. In my view, this is more dangerous because it is a more socially acceptable line of attack that is still deeply pernicious to the quality of policy debate.
For what it’s worth, mainstream conservatives tend to flip out even more about statements that imply “isolationism” than they do about statements that may imply some globalist view (it has been hilarious to see efforts–usually by buffoons such as Kirchick–to paint Obama as a “neo-isolationist” at the same time that others are warning against his excessive one-worldism). The GOP will try to exploit anxiety about globalism for political advantage, but it is never going to reject globalist policies, and the GOP finds “isolationism” far more threatening than talk of tearing down walls.
[...] Kosmopolitis 21 Daniel Larison, conradg, conradg [...] [...]
Daniel,
I’m of course not forgetting the primaries, but pointing to them. The situation there was that any mention of racism at all seemed forbidden. It was forbidden for the Clintons to engage in coded racism, and it was forbidden for Obama supporters to accuse them of using coded racism. The general subject is simply taboo in the mainstream media. And sure enough, I mention it here and immediately get jumped on, as if we are supposed to exhaust every other possible explanation for some political situation before even daring to raise the issue of race. As if it’s somehow different from everything else in politics, and can’t be discussed rationally as a rather obvious factor in how people think and act and vote.
As for comparing Obama’s “citizen of the world” remark to Kerry’s “global test”, of course this doesn’t wash. Neither Reagan nor Bush nor any other President or candidate had made that formulation before, whereas they had clearly used Obama’s phrase before without raising any rankles. Kerry’s phrase is loaded with obvious subjugation of our decision-making process to some kind of outside agency, whereas no such implications arise in Obama, Reagan, or Bush’s use of the “citizen of the world” phrase. I would of course agree with you that the main issue here is Americanism/anti-Americanism, but that can’t be separated from racism itself due to our country’s horrific racial history, in which blacks were not allowed real citizenship, were not given the freedoms the Declaration of Independence claimed were every man’s birthright, were treated as outsiders, as un-American, even up to this very day as we see in how Obama is being treated on issues like Wright and this one, and the general matter of whether he was “American” enough. I am willing to bet you untold amounts of money that if Obama’s skin were white, we wouldn’t be arguing about whether he was “American” enough. John Edwards had virtually identical political stances and was if anything more liberal than Obama, and yet no one every claimed he wasn’t American enough. Why? Well, the great good grace of being a white man from the South rather than a black man from Chicago. I think this is so obvious the really interesting issue isn’t whether it’s true or not, but why so many people are determined to bend over backwards denying it and pretending it isn’t the real issue here. We have a black man running for President, and the opposition is portraying him as an outsider who “doesn’t share our values”. What exactly is that, really, but coded racism? I would really like an adequate explanation from someone that doesn’t strain all credulity.
As an example of the kind of verbotten attitude towards racism in this election I’m talking about, I was watching Pat Buchanan on Harball just a little bit ago, and he made the point that he can’t understand why Obama is only up by 5-8 pts in the polls. He called Obama a “natural”, an extremely gifted politician running a great race, a “Roy Hobbs” of politics, and he says he can’t understand why he’s not ahead by 25 pts. He had a little look in his eye, like, yeah, you know what I’m talking about – race – but he wasn’t going to be the one to mention it. Tweetty wasn’t there, and the guest host, Mike Barnicle, wasn’t going to go there either. So they just let it pass. And that’s pretty much where the media is with it all. I may not agree with Pat’s politics much, but his insight into the scene is usually pretty spot on, and this is an example of it. Obama, if he were white, would be cleaning up – contrary to Geraldine Ferraro’s assertion that he wouldn’t even be under consideration if he were white. The reason the race remains close at this point is largely due to these racial-based fears of his “un-Americanness”, his not being “known”, the way we naturally assume we know what white people are like. It’s certainly not entirely about race, but race is a big factor, and the fact that no one in the media, not even Pat Buchanan, can talk about this in a matter of fact way tells us how screwed up we are about race.