The audacity of nonjudgment

To my mind, he has stayed pretty true to this pledge despite the howling storm of invective, suspicion, and anger amplified and to some extent generated by the media.  It has made him seem weak and defenseless in the eyes of many liberals who want him to lead the charge to expose the malevolence in the heart of the outrage mongers on the right.  Instead he pleads with both sides to stop the name calling.   

Nonjudgmentalism may appear naïve in the face of vituperative foesand dispirited allies.  The results of the midterm election will no doubt greatly bolster this assessment.  But it is too early to judge.  If he stays true to it, the spirit of acknowledging the good intentions of those with contrary views may one day be considered part of Obama’s legacy.

A good political scientist would buttress such a counterintuitive claim with historical evidence.  I could do so, but I cannot mount a persuasive defense of my interpretation of the evidence within the limits of this blog.  So I rely instead on a primarily psychological argument. Presuming the objective causes of fear and anger—for the most part economic distress—recede with expected economic growth, a good portion of the “fearful and angry” public will grow weary of the emotions.  They are “harsh, jarring, and convulsive” feelings in the words of Adam Smith.  The voices trying to incite them will sound increasingly dissonant in the ears of many who were once willing to listen.  In contrast, the calmer, less judgmental voices will feel better.  

Some people are apparently addicted to outrage and judgment, or at least find them entertaining, so the purveyors of such will always have an audience.  But most people much prefer the warmer, more expansive feeling that comes from wishing others well and the quiet, easy joy of appreciation.  They enjoy the normative satisfactions of benevolence.  Judgment attenuates or precludes such feelings.  A nonjudgmental attitude opens the way to these treasures of the heart.  

We therefore tend to respond more gladly to an appeal to our better angels, to our natural benevolence, than to appeals to fear, judgment, and anger when we feel relatively secure.  We are more aptto listen to the latter whenwe feel insecure.  Angry judgment is louder and attracts more attention, and for a while, at least, nonjudgmental reason can seem comparatively weak and defenseless in the face of wrath.  But should conditions improve, wrath gives way to the longing of our better angels.  

Should Obama stay true to his pledge to refrain from judging the intent of opponents, I predict a sizable portion of the disenchanted electorate will once again find his nonjudgmental attitude a refreshing alternative to judgmental invective.  Should his political fortunes improve after the midterms as Clinton’s did after the setback of 1994,those who bet on the relative potency of fear, judgment, and anger will have cause to rethink their wager.Observers will begin to acknowledge that Obama managed to raise the standards of political discourse.      

Of course, the Murdoch standards of media discourse will not fade away; they are sustained by profit, not electoral success.  But politicians facing an electorate attracted to the more uplifting discourse of politicians who hold to Obama’s pledge to not judge the good intentions of opponents will likely—with great relief—adapt their rhetoric to the higher standard of policy disagreement without personal insult. If so, the audacity of nonjudgment will be part of Obama’s legacy.
    
Dr. Anthony Armstrong is a professor of political science in the history and political science department at Wesley College in Dover, Del.