I’m Not yet Ready to Abandon the Possibility of America
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Great accessibility that benefits not just people who can't read, but also people who could read the article but would rather do something else like walk the dogs while hearing the article.
But by writing this, Barack Obama seems to saying that this isn't the case.
> I recognize that there are those who believe that it’s time to discard the myth—that an examination of America’s past and an even cursory glance at today’s headlines show that this nation’s ideals have always been secondary to conquest and subjugation, a racial caste system and rapacious capitalism, and that to pretend otherwise is to be complicit in a game that was rigged from the start. And I confess that there have been times during the course of writing my book, as I’ve reflected on my presidency and all that’s happened since, when I’ve had to ask myself whether I was too tempered in speaking the truth as I saw it, too cautious in either word or deed, convinced as I was that by appealing to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature I stood a greater chance of leading us in the direction of the America we’ve been promised.
> I don’t know. What I can say for certain is that I’m not yet ready to abandon the possibility of America—not just for the sake of future generations of Americans but for all of humankind.
I see this as a philosophical debate boiling over into the public. Radical philosophers have been saying for a long time now that everything is a question of power and domination, that anyone pretending otherwise is complicit, and that -- in the final analysis -- the mere classification of things is a violent act. On the other side, you have people who are essentially liberal pushing back, insisting on the usefulness of ideals, pointing out that incremental progress is possible, and arguing for the necessity of a common language to talk about the world we have in common.
I'd argue the wind is blowing outward. Across the political spectrum, as the establishment parties are hollow shells of increasing extremism and the rest of America is a plurality of independents frustrated by the lack of anyone that can speak to them without left/right platitudes.
A point made in The Road to Unfreedom by Snyder is that one reason Russia is going after America is for domestic political reasons:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Unfreedom
Specifically if the Russian public can be shown that America, the supposed shining City on the Hill, is no better than Russia, then the Kremlin will not have to bother improving life for its citizens, and the oligarchs can continue on doing whatever they want to.
not for the first time.
Which philosophers are saying this? I majored in philosophy, still read philosophy (both ancient and modern academic), and have never encountered anyone saying that classification of things is a violent act.
It's true there has always been a struggle, going back to ancient Greece and Thucydides, about whether politics should be about justice (or morality) or power.[0] Between what is right, and who has force. And some, like Chomsky (who some might call a radical), say that everyone living in a modern society is complicit in some way[1]. But I've never seen anyone say that believing in justice/morality instead of power makes one complicit.
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/#R...
Foucault, Irigaray, Rorty, and Butler to name a few.
These thinkers believe that distinctions are bad, that the borders between things should be dissolved, that concepts like rational-irrational, true-false, objective-subjective, man-woman are oppressive.
Chomsky is not radical in the sense I mean. He's a liberal who believes in progress, responsibility, knowledge, and the possibility of relations between people that are not coercive. He's just pessimistic about human relations as they exist today. There's a Chomsky-Foucault debate on youtube. Chomsky sees a distinction between the responsible-irresponsible use of power and Foucault does not. You can also look up the Habermas-Rorty debates.
Where were the Perp walks? He got chummy with Wall Street and cashed out after his "retirement". He over saw Putin making territorial expansions and was really ineffective containing Russia and China. etc.
Color me Furious when a dude with 7 million dollar mansion in DC and Martha's Vineyard complains about not giving up on America.
Losing Ukraine as a de facto puppet state and having to invade to keep critical port infrastructure in the Crimea isn't an expansion, it's a mitigated loss.
Trump is literally worse in every point you listed.
But I get it, you made a choice and you tried to find a justification for that choice. I saw this speech and Q&A with Yanis Varoufakis the other day, and at one point he reiterated the "Fuck you, establishment!" motivations of Trump and Brexit-voters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGeevtdp1WQ&feature=youtu.be... .
Voting for Hillary would have meant a continuation of Obama, out of anger or desperation of how shitty their lives had been, many in the electorate thought "Let's just vote for change, it might be shit, or it might be good, at least we know it'll be change.". And IMO Trump voters probably found justification after they made up their minds to vote for him, fooling themselves "He's not shit!" and clutching to empty hopes that Trump will fulfill his car salesman promises...
Frankly I think your take is right on. A vote for Hillary well may have been a vote for leadership that would continue to ignore the deteriorating parts of America, and Trump made the effort to pander and campaign to the people in those areas. Put on the cloak of the Christian right too, even though he is an obvious stranger to both spirituality and Judeo-Christian morality.
I'm not arguing that it wouldnt be great if our politicians would all go back to their farms in recess, but I am saying that in today's world and with our system, that it's impossible.
EDIT: Two minor corrections prompted by downvoters. 6 bankruptcies instead of 7, and his family wealth in 1980 was, inflation adjusted, a bit shy of a billion (~$900 million). My bad.
And you went to a trust fund narcissist who has never demonstrated any care for anyone but himself, I would have voted for almost anyone other than Donald Trump.
If the vast majority of the country is OK being indentured to the 1%, there is very little anyone can do to fix things.
I am sure, you will be on streets for unionizing Amazon workforce.. happy to join you when you start that protest.
There is no world in which any criticism of Obama, or any other politician, Democrat or Republican, should lead someone to support Trump. I too did not like Obama and refused to vote for him for his second term, but I would vote for a flaming turd in a paper bag on my doorstep over Trump or anyone that supports him.
Please do not regurgitate MSNBC talking points like Bountygate, Suckergate.. I am aware of these and do not have trust in anonymous sources.
Surely we should protect our interests, but are Ukraine or the South China Sea more vital to us than they are to Russia and China? What's actually in it for us besides hegemony for its own sake?
Maybe fixing up some of our glaring domestic problems would be more effective in the long run.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/opinion/how-to-protect-am...
Obama had election promises to get out of conflicts, close Guantanamo Bay, and so on. Campaign promises reneged and the continuance of Bush era executive power overriding the course of legislation.
Compared to Trump Obama looks good, but in reality he wasn't really anything special apart from his eloquence and kind demeanor which I am sure Republicans dismissed as Democrats dismiss the qualities of Rep. Presidents. It's all just the same shit from different sides, it's kind of laughable really.
Seeing him fail to deliver on that promise changed my opinion of him completely.
I know a lot of people don't want to hear this but a large number of people just can't accept that a Black man should live in the white house. That black man can be the best person in the world and this set of population can still not accept him due to reptilian hatred.
You can't generalize every supporter obviously but you can see it from which policies of Trump get the most support. It's not like Trump actually improved quality of life for anyone but he sure did tickle the reptilian hatred.
Some people hate him because he's thoughtful and pragmatic. They appeal to emotion or faith, not intellect. Their goal is cataclysm, not stability. It sounds crazy, it is crazy, but from boogaloo bros to evangelicals it's a lot of Trump's base. Oh, and he's black. That matters a lot to an overlapping segment of that base, outweighing literally any other personal qualities he might have.
More importantly, Obama’s decency or Trump’s lack thereof are mostly irrelevant to what many people want out of a president. For example, I want Medicare for all, a green new deal, no more drone strikes, nationalized internet, etc. We’re more likely to get those things by being angry, not by being civil.
decency and pragmatism are also emotional appeals
...
We’re more likely to get those things by being angry
I've lost count of the number of people who I met who blatantly make the above statements as if they are matter-of-fact... Because they watch the media that perpetuates these myths, every single day.
So, the vitriol towards Obama comes from a fraction of the media that will stop at nothing to destroy him.
(And, before someone goes and says that "the liberal media does it too," remember that the rest of American media does not openly contradict established facts to forward a political agenda.)
Put your finger on the Median republican line starting in 1994: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charts-americas-political-d...
In 2004 the median republican moved left of 1994. However, in 2017 only 1 line has really changed position. Now place your finger on 1994 Democrat. Their line has only moved left.
Political divide is occurring almost entirely on the Democrat spectrum. The divide started between 2004 and 2011 according to the graphs.
The explanation is quite simple. Obama's presidency in 2009. That makes this article quite interesting as it was written by the source of the divide.
>This contest is not new, of course. In many ways, it has defined the American experience. It’s embedded in founding documents that could simultaneously proclaim all men equal and yet count a slave as three-fifths of a man.
The "first black president" was going to have identity politics problem. Yet here he is a sentence after asserting race.
The left-wing then is very quick to call Trump a white supremacist and racist. Put Trump aside, he's done.
>I don’t know. What I can say for certain is that I’m not yet ready to abandon the possibility of America—not just for the sake of future generations of Americans but for all of humankind.
Now put that in the above concern. It's the democrats who are dividing the USA. It's the identity politics of Obama that caused the schism.
To heal the divide you have to identify the above problem and find the fix. However, one thing is for sure. During a political divide like this, the 2 sides refuse to talk to each other and often make decisions that will only exacerbate the problem.
Thee problem with that is that several of the questions that make it up are assessments of current conditions, not pure ideology. If (as is, in fact, the case) the underlying facts changed away from Democrats preferences over the studied time on those issues, Democrats with constant preferences would appear to move left (and, conversely, an apparently stationary position on those issues# would represent a rightward shift in preferences.)
Conversely, see: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/31/the-repu...
Common problem with political compass type verification. In fact becomes even more complicated when there's more than 2 political parties in an election system.
>If (as is, in fact, the case) the underlying facts changed away from Democrats preferences over the studied time on those issues, Democrats with constant preferences would appear to move left (and, conversely, an apparently stationary position on those issues# would represent a rightward shift in preferences.)
For sure, we can't really deny the political divide. You can't deny when it started to happen.
>Conversely, see: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/31/the-repu...
That is certainly a measurement. I don't believe that is the only factor in play. If that link wasn't paywalled and I could go into the depth of the evaluation. I would best that this has far more to do with negative rights and positive rights.
Trump I would suspect is a classical liberal. The problem is that 'liberalism' has been usurped by the positive rights crowd and now illiberalism is where classical liberals are fighting against positive rights.
Meanwhile on the Democrat far left, folks like AOC are pushing for extreme positive rights.
Overall though I feel like we are side skirting the actual concern. If the identity politics of Obama created the political schism we are seeing. The road to fixing the schism will have to come from the democrats. Obama misplayed his 2 terms in office and increased the divide greatly.
The perception of election fraud is only going to force the republicans to the right. Increasing divide.
Trump I would suspect has nothing resembling a coherent political philosophy and couldn't understand classical liberalism, and he's certainly, of recent prominent politiciana of either party, the one that least often cites and most often explicitly dismisses norms of classical liberalism; the centrist (relatively) wings of both major American parties are grounded in classical liberalism (which is why, when those wings were dominant in both parties, we had the brief neoliberal consensus period), their peripheries are more diverse in major influences.
I have no reason to disagree. Trump is a symptom of the problem; the divide was happening before he came onto the scene. The actual problem needs to be resolved before it becomes a bigger problem. Right now in my point of view identity politics has created a political schism that's widening.
What's the status quo? Call everyone a racist white supremacist? That's going to increase the divide more.
Government has become too large and our news media has gone under the control of said gov. For crying out loud, even China has a large presence/narrative control of Reddit and from a userbase perspective, Ghislaine Maxwell [1] has been controlling the narrative on Reddit for years [2].
Obama, it’s a joke if you think we can all simply be aligned. It doesn’t work like that. We all have different lives and issues we are facing. We all have different needs. If you want government to be more functional, scale has to be decreased. The USA is simply too big and diverse to meet the needs of all with one stone.
Finally, painting one man, Trump, the way you are is simply wrong. One man can’t destroy a nation - and if one can - then this nation was never meant to survive. Luckily, he can’t and this nation will prosper long past your book publishing.
Enjoy your pizza and dogs. The citizens of the USA will win no matter what you do to try to stop/hamper it.
[1] Epstein’s friend.
[2] /u/maxwellhill
Can you explain this to me please (genuine question)?
[2] The most influential account and moderator on Reddit, maxwellhill, has been inactive since the moment Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s friend, was detained. Interestingly, the username coincides with Ghislaines life.
Coincidentally, Ghislaine Maxwell was raised in a news family who controlled most of the media you and I have read for decades.
Someone who controls the narrative in mainstream would understand the importance of Reddit.
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/aohpmo/given_that_red...
And you're claiming citizens have no significant role in creating the division?
Where was that claim made?
There are simply too many complex issues for a two party system to be effective addressing them. In countries with more competition and political spectrum, it's easier to find the sensible middle grounds. When opportunists rise, they usually don't remain too long and the sensible part of their agendas get co-opted by other parties.
> ...someone diametrically opposed to everything we stood for had been chosen as my successor.
It's pretty obvious that Trump and Obama are opposed in many, many things.
But Trump and Obama do have common ground. At least in the broadest of senses if nothing else. Both profess love for America!
Obama predates Trump as a serious political animal. And all this divisiveness predates Trump. I think Obama bears significant responsibility that Trump was even elected in the first place. I think Obama slipping in hyperbolic divisiveness here is a tiny example of exactly why Trump fans were looking for someone like him. It shows a real lack of perspective to not be able to separate political opponents from utter enemies.
I think you are ignoring the elephant in the room because you don't like what it says about America.
And people wonder how Trump happened.
I just think Occam's razor applies here.
Either directly following the passage of the civil rights act southern voters suddenly en masse rejected neo-capitalism, or something else was going on...
I know it is unpopular to discuss but there is a high correlation between trump supporters and racial resentment measures. It is silly to ignore that.
Yes, it takes some nuance to address racism as separate from opposition to a black president. I'd like to think HN is still capable of some nuance.
It is hard to ignore that the president directly following Obama basically ran on a platform consisting primarily of dog whistles and racebaiting.
I think it is harmful to ignore the primary evidence because people don't like what it says about America.
I think the democratic party needs to acknowledge that various degrees of racism right now seem to account for a very significant part of the electorate currently, and any messaging and strategy needs to acknowledge that for the most part you need to have some light racists as part of your coalition if you want to maintain a majority.
Of course opposition to Obama is much deeper than racism. I opposed Obama after regretfully voting for him in his first term, and then refused voting for him in his second term, for a multitude of executive policy decisions. But there is a huge quantity of criticism of Obama that can very easily be boiled down to racism, either because it is explicit, or so culturally entrenched as dog-whistle racism that it is undeniable. Hell, Hillary's dog-whistle racism when running against Obama in 2008 was a primary reason she lost the black vote in 2016! Racist opposition to Obama was, and still is, everywhere.
Both are humans, have 2 eyes and 2 legs, etc, too, but how does this help?
God damn, blaming Obama for Trump, how simplistic are your thoughts? Republicans said from day 1 of his presidency that their mission was to block him from succeeding (who gives a shit how much the country and the people suffered), because they probably knew he was very capable, and if he managed to fix/advance the country, the GOP knew their party was toast. I was going to write, "as well as their principles", but that sounds so honorable, their principles seem to be power at any cost and being spineless hypocrites, like the current GOP silence on Trump's baseless undermining of democracy.
Add to that, Fox News who was poisoning half the country...
Yes, Obama deserves some blame here. No, he doesn't deserve all of it. But he did run in 2008 on pivoting away from this sort of negativity and cynicism.
For the record, I'm not a Republican, don't consume Fox News, and never voted for Trump, so your rant about all that only reinforces my point about looking for enemies, I think.
I think your conclusions are still wrong, and you're calling people who criticize them "looking for enemies" to protect your fragile ego.
Oh, I'm sorry. Which politician are we talking about again? Still waiting on that concession speech...