dagblog - Comments for "Obama: "What if we were wrong?""

Facing Trump, a historian

artappraiser — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 02:13:17 +0000

In reply to Obama: "What if we were wrong?"

Facing Trump, a historian appeals to America's soul: 'I think we'll survive'

Pulitzer winner Jon Meacham says if Americans ‘get to work’, the country can pull through yet another crisis

By David Smith in Washington @ TheGuardian.com, May 20

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy had two giant words on the front, imparting unimprovable advice: “Don’t panic.” Jon Meacham’s new book, a sort of hitchhiker’s guide to the American soul, could easily bear the same cover legend for anyone in a state of perpetual alarm about Donald Trump [....]

[....] “This is not a partisan point but I would bet a lot of money that in 2038 – the same amount of time that separates us from the last years of Clinton, which is [kind] of amazing – America is going to look a lot more like Barack Obama’s America than Donald Trump’s America. Demography is destiny here. We will have these backlashes – this is not the last one – but you can’t argue with broad historical forces, and the broad historical forces are pushing toward a more pluralistic, more open world.” [....]

I always tend to be cautious

barefooted — Sat, 02 Jun 2018 02:06:14 +0000

In reply to Obama: "What if we were wrong?"

I always tend to be cautious when reading accounts of someone's feelings and intimate observations when accounted by someone else. When they were obviously in the room for conversations (which can be verified), or have been known as confidants in the past, I give it side-eyed credence. This part of an unreleased as yet book strikes me as somewhere in between. I don't like things like "a single tear", or descriptions of how Obama felt. However, Rhodes was certainly close to the president, so his telling holds water.

I'll sign onto this. Much

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 19:30:55 +0000

In reply to Agree with this take. (and

I'll sign onto this. Much more eloquent and articulate than what I wrote.

Very insightful comment. I

artappraiser — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 17:30:53 +0000

In reply to Agree with this take. (and

Very insightful comment. I would add that it ties in with the main split in the GOP between the Bannonites and the "cosmpolitan globalists". A split which is again being poked at with Trump's tariffs. They really don't know what to do because: this split gets at many of the crucial swing voters. And even if one is on the Bannon side of the line, it is difficult to go to the town hall meeting in district and give a lecture why Trump's tariffs are the wrong kind of tariffs, doesn't get them anywhere. Is a catch-22, they are like stuck with a crazy.

Agree with this take. (and

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 16:57:39 +0000

In reply to I agree with you that people

Agree with this take. (and not attributing what follows to you, Michael.)

This economy works fabulously well for a minority at the top. Obama's complacent assessment of the economy he left Trump--attaboy, Barack--reflects the obliviousness of many politicians and elites to the experiences of the great many in our country (and how can this be heard by those not flourishing while also hearing Obama say during his presidency that inequality is the biggest problem we face?)

Every time a politician gloats about this economy it just reinforces and amplifies the "politicians out of touch" narrative, always in the background and more salient these days. It appears lost on those glowing about this economy that prosperity remains mostly unshared (true for decades now), that we have historically high inequality and a perception in many quarters of a more rigged than usual economy continuously enriching unaccountable holders of special privileges and having nothing to do with a reward for merit and legitimate accomplishment, piled on top of too few living wage jobs with decent benefits, diminishing economic expectations, and many communities in transparent deep distress with no hope evident on the horizon.

Praising this economy and more of the same economic globalization is heard by many as indifference and a vote for a status quo that, hello, news flash, is not at all satisfactory to a majority these days. Trying to point out to people that you know their reality (stop complaining, this economy is good or as good as can be attained, get real, life is great, be happy with what you have) and are the more perceptive and educated interpreter of it than they are is not in my estimation a promising strategy for electoral success and interrupting the disturbing dynamics and trends. It only feeds a sense that the system is unresponsive and not up to the challenges we are facing, and that those elites supporting the status quo are indifferent or worse to the plight of their fellow citizens who are dealing as best they can with hard times and little help or even concern from what they might at one time have thought of as their government.

Right wing media has done a masterful job of portraying the "coastal elites" as liberal and Democratic rather than corporate Republican as well. You know the endlessly repeated narrative: the coastal Democratic elites do not have a clue what life is like for many ordinary people in this country, are unsympathetic, and, worse, sometimes appear to presume that those struggling in our society are not too sharp, a bunch of racist and sexist rubes, or both. A response to the latter is sometimes "look in the f'ing mirror!". This dynamic mirrors the resentments of some in the South during the civil rights struggles towards those in the North who, they felt, looked down their noses at their handling of race relations and general presumed stupidity and backwardness.

I'd say this cultural disconnect is on full display here as elsewhere.

I agree with you that people

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 31 May 2018 20:59:17 +0000

In reply to Members here have seen me

I agree with you that people are reacting to change, which is happening no matter Obama or Trump do. But I don't see it as a purely psychological issue. People's lives are affected by these changes, sometimes in positive ways but also in negative ways. It's the government's responsibility to mitigate the negative effects of wrenching socio-economic changes, much the way early progressives created regulations and labor laws to blunt the impact of corporatization. Republicans are obviously shirking this responsibility, but even Democrats haven't been taking it seriously enough.

Members here have seen me

artappraiser — Thu, 31 May 2018 19:32:35 +0000

In reply to Certainly, demagoguery and

Members here have seen me argue exactly that here but the difference is that I think it is a temporary reaction of the intransigent conservative mind being dragged kicking and screaming into the new world. The amount of change is incredibly stressful, anyone my age even if far from conservative feels it deep in the gut.

The other difference is that I think the U.S. was a leader in this in the late 90's and will again be a leader in it after this Trump glitch is over precisely because: we are mostly made up of people who rejected loyalties to "the old country" and came here to try something else.

As to Wallace et. al., in the end what is "state's rights" theory but anti-globalism writ small? Someone like Bannon knows all these ideological links and uses them.

I stand by my intial reaction: Obama did not push it too fast. He was Mr. Moderation in that regard.

What's pushing it fast is Trump, he is a catalyst, in your face with it. He's making it happen faster by virtue of counter-reactionism. There's enough polls to tell you the old political paradigms are really over, Trumpism et. al. is temporary delusion, not only that robots are going to take those jobs but the populace at large know that's coming. Look at any Trump fan crowd and all you see is just a bunch of primal screaming, they just want to play with their feelings for a while. Any Obama pushing has nothing to do with it.

China is the wild card. They want to globalize and they don't.

Another true glitch I see: the environmental problem. That's all about "go local". How do you mesh that with globalism?

Certainly, demagoguery and

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 31 May 2018 18:56:00 +0000

In reply to I think the backlash comes

Certainly, demagoguery and intolerance go way back. But this wave of anti-globalism is a recent, specific trend. While there are parallels to George Wallace, he didn't have much to say about international trade deals or immigration, for example. Nor is this trend unique to the U.S. If you reduce to Trumpism to a tribalist disposition and treat it as constant feature of American politics, you can't make sense of the dynamic political forces in play across the Western world.

I reminded earlier today that

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 31 May 2018 18:43:13 +0000

In reply to Hmmm... Interesting little

I reminded earlier today that on Nov 1, 2016, someone at FBI released a bunch of Marc Rich pardon docs, "just coincidentally". While Obama always plays it safe, there were some rogue units and enablers running around and wasn't clear what kind of chaos would ensue.

I think the backlash comes

artappraiser — Thu, 31 May 2018 17:50:35 +0000

In reply to "Everybody was excited by

I think the backlash comes from the same quarter of the population that was, like, attracted to the idea of George Wallace becoming president in 1968. They've been with us since the end of the Civil War. Bill Clinton being a southern governor knew how to convert some of them. The north has always been for "globalization," since before we were a country! Like the Dutch that were the founders of New York.

It's not only a racial thing, it's moreso a country mouse/city mouse thing, but in Obama's case I dare say that if he thinks they were pushing it too hard, what the problem really was his persona as president. He was president as an "other" with his skin color and his background that couldn't even be fit into north or south, that just screamed elite. That's where some were lost. And that, it did come from right wing labeling. They couldn't do that to Bill Clinton, even though he was a Rhodes scholar, he was always still also a "good ole boy". They got so frustrated they had to go after him for sexual harassment.

The sad part is that Obama he understood all that and how to work it (i.e., his "stick to their guns and bible" speech), he just couldn't project it, not in his personality.

Jimmy Carter is another example, knew how to play this, and won doing it, unfortunately circumstances and skills mattered in that instance as well, one cannot do globalization when there's major attacks on American hegemony going on and Japan is buying up the country...