dagblog - Comments for "What can be, should be, said in the SOTU?"

Yeah, every time an idea

erica20 — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 05:13:53 +0000

In reply to It was a different kind of

Yeah, every time an idea started to happen he ran the other way. I hope he had a strategy.

I like when that flip gets

erica20 — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 05:05:54 +0000

In reply to I think your riff off what

I like when that flip gets switched too. ;^)

And I do think we need to make those little authentic moments happen politically, with the people who are already here. The challenge that progressives face is that a lot of the people who are already here, let's face it, are tea partiers. They're not going to find it easy to make those moments happen. Which means it will take a certain amount of work and openness (without seizing control of the discussion) on our part.

I think we need to replace all and any forms of name-calling (especially about religion) with really specific, convincing discussion of what we're really supposed to be doing as Americans. Not quite sure how to do that, but if we want those moments, we need to try. What we're doing right now isn't working....

I do know that it doesn't have anything to do with tone.

I think your riff off what

Elusive Trope — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:10:17 +0000

In reply to I'm with Flavius that the

I think your riff off what she said is very well put. The hardest thing sometimes is "just kind of look at how to work with the things and people who are already here." We can't go forward unless we are willing to be honest about the conditions we find ourselves in. Ever now and then I have found myself in some community interaction where that "real talk" happens and its pretty amazing. Where all the groupings and divisions we construct are there- race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion/spirituality etc - but suddenly people seem to engaging in a more deeply authentic way. I think a lot of the times it has to do with the sense of threat - on the level of one's self identity - fades. Which is not to say it is all rainbows and hugs moments. Usually it comes as a result of disagreement. But something happens, a flip is switched, in that twist of humanity, through the openness to everything that makes us different, we find the commonality, the shared passion.

It was a different kind of

Elusive Trope — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:59:49 +0000

In reply to Turns out he chose a

It was a different kind of theater, one designed not to thrill or excite. There was a moment here and there where he threw in something daring, but that would be quickly swallowed by the next stretch of vanilla discourse.

I think Obama was looking ahead to the battle between him and the Repubs over spending. He was setting up the frame for that battle - hence the competitiveness and education angle. I wasn't meant to inspire as much as take that ground ahead of the clash. If he is successful then when the Republicans come knocking for bigger cuts, the public will see it as hurting the country, hurting our "competitiveness," keeping us off the path to prosperity.

Turns out he chose a

artappraiser — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:28:01 +0000

In reply to What can be, should be, said in the SOTU?

Turns out he chose a deliberately non-theatrical speech. Actually boring, mho. Probably purposely boring (although I must say that I never understood the "great orator" label being applied to him)

I agreed with this comment over at Yglesias, except the part about where he says he was at his strongest. I don't think that part was strong either:

Brian David Thomas Yesterday 11:36 PM
It was a generic speech made by a cautious President who took the rule "first, do no harm" approach to the SOTU.

It seems that Mr. Obama knows that this speech can only hurt him, either by appearing too partisan or by making promises that would come back to haunt him in 2012. On that front, he succeeded in delivering an address that many will forget even happened about 45 days from now.

I thought the President was at his strongest when explaining to Americans where the jobs have gone: to technology and industrializing economies. I think he could have taken it a step further, explaining how strong growth in the developing world is benefiting our multinationals and stock markets while disrupting and holding back our middle class, but he wants to avoid appearing anti-business populist after the midterm shellacking.

His most disappointing part was his discussion of the deficit. It was vague, vague, vague. If I were an international investor increasingly skittish about US treasury bonds, this speech hardly reassured. If anything, it provides evidence that American politicians lack the spine and leadership to deliver tough medicine until a crisis appears inevitable.

But he was speaking to a larger audience: the people on Main Street. For them, I suspect they tuned in respectfully, struggled to maintain focus, and left uninspired. Mr. Obama must start to deliver a more genuine, impassioned, and moving political persona. Otherwise, he will have his work cut out for him in 2012 even if people are feeling the recovery.

I'm tempted to reply "

Flavius — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:17:00 +0000

In reply to In order to understand what

I'm tempted to reply " whatever" but that would be rude. So let me try again.

Anyone can have an hermetic idea which is important even tho she doesn't tell any one else.But often the value of an idea depends upon it's being presented to others so it can affect what they do, or even just what they think..

The person who has the idea has the responsibility for trying to make that happen..

Everyday all of us are being presented with lots of things on the internet , in the media ,by other people. Whatever. We wouldn't be able to make breakfast unless we learned to screen these inputs so that we only think about the things that -we think- might be really useful to us. Of course we get that wrong a lot .Not because we think like eighth graders ( I know some pretty smart ones BTW) but because that's what we have to do.

What the person with the idea has to do -if she wants someone else to think about it-is to make it easy. Help them to recognize they should let it through the screen.

No doubt Butler puts tremendous mental effort into coming to certain conclusions.But unless she makes a similar effort on how she writes it down she's like the tree that falls in the forest.

Employing correct grammar would be a good start.

I'm afraid I didn't much care

erica20 — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:50:13 +0000

In reply to What can be, should be, said in the SOTU?

I'm afraid I didn't much care for the "eighth grader" comment at the end. It sort of cheapened the point (or at least what I thought was the point.)

I'm with Flavius that the

erica20 — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:42:25 +0000

In reply to What can be, should be, said in the SOTU?

I'm with Flavius that the grammar's a little off kilter.

Plus, it's language that's unfamiliar in context, more theater than political. But here's an attempt at translating these statements.

We kind of have two paths here:

First, we can go on puffing about diversity while actively stamping out actual diversity in any place it rears its head. Philosophically, we'll embrace ever more grandiose but ever less meaningful visions of human invdividuality and individual rights. We'll then invest our pauperized views about human potential in ever more dictatorial leaders who cater to our always-narrowing views of what we can dare to do. (A cycle of smug self-censorship makes a lot less work for the dictators.)

Or, we could genuinely accept the fact that we really are different from each other in a lot of important ways. We could be okay with that. We could deliberately choose less "leader-ish" leaders. We could quit ranting about building a "new cultural infrastructure" or a "shared prosperity" and just kind of look at how to work with the things and people who are already here. We could stop trying to be right all the time. The changes wouldn't be obvious. It would be weird, creepy, unnerving, and continually unresolved. Our conversations with each other will be way too honest to be smooth, but sometimes, we'll actually talk.

How did I do? (Not that I'm trying to be right about this.)

In order to understand what

Elusive Trope — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:27:35 +0000

In reply to What's needed is a dynamic

In order to understand what Butler is saying is to first understand that the "I"s that make up what you call the "we" are themselves mental constructs. In other words, the individual "I"s that you believe have the commitment are in effect emergent features of the cultural landscape. We want to believe that we are somehow autonomous and independent of our world, but this is not the case.

But her grammer is correct, by the way. The one which she refers to is the conception which we hold in our collective consciousness. Our collective conception of power needs to be "committed to the difficultu of cultural translation." In a sense your critique merely proves my point.

What's needed is a dynamic

Flavius — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:04:00 +0000

In reply to What can be, should be, said in the SOTU?

What's needed is a dynamic and more diffuse conception of power, one which is committed to the difficulty of cultural translation

I believe that statement is unintelligible.Not because of the difficulty of her ideas, just because it's ungrammatical.. A conception can't be committed.to anything never mind to the difficulty of cultural translations.

I can guess at what Ms. Butler intends. Something like this:: It's not enough that we aim at becoming powerful , unless our powers enable us to deal with.....something she describes as cultural translations(.I happen not to know the exact meaning of that term but I accept that's my problem not hers. )

But I'm guessing because that sentence employs such incorrect grammar that full attention and reflection aren't enough, you also have to guess. Accepting your judgement-which I do- that she has valuable wisdom she wants to share , she's got to write correctly.. Or find an editor to help.