MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Riding in a motorcade in Lima, Peru, shortly after the 2016 election, President Barack Obama was struggling to understand Donald J. Trump’s victory.
“What if we were wrong?” he asked aides riding with him in the armored presidential limousine.
He had read a column asserting that liberals had forgotten how important identity was to people and had promoted an empty cosmopolitan globalism that made many feel left behind. “Maybe we pushed too far,” Mr. Obama said. “Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe.”
Comments
The most striking feature of this piece is Obama's passivity in the face of Republican aggression. When Mitch McConnell refused to agree to a public warning about Russian meddling, Obama shrugged, “What else did you expect from McConnell?” But he didn't need McConnell's approval to go public. Faced with Republican stonewalling, why didn't he just order Homeland Security to issue the statement?
“If I speak out more, he’ll just say it’s rigged,” Obama rationalized. But anyone can see that Trump was going to complain about a rigged election no matter what he said. His reluctance to talk about what was happening did not foster trust in his administration or the election, but it did provide Trump and Putin the cover they needed.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/30/2018 - 5:35pm
I think this admission is important:
and I still think that problem is sitll very major and all the newbies running in the Dem party now is a something that will help reinvigorat that party somewhat. It's not just a major problem, it's a continuing one as just by their very nature the huge new millennial generation doesn't necessarily trust many elders in power. And a lot of them felt burned by the hopey changey.thing with the first Obama campaign.
That said, a whole bunch of newbies in DC can cause it's own kind of problems. If it happens this time the bureaucratic ranks will have been decimated by the Trump administration (and I don't see a President Pence doing much different in that regard), don't know if that will be good or bad.It's like there would be nobody around to remember the old ways of doing things.
by artappraiser on Wed, 05/30/2018 - 5:50pm
and I will add that I think Obama was wrong to think this:
precisely because just the opposite happened during the second Clinton administration: everybody was excited by cosmopolitan globalism and global communication and commerce, causing the dot.com bubble. I want to tell you that all those folks in Kansas were selling on Ebay (I bought from more than a few of them in rural flyover) or thinking about getting rich with their own Pets.com. Or , a few years later, buying and making over and flipping that run down house down the road a bit
It was the economy, stupid, the global crash.
Tribal's not what they want, it's what they sink back into when times get tough.
Of course, social conservatives think tribally, but we've always had that minority and it's not going to go away. But the majority doesn't think tribally, the opposite is the very nature of this country of immigrants from tribalist lands or groups to assimilate into something more global. Their wish is for their children to do so! I.E., why doncha become a doctor or lawyer so you don't have to depend on tribe?
by artappraiser on Wed, 05/30/2018 - 6:05pm
"Everybody was excited by cosmopolitan globalism." I see your point, but I don't think refutes Obama's concern. First, not everyone was excited. There was a right-wing faction that rejected immigration and trade even then, led by folks like Pat Buchanan. (Interesting aside, Trump almost ran against Buchanan for the Reform Party nomination in 2000.)
Second, the backlash against globalism has grown significantly since the 90s. Buchanan's ideas--kill Nafta, restrict immigration, wall off the Mexican border--have moved from the fringe to the Republican mainstream. In part, this backlash has intensified because the gleeful promises of the 90s globalists failed to materialize.
PS Yes, there were a couple of recessions along the way, but there are always recessions, and the economy has been growing for a decade now.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/31/2018 - 10:16am
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...
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/31/2018 - 1:50pm
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.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/31/2018 - 2:56pm
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?
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/31/2018 - 3:32pm
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.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/31/2018 - 4:59pm
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.
by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 06/01/2018 - 12:57pm
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.
by artappraiser on Fri, 06/01/2018 - 1:30pm
I'll sign onto this. Much more eloquent and articulate than what I wrote.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 06/01/2018 - 3:30pm
Hmmm... Interesting little kernel here from that article.
Since Obama was worried about the following, who can say that Moscow didn't go ahead and hack into Election Day vote tabulations. It appears that Obama believed that they had the ability to do it.
======
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 05/31/2018 - 2:54am
Good catch! I missed it. That's frightening.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/31/2018 - 10:17am
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.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/31/2018 - 2:43pm
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.
by barefooted on Fri, 06/01/2018 - 10:06pm
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
by artappraiser on Mon, 06/04/2018 - 10:13pm