Barack Obama, History and Hope

From across the ocean and probably speaking on behalf of most Europeans I express the hope that you are right.
God knows we can use some inspirational leadership right now.

... Just his rise to the position should inspire hundreds of millions of people.

I hope Obama succeeds because a trend of intelligent, thoughtful, enthusiastic politicians is probably what the world needs more than anything right now.

I just read today that Obama intends to accelerate the development of the missle defense system in Poland.

But honestly the biggest risk for Obama will be becoming another Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was an utterly brilliant man with views far ahead of his time, but he was an impractical idealist and, in the end, his baby (the League of Nations) wasn't even ratified by his own country, it was an abject failure, and WWI led to WWII -- the exact opposite of Wilson's ideas.

It's rare when herd mentality actually gets anything right, which I think may be part of the point of trying to form people into herds.

Its rare when leaders of the elected world are inspirational figures. It seems that leaders nowadays are of an evil genius of sorts where they try manipulating everything behind the scenes.

Hell, Obama inspired me to write this piece, which may be my first positive political piece ever. I typically do not like to write about politics due to the negativity surrounding so much of modern politics, and the feeling that I am slinging mud at someone even if it is deserved.

I hope Obama succeeds because a trend of intelligent, thoughtful, enthusiastic politicians is probably what the world needs more than anything right now.

Honestly, this is my biggest concern with an Obama administration. Wilson, after history had it say, seemed to have been one of the worst presidents in history due to his impractical idealism.

What I do think though is that Obama is in the step in the right direction as long as the people hold him to some sort of standards.

Wilson, after history had it say, seemed to have been one of the worst presidents in history due to his impractical idealism.

towards the end of Clinton the economy was rather shaky but that was probably more on the shoulders of the Republican lead House and Senate than Clinton who oversaw a rapid turn around of the economy

I personally cannot think of one instance where he said anything that may have alienated any potential democratic voter.

He's pandered quite a bit to conservatives, which could easily alienate democratic voters if he weren't otherwise so popular. He's beating the conservative hawks' wardrum about Iran, Russia, and bin Laden (who is completely irrelevant to Al Qaeda at this point); he's just as cowardly about China as any other American politician; he's pandered on offshore drilling and nuclear power; he's barely distanced himself at all from the policies of Paulson and Bernanke, or from the Bush administration's ideas about economic stimulus infusions; he failed to commit to appointing pro-choice justices; he is basically an apologist for "no child left behind" other than its funding...

He had such a stranglehold on democratic voters and new voters that he could afford to risk alienating some of his base by echoing some conservative positions.

Look at the nuanced differences, though. I think he vastly differs from the Bush era (and from what McCain presented).

First, he seems completely unwilling to use FEAR as a way of garnering political support. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, McCain, all used fear of terrorism, fear of losing a war, fear of being unpatriotic as ways to intimidate people away from voting for their opponents. And social / religious conservatives (like Palin and Huckabee) used fear as well -- fear of values being threatened and implicit fear of Obama just being different. It was a manichean argument and a Machiavellian strategy. I haven't heard any such thing from Obama, and I don't believe he's willing to use such a tactic. The message of HOPE was incredibly persuasive and refreshing when contrasted against the fearmongering of the Bush administration.

Second, Obama is thoughtful in a way that one has rarely seen in modern politics. With the Rev. Wright situation, he didn't play the obvious political game by simply cutting a cord and distancing himself. He chose to treat the American public like adults, and in so doing gave one of the greatest speeches about race in American history -- which was all the bolder since race was really not at all part of his message. With the economic situation, he avoided McCain's melodrama with his flight to DC, he let the experts be the experts, and he did not commit to an opinion until he had fully heard the proposals from the administration, the treasury and fed, and from congress.

As I said before, there is no difference between the politics of fear and the politics of hope.

After all, would you disagree that the principle reason Obama won was the fear of four more years of conservative economic policy?

I don't think you should confuse thoughtful moves with calculated moves.

He didn't address the sentiment of Wright's comments, he simply brushed them aside by saying they were offensive and devisive.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Except that the politics of fear is contingent upon making people feel powerless and uninvolved; but the politics of hope is contingent upon making people feel empowered. It's a critical difference. People who are fearful will submit to abuses of power.

No, he won because it was already so bad and the country had someone to blame. Not because they feared more of it. Furthermore, I'd remind you that it wasn't conservative economic policy that he was arguing against. The Republican party of 1980 and of 1994 were fiscally conservative. The Republican party of 2008 is every bit as fiscally liberal as the Democratic party, they just spend their money on different things.

Not to mention that long before this economic crisis hit, Bush was already one of the least popular presidents in American history. In 2005, especially after Hurricane Katrina, Bush's popularity levels hit the tank. He was regarded as incompetent, as bungling Iraq, as pissing away our credibility in global esteem, and his party got its ass handed to it in the 2006 midterm elections... and that had nothing at all to do with the current mortgage and financial meltdown.

So Obama may have capitalized on preexisting resentment towards the Republican party, but it's only because they brought it on themselves. That's why change was such an effective message. And McCain's inability to distance himself from Bush is the primary reason why he as a candidate was a pathetic shell of the 2000 version of himself.

That's pretty cynical. Why can't both be true?

That's utter and complete nonsense. You clearly are unaware of the magnificent speech Obama gave on race. So here it is for you in its full text. Ask yourself the last time a politician has ever talked about race so intelligently, so maturely, and in a way that gives his audience credit for being independent thinkers. In fact in many ways he reproduces the great Cornel West's arguments about endemic nihilism in the black community.
Here is a SMALL part of the speech:

People who are hopeful will submit to abuses of power just as soon.

Obama immediately steps into the office with just as much power as Bush had after 9/11 because of the political climate.

Just like Bush (and just like many dictators of past), people have emotion invested in Obama and the democratic party right now. They will permit and support these figures far past the limits that reason would justify.

The fear of the Nazis and Japanese did not make American people feel powerless and uninvolved, it sparked a great period of empowerment and involvement in social and civil activities.

The hope for a Third Reich led otherwise rational German people to allow their democratically elected government render themselves completely powerless and uninvolved. Their hope led to the destruction of their country.

Exactly, Obama made people afraid of a second George W. Bush.

One cannot be concerned with truthfulness and be worried about the costs of truthfulness at the same time.

I am familiar with the speech.

He didn't address the sentiment of Wright's comments, he simply brushed them aside by saying they were offensive and devisive.

Let me give you a task, though: cite one portion of that speech that would be disputed by any somewhat major political official. None of them would. He said absolutely nothing particularly insightful nothing particularly controversial.