I think Obama is off on the topic of racism. A reaction to reactionary behavior perhaps, perhaps his gallows humor isn't working anymore. If it isn't I am truly sorry in the honest way for once.
While many of his policies where childishly blocked by the republican side of US politics, I don't think the current platform is attractive to anyone, regardless of skin color. That "identity politics" (I hate the term, please find better synonyms). I don't care if it is gender or race, to me it is mostly esoteric. I don't have anything against that, but it is a bad manual for policies and should be regarded as some form of faith if at all. It is divisive in any case as are now terms like diversity and inclusion. Try to get them back, but many would not care too much about them. At least try to analyze why people don't like it. The answer is neither racism, nor sexism. If you think so, your image of people betrays only yourself.
The tea party was even more insane than the Trump campaign perhaps, but the fuel about the frustrations with politicians should be obvious and I cannot say that it is wrong. Oblivious perhaps, but it doesn't come from thin air, even if the reaction isn't constructive or helpful.
The US in the past didn't highlight race and instead highlighted being an American. That overladen patriotisms was eyed with suspicion in the rest of the world, but it actually did work. Not perfectly, but far better than right now and more successful than others.
> I also think I very much internalized and believed that presidents can whine privately but not publicly.
> Goldberg: Billionaires and presidents.
You cannot do that publicly regardless of status if you don't have journalists that frame it for you and heavily depends on the situation. It is really bad advice. A republican crying about issues he cares about would be endlessly derided. Crying on occasions where reverence is expected are exemptions, not the rule.
That isn't criticism about some repressed feelings in public, that is criticism of the press. Most talk shows don't try to talk about serious issues, they are there to put people on display. I think some authors believe it themselves at this point, but a tear doesn't make authenticity.
I do think that some republicans are reactionary to the core, but I also think their counterparts often are ambitious technocrats with ineptitude on display. So what shit should you vote for? Americans seem to have a solution, they just vote 50/50.
"Change" is also populism, no doubts about it, but it was at least something people can get behind. Instead, racisms and sexism discussion helped HR. Maybe Obama wanted to strengthen his guild here? I don't think so, but the idea can come up and I don't see discussions improving anytime soon.
He has criticism of behavior of Wall Street that I think is on point. I think he is wrong on Netanyahu again. The latter doesn't compare to Putin as his platform tries to hold people together. He knows that some more extremist statements are more easily forgiven and he would do anything for Israel and he sacrificed enough that even accusations of corruption seem to be bad taste. That doesn't mean there isn't a huge problem with radicalizing parties in Israel.
> Obama: "[...] sees that I’m paying attention to this context."
I think Netanyahu knows as well and it is sad that the relation was as antagonistic as it was. I believe that Netanyahu is thankful that Americans but up with his antics and he certainly take up that privilege. I think many people do know that Obama knows about this context and that he did act accordingly, not only in speeches. It made him a great president that had little competition on the republican side and probably long into the future.
1 comment
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 11.6 ms ] threadI think Obama is off on the topic of racism. A reaction to reactionary behavior perhaps, perhaps his gallows humor isn't working anymore. If it isn't I am truly sorry in the honest way for once.
While many of his policies where childishly blocked by the republican side of US politics, I don't think the current platform is attractive to anyone, regardless of skin color. That "identity politics" (I hate the term, please find better synonyms). I don't care if it is gender or race, to me it is mostly esoteric. I don't have anything against that, but it is a bad manual for policies and should be regarded as some form of faith if at all. It is divisive in any case as are now terms like diversity and inclusion. Try to get them back, but many would not care too much about them. At least try to analyze why people don't like it. The answer is neither racism, nor sexism. If you think so, your image of people betrays only yourself.
The tea party was even more insane than the Trump campaign perhaps, but the fuel about the frustrations with politicians should be obvious and I cannot say that it is wrong. Oblivious perhaps, but it doesn't come from thin air, even if the reaction isn't constructive or helpful.
The US in the past didn't highlight race and instead highlighted being an American. That overladen patriotisms was eyed with suspicion in the rest of the world, but it actually did work. Not perfectly, but far better than right now and more successful than others.
> I also think I very much internalized and believed that presidents can whine privately but not publicly. > Goldberg: Billionaires and presidents.
You cannot do that publicly regardless of status if you don't have journalists that frame it for you and heavily depends on the situation. It is really bad advice. A republican crying about issues he cares about would be endlessly derided. Crying on occasions where reverence is expected are exemptions, not the rule.
That isn't criticism about some repressed feelings in public, that is criticism of the press. Most talk shows don't try to talk about serious issues, they are there to put people on display. I think some authors believe it themselves at this point, but a tear doesn't make authenticity.
I do think that some republicans are reactionary to the core, but I also think their counterparts often are ambitious technocrats with ineptitude on display. So what shit should you vote for? Americans seem to have a solution, they just vote 50/50.
"Change" is also populism, no doubts about it, but it was at least something people can get behind. Instead, racisms and sexism discussion helped HR. Maybe Obama wanted to strengthen his guild here? I don't think so, but the idea can come up and I don't see discussions improving anytime soon.
He has criticism of behavior of Wall Street that I think is on point. I think he is wrong on Netanyahu again. The latter doesn't compare to Putin as his platform tries to hold people together. He knows that some more extremist statements are more easily forgiven and he would do anything for Israel and he sacrificed enough that even accusations of corruption seem to be bad taste. That doesn't mean there isn't a huge problem with radicalizing parties in Israel.
> Obama: "[...] sees that I’m paying attention to this context."
I think Netanyahu knows as well and it is sad that the relation was as antagonistic as it was. I believe that Netanyahu is thankful that Americans but up with his antics and he certainly take up that privilege. I think many people do know that Obama knows about this context and that he did act accordingly, not only in speeches. It made him a great president that had little competition on the republican side and probably long into the future.