
Thomas More's Utopia
Those of us who pursue a progressive vision of America’s future are disappointed so far in Barack Obama. We should keep in mind, however, that neither America nor any other nation has achieved anything near our hopes for political equality and economic justice. The changes we are fighting for, changes some naively felt simply came with Obama’s victory, would be unique in human history. In my own case, the hoped for changes are, after all, utopian, a word that comes from the Greek for “no place.”
I don’t say this to diminish expectations, though. I say it to encourage focus on the real wellsprings of hope: ourselves. We face a crisis of morale. The 2010 elections will tell us more about ourselves than about Obama. Progressives have to remember that the president is not the symbolic hero in a movie we just sit and watch. We’re in the movie. It’s about us, not him.
America has never had a progressive president or a progressive government. We have achieved progressive reforms, of course, all of them due to the work of champions of freedom and equality who worked outside of government. Abolition, universal suffrage, labor reforms, civil rights – all of these were the achievements of a people, not a person.
On health care, Obama made a terrible mistake when he aimed at reform that would somehow not alienate the health insurance industry, an industry with unparalleled power over our lives. The insurance industry is the very source of the crisis. It is a business that earns all of its profits from the denial of coverage and benefits. Any solution that protects those profits will fail.
While we struggle to overcome that fundamental error, we run the risk of demoralizing Americans. In the long run, we need one another more than we need Obama. I might even say that inspiration should be our first and most important strategy. Our demoralization is certainly a key strategy of our opponents, as it has been with all authoritarians. A great essay on the renewal of hope in the face demoralizing tyranny is Vaclav Havel’s, “The Power of the Powerless.”
I have many acquaintances who can no longer even read news about the health care reform because they find it depressing. This demands recognition and action. These anxious folk are not weak or apathetic. Their hopes need renewing. We rely on our individual resources, but also upon one another for inspiration. If we don’t take steps to relieve the anxiety and restore hope, we will set the movement back a decade. The 2010 elections will be lost, but that may turn out to be the least of our problems.
I have no explanation for my own continued optimism. I think I’m just lucky. Many nights I go to bed discouraged. Most mornings I wake up with renewed hope and energy. I promise, it has more to do with some accident of metabolism than it does any act of will. Markos Moulitsas asked me this question many years ago. How can I stay in the fight after so many years, he asked, noting that I live in Texas. This was the only answer I could come up with.
However, after acknowledging the fact of hope, I can read back into it some beliefs and some consequences.
Hope requires a tougher realism than either cynicism or surrender. Without an eyes-wide-open view of what is, the necessary steps for change are impossible to determine. Also, hope can easily devolve into a sentimental “everything’s gonna be alright” passivity or naivety. Popular melodrama sells a lot of this.
As the poet Charles Olson said, “what does not change/is the will to change.” One thing we can be sure about: life and the universe are going to change. The only question is what will the change look like. As the song says, the future’s not ours to see. But it is ours to make. One individual can seem a puny thing next to a multinational corporation, a government or a galaxy. But then, the individual consciousness is one of creation’s grandest achievements. We shouldn’t sell it short.
There are unlucky metabolisms, too. I can’t assume everyone wakes up as optimistic as I do. I have a responsibility to reinforce the hopes of those who may have suffered more setbacks or lived through more misery than I have.
Finally, as regards the movement’s public face, especially its online presence, we have to remember we are not just talking to ourselves. Relentless struggle in the face of disappointment and betrayal has to be always accompanied by confidence, courage, and steadfast belief in the possibility of success.
When we fail to inspire hope, we fail the future, which, one way are the other, we are bound to live into.



165 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
I wonder about your statement about some naively believing the Obama election brought these changes we all hoped for.
I didn’t expect his election to necessarily bring about these change, after all Washington is already well owned by the establishment.
What I did expect from his election though, was that he would at least stand for and fight for these changes, and hope that some would come to fruition. Instead, what I see is him fighting more for the status quo than anything of real change.
I’m just not sure of the naive thing. Sorry.
Well, some of it would be new in human history. Some of it, like universal health care, exists quite concretely already and is enjoyed by entire countries.
The combination of the United States and universal health care would be a new thing on the planet, but the health care part already exists in lots of places.
Plus we’re not even going for universal coverage at this point, but some tweaking of the private insurance regulations, and not much of a tweak as far as I understand.
The US will continue to be a country that’s very good at making money for the wealthy, who can then afford to buy whatever they want, including health. It’s better at that than any other country right now.
Becoming better at other things, like caring for those who aren’t rich, that will take some doing. We’re better than many countries, but a lot worse than many others. We still put criminals to death, for one thing, and most of them aren’t the rich people I mention above.
We’ve improved vastly from the extremism of the past eight years, but we’ve got a long way to go for anyone to start talking about utopia.
You write, “On health care, Obama made a terrible mistake when he aimed at reform that would somehow not alienate the health insurance industry, an industry with unparalleled power over our lives.”
I suppose that if one imagines that Obama really came to the job with “the audacity of hope” thinking that it would take time to pull the car out of the ditch, and expecting to make some change that he could believe in, discovered that the corporations had him and all of us by the short hairs, and proceeded to find out just what that means.
I think it is clear that our democracy is hanging by a slim thread. If we give up, they do win, not like we are not into the final round and seeming down for the count.
We need to keep up the fight.
I wish I could share your optimism. You are correct that most change comes from pressure exerted by citizens acting together. However, we did band together and managed to elect a Democratic Congress, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. So far, not so good. I’m more than disappointed, I’m aggrieved. In 2010, I’m working for Lainey Melnick, my progressive candidate for the US House (Lamar Smith’s seat, safe by Delay’s redistricting so it’s probably futile.) In 2012, I won’t be a Supervolunteer for President Obama as I was in 08. No maxed out contributions, no hosting house parties, no volunteering at events, and no 12 hour days working on a special project that impacted swing state results–in a big way. He’ll have my vote. That is all. Unless, of course, things change. I write letters and I call the White House every week. I encourage all my disheartened Obama supporters to do the same. There’s a slight chance he’ll listen. If he does, your optimism will be well placed and I’ll apologize for my pessimism. Right now I don’t have enough audacity to be hopeful.
I didn’t expect that magic, either. Of course, many didn’t. But many did. Such symbolic, narratively driven, personality focused magic is one mark of our culture. The right hero, the right clean-up hitter, the right running back, the right president…
I didn’t intend to imply that characterized everyone. Expecially here at FDL, a community much more aware of these things than most.
If we fail on very long overdue MEANINGFUL health care reform many Americans will declare our legislative process broken.
This could very well threaten our democracy as we know it.
Believe it!
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com
I’ve heard others say this in defense of Obama before (not sure if that’s your goal, just saying I’ve heard others use this as a defense).
The question I ask is, even if this true, wouldn’t a man or true “change we can believe in” at least explain this reality to the people that elected him? I believe he’s doing exactly what he wants to be doing in protecting the status quo.
But I can remain hopeful and optimistic because of your audacity and commitment. As I said, realistic appraisal of Obama and others is essential to real hope, it doesn’t get in the way of it. We can’t pretend those failing our vision aren’t doing so. In other words, it’s your ability to see and to build your public actions around what you see that is the source of hope.
Why not state the obvious: Obama is a conservative Dem, he has more in common with Lieberman than Sherrod Brown for instance, his actions have shown who he is.
Yes, we must move forward and cultivate an optimism, but the fact that we have someone who, is ever so slightly, left-ward of Bush as president is something that can’t be swept under the rug.
Glenn!! I’m seriously considering running a paper copy of this post and keeping it under my pillow. Bless you, my child! Anna Quindlen said this (rough recollection on my part): If you want Obama to be the president we elected in 2008, perhaps we need to be the people who elected him. Amen and amen.
I absolutely refuse to schlog around in the growing slough of despond. Naive? No. Stupid? No. And no matter how unwise/unsmart those who practice punditry believe themselves to be, I have an instinctive belief that Barack Obama is smarter and wiser.
Thank you for this. It is massively helpful to know there are others who feel as I do. I am pretty much the Lone Rangerette here in this regard.
What will really help is to vilify Obama and call him all kinds of names.
Obama’s reverse courage is his consistent and determined efforts to protect the status quo.
You have it right. Sweeping anything unpleasant under the rug never produced real hope, much less change. The point is to raise morale with truth, and with a faith in one another that can’t be destroyed by one person, even a president. Please, no one, read this as a recommendation that we fail to evaluate our circumstance truthfully.
The point is, we need to remind ourselves that our millions of allies in this struggle are reason for optimism.
I too am an optimist (it may just be that I am happy to be alive every day when I wake up). I have been posting on these boards for the last year that this is a process that likely will not come to fruition in our lifetimes, but that is no reason to give up and go home. As long as we are moving forward, however painfully and slowly, we are moving forward. Politics always has been and always will be about the lesser of two evils, and if you refuse to choose the lesser, you will have the greater. I stand with our President, and with the Democrats in Congress, at least until someone else more liberal and equally electable comes along. So if you decide to abandon President Obama now, at least consider that decision may cause all of us to be raging against President Palin later.
Actually, I agree with this. (Surprised? :-) Somewhere in the dark recesses of my tiny mind is this factoid about what it means to be a real progressive, i.e., progressives trust the people with the truth. They believe that (contrary to our behavior sometimes) we are all grown up and can handle it.
The difficulty is (apart from political game-playing) defining the line between that which the people deserve to know and that which is not in the national interest to broadcast. I am not smart enough to know the difference, but I know this is a bedrock problem.
Just the point, Barbara. You are not the Lone Rangerette. It’s just that too few of remember to remind you. The same happens to me. By the end of a long day it I can feel lonely and alienated. There are huge forces out there wanting us to feel lonely and alienated. Dispirited, we are less likely to overcome those forces. So, we gotta remember one another. Publicly. Often.
It sounds to me like you need a cookie.
Am unsure that Obama ever really came out and stated that he was anything other than a centrist.Perhaps we are feeling let down because Obama found that many things were not what they seemed to be during the campaign. After all, the corps do own congress and more important, they control the infastructure, the worker bees who impliment the laws. Those that the workers do not like somehow never see the light of day. We are the corporate states of america.
Yeah, I understand you didn’t mean it to imply everyone. Over the past few weeks I’ve been told now at least a dozen times that I was “delusional” in my belief of what Obama stood for, and I guess seeing this “naive” thing just felt like it was hitting the same sore spot. Sorry man, didn’t mean to imply that you meant everyone.
I followed the campaign, I listened to his speeches, and I believe I had good reason to believe he would at least stand for some of the right things. I believe this is borne out by the millions of other folks saying they too saw this and believed it too.
I am extremely, extremely disappointed in this president. More so than any other probably (I was angry at W and The Dick, not disappointed). I really believe he did sell himself as somewhat of a progressive, only to be a corporatist that could make some Republicans proud. And the disillusionment from that is real and deep, given the current state of our affaird.
It’s just very hard for me to share your optimism, maybe because of my age, I dunno. I admire it, but just can’t share it. In fact, I may be at a new low in my outlook for this country.
I sincerely hope as we move forward that you are a lot more correct than I. I hope it for everyone’s sake. Cause the alternative, the vision I see, ain’t gonna be pretty for anyone. Not even the rich.
Gettin ready to swim those laps, that always helps.
Funny, I feel the opposite because of my age. Four dead in Ohio, Jackson State. . .
The good news- Obama was smart enough to know that he had to sound like a progressive (at least on most issues) to get elected. This should give us some encouragement.
The bad news is that Obama and the majority of the Democrats in congress seem to think that they can blow smoke up our asses every two years to get elected, while continuing to govern in a corrupt fashion that sells us out to the highest bidders.
The true “Third Rail of American Politics” is taking on the corporations. They already have their hands around our throats, and when we struggle, they squeeze.
Please, let’s talk about hope, because I am close to being one of those who simply cannot read any more of the stories about how we have been sold out.
I’m hoping to speak more to the people that would label any of the rest of us “delusional.” What’s that going to accomplish? In this view, Nelson Mandela was delusional, I guess.
I can’t really explain my own optimism, or faith that things will change. If I had a failsafe prescription, I’d sure enough make it available on creative commons!
I don’t expect all others to share it — but that points to the responsibility that comes with hope. Your doubt and pessimism is real. My own hope is not a product of my will, and neither is your doubt. If we don’t respect that, we inhibit the kind of solidarity that can produce change.
Dude! I’m old as dirt. Even so, like Glenn, I have these little surges of optimism (I’m way beyond hot flashes) or, at the very least, little spates of determined refusal to be a lemming. I am becoming very selective about what I read. Not because I want to live in lalaland of denial, but because I believe so strongly Glenn’s basic premise here, i.e., sans hope that we ourselves generate, we are most truly screwed.
Exactly so. A point I have been arguing here for weeks.
Given progressives have never gained political hegemony, to achieve change progressives have had to partner up with moderates. The result of this pragmatic political bargain has been halting incremental change.
As Obama said in Oslo this week in another context, this strategy “lacks the satisfying purity of indignation.” But, over time progress has been made.
Like Obama, I wouldn’t have wanted to “alienate” the insurance industry either. Unlike Obama, however, I’d have done everything in my power to destroy them, to rid the country of every vestige of their existence, and then set out to do the job correctly and with the best interests of The People in mind. A healthy and informed populace is the greatest PROFIT any endeavor can ever hope to reap. Seems so simple.
Glenn, do you blog/write other places, too? When you have time, would you let me know at barbara at clotheslineblog dot com? Thanks.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND….
Citizen Gelnn W. Smith and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
“In the long run, we need each other more than we need Obama.”
Bless your heart, Citizen Smith, that simple truth has crystalized for me how I must approach our perilous race toward the end of history and the inevitable destination of my own life. The entire justification for the presense of the human species on this planet and the only thing that has enabled humankind to survive to this point is the power of the idea and the pursuit of something beyond the immediate reality of ourselves.
This is especially true with regard to how we use Obama and his failure in order to mobilze the idea into action, to discover that it is the mass of the human heart not the brain of leaders that is the path to a future. That is why I have decided that I will use Obama’s dishonestry and the anger that his successful con job on me has generated to work harder every day to advance progressive people and political ideas at every level accessable to me in order to defeat Obama and the fascist movement that he is allowing to coalesce around the throat of America and our institutions. And I will do it with a smile on my face and my eye trained on where hope resides: in my children and grandchildren.
This doesn’t mean that I won’t strike hard and quick against lies and stupidity whether it comes from the fear and ignorance of suffering individuals or from the noxious intellectual nihilism of Naderites. But I will act with a smile on my face instead of the jaw-locked grimace of anger…after all it is only the struggle that has meaning because, in fact, we’re all destined for the same end.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THE STRUGGLE WILL ALWAYS BE THERE…
Other than the war can you point out to me where Obama sounded like a centrist ?
He was going to take on the pharmaceuticals and big insurance , was going restore the constitution and protect civil liberties , renounce signing statements in order to get around congress and provide a new level of transparency .
He ran as a progressive and was elected through the hard work of progressives and he has shown himself to be the virtual opposite of what he campaigned on .
Then make him a frickin’ progressive! Push him, directly. Take him on. Tell him. Work with what we’ve got, remembering all the while that it is still and evermore shall be shoulders, head and rouge better than McCain/Palin.
It usually does. I see a lot of women come into the gym, either tired or depressed or something and by the time they leave, much better mood.
See you later, fab dude.
The election of Obama was a battle not a war. Health care reform is a battle not a war. Financial Institution Oversight Reform is a battle. Each have opposing forces who perceive the immediate as life and death. Obama seems to be more of a fan than the leader and motivator in chief but it has to be up to us to wage the battles remembering what he said “make me do it”.
Yeah, understand. Guess it’s not my age, guess it’s just me.
Sorry. I’d like to me more of an optimist, but given just how close we are to economic collapse (IMO) and just how much we’ve already transferred the wealth from the bottom to the top (IMO) is going to do what these things have always done in the past. And it never was pretty.
As always, YMMV.
Citizen Barbara:
Forget about Obama, build the movement toward a future in front of our leaders…if he wants to survive politically he’ll figure out where we’re goin and try and lead us there or he’ll get picked up some Tuesday in November by the santitation truck of election defeat.
Glenn:
Seriously? You think that was a mistake? I don’t think Matt Taibbi would agree with you.
Please let us not begin every article on the US with some paen about how great this country already is and how much better it could be if it harnessed it’s true potential. I recently saw a George Carlin performance on TV and he would have a field day with this sort of meaningless tripe.
Let’s be real. It is absurd to claim that the US is great already and yet to also claim how much better it could be. Those two statements don’t go together. If we are already great there is no need to make great further improvements. One of these two is not true.
The truth is that the US is not all that great in any respect. Neither in the character of its people nor its institutions. In fact in terms of innocent lives it has taken since its inception it prabably ranks as one of the worst, up to this very day. And this record is either ignored, denied or gloried in.
The truth is that most of the destruction this country has levied on the world is motivated by the basest of reasons, greed. Not by the disinterested desire for freedom around the globe or to alleviate hunger and disease. Every action the country takes involves a calculated weighing of what is the dollar advantage in the deal. To maintain a denial of this only compounds the baseness of the motive.
An aggravating corollary of this desire for gain is that in meeting any resistance the country resorts immediately to intimidation and violence. It’s disregard for human life seems almost limitless.
So yeah, morale and hope is important, but it also misses the point by a country mile. The country first needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom. There is a lot of heavy lifting to be done and much resistance to be overcome. The changes that need to be addressed include the very fabric of the American character, if such a thing is possible. And if not possible to at least put in place safeguards against the wanton greed that is its prime motivator.
Citizen Raven:
Never forget…four dead in Ohio and a single young soldier in a rice paddy outside Phucat.
EXACTLY !
Hello Glenn and Firedogs,
beautiful and thoughtful Glenn. a little blogronicity – have been thinking of Havel a lot the last few weeks. here’s his definition of hope:
I have been a humanist most of my life, content to be viewed as “delusional” by some and worse by my brothers in law.
Until I found this community I felt like Henry David Thoreau, out there but content with the basic goodness of our government and of my personal choices.
Then I had three children, the youngest when I was 49. Norske is correct where my hope resides as well. I refuse to give up in the face of the greatest challenge our republic has ever faced. As William Lloyd Garrison said in 1839(?) about abolition.”I will not hesitate, I will not Equivocate, and I will be heard”
Thanks for the hopeful note Glenn. And also to this wonderful FDL community that made me not feel so alone.
It is a measure of the unholy mess that your comment brought instant tears. Alone is a terrible thing unless it’s a choice. And by default, maybe it is a choice.
Norske, I hear you. Parallel tracks, I think.
The two party system is a hoax , little more than the divide and conquer strategy applied to democracy . After the last year , who could really draw a different conclusion without ignoring the facts because they are politically inconvenient .
Optimism, you either got it or you don’t. Can’t pretend it, can’t buy it. I think it is genetic.
I haven’t been able to find it, but I clearly remember a story about Clinton, when he first came to DC, saying something like What the f**k to you mean we have to bow the the Wall street f**king bankers? That’s BS” and then doing it anyway.
It’s hard to be optimistic in the face of the reality that we are an oligarchy, whether we want to be or not. But…there’s always something “no one could have anticipated” so there’s always hope. It is audacious, he had that right anyway.
Anyone who actually thought, in spite of his rhetoric, in the face of his political history and prior action, that Obama was a progressive, was mistaken. Let’s see how far we can push him.
Nationally we would be in a much worse mood if someone else was in charge right now. I guarantee.
Barbara,
I was sending hugs for quakergirl and katymine yesterday on a thread and forgot to send this for (((David))).
Its great to hear from you. You also give me hope. (((Hugs)))
Thanks so much for this! I am familiar with the quote, and the distinction, and did a poor job by not making the distinction myself. I hope readers will come to the comments and find your smart and essential comment.
Sometimes it’s the off the wall thinking that brings about the most change .
I sure didn’t expect much to change ,simply because of BHO ‘s election.
If we want change we have to make it happen,it’s not gonna come by itself
I’m assuming this is meant ironically….
Them what got it have a responsibility to them what don’t.
if it’s about us, not obama, then it is WE who made a terrible mistake when WE aimed at reform that would somehow not alienate the health insurance industry.
i agree. so let’s get real.
JClausen, now I don’t feel so alone in this regard – I had my youngest at 46 and was thinking I might be the oldest parent on the planet (not really but it feels like that sometimes when Sprout’s friend’s moms are all in their 30′s).
Yay. I’m not the only one.
A parliamentary system can work with multiple political parties. It is hard to imagine our constitutional system doing so.
It just isn’t happenstance that for over two centuries we have for all practical purposes had only two political parties.
Got change ?
(((JClausen))) Thank you. It is really comforting to know you’re here. I have a pariah complex. :-)
I hope your spirit is contagious, Norske.
Heh. Heh. I get mistaken for Grandpa so much that I am no longer amazed. Especially since my little peanut tells all her kindergarten friends that “My Dad is 55!”*g*
you haven’t done a poor job of anything in this post – your mention of Mandela alone should give folks some much needed perspective. personally, have chuckled at times when folks have talked about walking away – recalling that it was full 10 years in between Brown v Board of Education and The Civil Rights Act.
“The Politics of Deceit” — THAT Glenn W. Smith?
Hey, Selise. You were one who called it a mistake at the time, and you deserve much credit for that. George Lakoff and I also authored several essays point out the error. Others did, too. Still, it qualifies, as you say, as “our” failure, but it’s one you and many others tried hard to keep from happening.
Yep.
I am bear of very little brain. Now I get it!!
The long view — you are absolutely right. Thanks for this.
And over 100 years between the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act.
I am bear of very common name — nuttin’ to do with your quite obvious big-hearted, big-brained self.
I came across this article this morning from April’s Harpers magazine , I think the last paragraph sums it up nicely :
Can anyone be surprised to learn that the new guardians of these vast and unchecked powers, while piously promising to reform and stop breaking the law, also feel that there is no really compelling reason to enforce the law–in the process breaking the oaths they just took a few weeks ago to uphold that very law? Is it not indeed amazing that these claims can be made on the public stage without being greeted with the peals of derision they deserve? Now comes the test of our democracy–will we close the door and walk away, or demand to know what’s been done in our name and hold those who guided any abuses to account for their misconduct? President Obama tells us there’s nothing to see here, just move along. But this will be a test of whether we have a citizenry worthy of that name.
Ah, pooh. You’re very kind!
The entire course of human history, boiled down to a single first-grade equation: One plus One equals Two.
Of course that is not the world we actually live in. This simpleton expression is the height of the ‘unnuanced’ lives some people live in their heads, but step out of your house, your isolated experience, your mathematical certainty and you find yourself in the nation where the rest of the 290+ million of us live.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/04/hbc-90004803
Thanks for this hopeful post, Glenn. One of the problems we seem to be struggling with is how to frame an appropriate strategy for moving forward. One the one hand, it’s easy to identify and condemn ever time the Democratic leadership fails to follow, or undermines, some progressive principle. At the same time, we have a determined, unprincipled “opposition” party and a well established media adjunct that has effectively declared war on every single progressive principle, program and advocate. If Democrats or obama come anywhere close to moving in a progressive direction, we get rhetorical nukes hurled at us, and they inflame idiots into near riots and encourage others to buy all the ammununition they can to literally arm the “real America.” It’s a virtual declaration of war against us and what we believe.
We cry out for leadership that recognizes there’s a war being waged against our vision for America, and indeed against some of the most cherished of America’s founding principles, but our frustration is being directed almost totally against our own weak leadership, as though they are the enemy, and not those who are openingly waging this war against us.
And it is “war.” The resistance against universal care will kill tens of thousands of people this year and cause suffering for tens of millions more — this slaughter is an order of magnitude more than those killed on 9/11.
The question is, how you get out of this self-defeating strategy — because that’s where we are now, and if this remains unchanged, it will be much worse a year from now.
Beautifully composed and said Glenn.
Yes and we must nurture and treasure each other. That’s missing in our adversaries.
I have been thinking on this the past several days; that what carries us through the hardest of times is continuing to be human and do ordinary human things, from enjoying the smell of fresh laundered linens to red wine and lunch with friends. It modulates and dilutes the rawness of adverse circumstances. I think just doing that individually and collectively contributes to the civil society. The more of us there are the more we can serve to soften the harsh swings challenges to community. .. and the harder it becomes to make a warrior.
The most important gift I give myself is friends who thoughtfully lead intentional lives. There is great power in shared awareness and joy. Behold!.
I bought this book in 2004 after the election because things seemed so hopeless:
http://www.paulloeb.org/impossible.html
After reading it, I felt better after getting the perspective that good things just don’t always happen in a fortnight, and that we must have the courage and fortitude to be in in for the long haul and accept setback as part of the risk of playing the game.
However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the current status quo is not sustainable indefinitely and political courage and broadbased vision are in short supply today. Instead, many politicians buy into the political ease and convenience of being lackeys of the moneyed class at the expense of the majority of their constituents, to whose concerns they just give lip service or the false hope of good intention.
As Dr. King said, no lie lasts forever and the sooner that the deception of our status quo is changed for the betterment of all, not just the anointed, the better off we will be.
Well said.
I’m painting that on my wall!
my failure too.
btw, i was really really angry with you for selling obama’s empathy which i thought was delusional and really unfair to people looking for hope because it encouraged them to look in the wrong places.
but i’m here to say, that while i still think that was wrong, i now believe i very seriously misjudged you and for that i owe you my apologies (explanation below).
i’m sorry for misjudging you. i was wrong.
the reason for my 180 deg turn around is that just a few days ago a commenter here linked to a pdf from the rockridge institute called, The Logic of the Health Care Debate from october 18, 2007. i’m assuming you were the glenn w. smith listed as one of the authors?
it’s truly an amazing document and i encourage everyone here to read and reread it.
please, glenn, write about the things you wrote in that paper, here at fdl. it’s not too late. it’s never too late. that’s my hope.
That brings a tear. Thank you. and hugs.
Big question.
I’d begin by saying we have to advance our vision aggressively. Duh, right? But too often we forget to do that as we enter the immediate tactical fray. So, we leave the ultimate moral vision out of our specific arguments on health care policy.
More on this later, but it is harder for progressives than authoritarians, in part because our moral view is a lived one, it’s know-how not know-what. Much easier to advance a set of rules or orders when one lives by a set of rules or discipline — which authoritarians do.
I think that holding on to hope can be done without having to be delusional. I also think, however, that the phrase “make me do it” is so much fairy dust. Someone above used the example of Nelson Mandela holding on to hope. There was a difference between Mandela’s struggle and that of the progressives in the US: Mandela didn’t have someone able to be elected by co-opting the important issues and then allowing them to be compromised away. All of the “make me do it” was negated with the appointment of rahm and geithner (ignoring his tax issues that should have disqualified him from even the job he had) and summers, etc.
You may scream at me for being a troll, but I never expected much from obama, given his voting and non-voting record on important issues. I did not, however, expect him to be wIII. He has done somethings differently, but he in no way has pushed the envelope of the beltway culture. The way his administration works is not transparent enough to “be conducted on CNN.” I do have to live my life in expectation that things will get better because people will more and more see that our political culture really must change. Some people’s lives are already being sacrificed because big business demands it both here and in the rest of the world. The basic goodness of people, I believe, will turn things around.
No apology necessary. You were speaking out of your beliefs. I have and will continue to present ideas like those in my paper with George. Thanks, Selise.
texas…i too am from texas, though i don’t live there anymore, and i was reassured by the way you articulated the reason and the responsibility for hope. being raised among such extremists, sometimes dangerous extremists, turned me to eastern traditions and i tell you, i absolutely concur with your comments. your assessment of the president’s role and that we have to look to ourselves is key. pivotal really.
frankly, i have never gotten the sense for even a moment that barack obama bought into the hype. i feel pretty certain that that brother has sat with the buddhists sometime, somewhere, because he processes things like a guy who knows he is, in the end, another guy on a journey in the material world. i, for one, really identify and support him for that reason if no other.
decisions…well, y’all, no one can do it all at once or get it right all the time. the president does what he can and will, no doubt, have regrets and wish he’d done more or something else when it’s all done. there’s an axiom in christian metaphysics: your opinion of me is none of my business. an effective meditation.
“The insurance industry … is a business that earns all of its profits from the denial of coverage and benefits. Any solution that protects those profits will fail.”
All?
I would have thought that most of the profits come from insuring people who seldom file claims (except for routine exams), analogous to the auto insurance premiums that people pay for and usually never actually have to file a claim.
I am not as convinced of that as I once was. However the basic goodness of people will repair, restore and survive..
that’s very generous of you, thanks.
p.s. would welcome any other reading suggestions you may have in a similar vein about other topics in addition to healthcare (regarding neoliberal, conservative and progressive modes of thinking)
I had my youngest at 44.
Parenting [paying for] a college student while you’re on Medicare/social security is definitely not a formula for personal success.
He seems immune to pushing.
A final note: I’ve been wearing my “I voted for change and all I got was this lousy t-shirt” out in public more. I get LOTS of positive feedback.
I find it very hard to believe this can be true and then at Oslo conflating the violence of war with peace and declaring that when we do violence it is “just.”
We should keep in mind, however, that neither America nor any other nation has achieved anything near our hopes for political equality and economic justice.
this is pure wingnuttery – utter crap. Unlike America’s social Darwinism where the plutocrats have been sucking the lifeblood out of the working class since the age of reaganism, quality of life has been a focus in Europe since the end of WWII. Universal healthcare, affordable education, equal opportunity, investment in family time, sustainable economics in harmony with the environment, these are the focus of other civilized nations. None of that exists in the US today.
The difference is as plain to see as it is stark:
In Europe a person being poor is viewed as a failure of the nation
In the US, being poor is PRESUMED a failure of the person
Today’s America is a complete failure with half its children on food stamps, 45 million without decent health insurance, and the plutocrats slovering to dismantle social security. This after a century of rape the Earth of its wealth abusing 25% of its natural resources. It is nothing of image AMericans have in their minds.
It’s nuance that you are after? Just great, just what we need.
Maybe it’s nuance that leads 1% of the 290 million nuanced population to get 40% of the wealth. Or Maybe nuance that accounts for 40% of all corporate earnings to go to financial institutions. Or nuance that allows for wages to flatilne while the managerial class makes billions in bonuses. Or nuance where the US refuses to sign treaties to outlaw landmines or to reveal those it has laid. Likewise with chemical weaponry. Or to sell manner of weapons at a faster clip than anyone on earth. Or to spend itwealth on defense at a greater rate than all the world combined. Or more nuance that it unloads nuclear tipped and O2 sucking materiel on civilians.
Maybe nuance is exactly what makes the US second to none in hand gun deaths and percentage of imprisoned population. Or ranks with African nations in DC in childhood mortality. And also ranks as the greatest debtor nation in the world. And the most precarious overall economic position in the world.
Just great. Let me pose this question to you. How far do you expect you will get by reading Mandela and inundating yourself with happy uplifting talk on morale and hope. I will give you a hint, nowhere.
What you need to do is act. Look at what your situation actually is like and what the cause of it is. The reason the country is a mess is not for lack of morale or hope, it’s because people are meek and servile and will not acknowledge they are the subject of financial abuse. And what drives that abuse is greed. It’s the continued delusion that all that is needed is to tinker around the edges.
You may beg to differ and think that all these things are just happenstance. That the fundamental character of the people to abide all this is totally incidental and unimportant. I believe you are wrong.
Much weaker less developed countries than the US do not tolerate such inequities and figth to aquire them. They undergo much greater physical risk. I think the difference in those cases is one of character.
In legitimate debate, hyperbole is seldom a proponents friend.
This is a wonderful book, and he either has or is about to come out with a revised version.
I’m not a supporter of evil
The European and Canadian populations all pay much, much more for gasoline than the US drivers, the difference being very high taxes on their petrol, which funds health care, education, and subsidizes mass transportation. The US is stuck with its lower gasoline prices since its populace cannot afford to pay more for petrol – the money isn’t available from their take-home pay. There aren’t sufficient alternative means of transportation to make a difference. It sounds awfully reductionist, but the US fights wars to shore up its eternally-teetering oil-based economy and society. That is, total collapse is always one or two dollars per gallon away.
Nor am I. And IMO rewarding the “lesser of two evils” with our vote will result in….. more lesser of two evils. They (the Democratic Party) have learned the lesson well that they can count on our votes no matter what, therefore they are under no pressure to change.
No more for me. You want my vote, you’d better be a real progressive. And if me no longer voting for the lesser of two evils (i.e. the Democrat that happens to be on the ticket) mean’s we get a President Palin (or Newt or Romney or Cheney) so be it. It will not be my fault, as I’m not voting for them.
The voice of sanity ! Any one who says otherwise is an enabler !
Glenn, I do generally find reason for some hope each day when I wake; maybe it’s some genetic flaw, but as far back as I can recall in my 68 years I’ve been thankful to be alive on this world.
It’s made sense to me to be grateful for this opportunity to experience this life and all it’s facets. But then, this analysis from this thread esonates, and I’ll state why, for me, below:
The emphasis I made on “wanton greed” is because I feel that the sanction on greed that was pushed so aggressively during the Reagan years, wanting more than the next guy, and using acquisition of wealth/toys as an acceptable measure of one’s worth is embedded pretty deeply in our collective consciousness from poor to rich. I believe, sadly, that that meme will result in a massive failure to act aggressively to force industry to curb carbon emissionsm and as a result the US will be a Third World country, with a well guarded elite running things, within 50 years. One can speculate on some of the factors that will bring this about, but, if nothing else, China will call in their markers, and the EU countries will essentially stop doing business with us in order to bring us down because of the threat we pose with such a small percentage of the world’s population and such a large percentage of the world’s pollution.
If you want an esoteric explanation, then the greed chickens will come home to roost as the greed of others, wanting what we have and justifying it on the basis of our long disregard for others despite our wealth among the upper class in America.
I think this post is poppycock. The Democrats hid behind the Bush Administration calling on our support but lamenting the fact that there was nothing they could do, until they got control of Congress. When that happened, they said they couldn’t do a thing because Bush was still President. Then it was that they had Congress and the Presidency but they didn’t have 60 votes in the Senate. Now they have all that and they still can’t do anything because, because, because . . . Glenn is simply acting as an enabler. Oh, change doesn’t come overnight. We need to have hope (because the Lord knows the evidence isn’t there for even a modicum of change).
The truth is the Democrats could have done far, far more even when they were in the minority across the board. They could have fought for what their constituents believed in years ago. They didn’t. All that their current holding all the levers of power shows is that they never meant to then or now.
you’ll have to be clearer about what you don’t believe. what appears to be contradictory to you? please advise.
Indeed it is and Paul is a very thoughtful and reasoned person. I hope there is a second edition soon.
Yup.
Thank you for sharing this thoughtful wisdom—how right you are. Read more about the power of intention by Dr. Wayne Dyer:
http://www.drwaynedyer.com/articles/the-power-of-intention
How true. I think one of the most potent barriers to our own ability to make inspiration our strategy is our seeming need to obsess over our reactions to Obama as an individual. We accuse each other of cynicism or idealism, of drinking the Kool aid or hating on Obama. There is a lot of attention that goes towards critiquing how people respond to Obama emotionally, and rhetorically.
As Glenn said, some of how we respond is just a matter of personality. We are different people, and that is a good thing.
What I find strange about this is how little it ought to matter. Whether the White House is being too conservative because Obama is a conservative or because they feel they must politically, our task is the same. We need to build a movement for change, one that is committed to progressive values.
These other issues are a distraction that leads to further demoralization.
Glenn is always building something positive, even when he is offering a critique. We spent eight years (at least) where much progressive energy was oppositional. Now is the time for building.
Sorry about that. I was trying to say Obama defended violence and war, as “just” in his Oslo speech. I find that in opposition to the teachings of Buddha and inconsistent with any serious study of Buddhism .
Thanks you! I feel there us much more wisdom from the others here than any I can add.
I’m not of any particular ideology (on some things I’m “left of the left” while others I’m right of the right so to speak), but I’ve just gotten tired of feeling like I have to choose someone bad. It drives me up the wall whenever the bogeyman is used (both the Democrats and Republicans use the scare tactic of saying how bad off you would have been with the other party’s candidate to justify the evil the other candidate), so I just tune it out. I wont be a part of society being betrayed and sold out over and over again. Not taking part in evil does not result in a “wasted” vote (one of the other excuses to vote for evil is of course the “wasted” vote claim). For a long time there was true party differences (and there still are party differences), just both parties have gone heavily corporate. Seeing what has gone on with healthcare and how much it is being written for the corporate lobbyists at our expense just completely pushes me away from doing anything that could perpetuate this.
When the democrats lose the mid terms badly and Obama the presidency we will be right back where we began ….. with the status quo . Then the whole cycle can begin again ! We gave the democrats and Obama our support and they have proven once again untrustworthy !Whats the old saying fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me .
Feingold and Sanders should run as independents in 2012 .
not really. i mean, the samurai warriors were wickedly effective soldiers. they used the concept that putting total attention on a target, becoming “one” with your target, makes one a very effective assassin. and they were. so the assumption that “buddhism” is any single thing is no more true than assuming that the christians conducting the crusades were inconsistent with their, shall we say, application of religious principles.
the aspect of the notion of a “just” war that i do not see in conflict is that we are processing, on personal and collective levels, soul evolution. if you accept the premise that this is but one manifestation of our infinite individual soul, how one dies is not nearly as important as the state of consciousness one “died” in.
remembering, of course, that death is an illusion of the mind in eastern thought, particularly buddhism. so, no, i have no problem with the steps the president is taking — while i may not totally agree and it may not be my preference — i do not see it in conflict with my spiritual path.
“The changes we are fighting for, changes some naively felt simply came with Obama’s victory, would be unique in human history.”
I agree with much of what you say here–a movement must be started. It is starting. In Copenhagen, there are are new coalitions being built between social and climate justice across the globe. But this isn’t just an American issue. And I would say that your statement above is just wrong. Social democracies have sprung up all over the rich world. In Canada, we have universal health care and a better social safety net; the same is true in much of Europe.
But Canada, Europe, and the US are now essentially corporatist states–and the whole world is suffering. Wake up America and see that this is a global movement against corporate power in all its insidious forms.
You support the Rresident based on a feeling ?
Infinite are all beings I vow to save them ….. the first vow of the bodhisattva .How does killing someones parent or child through war help accomplish spiritual evolution exactly ?
Renounce the world and do no hurt nor harm .
Dhamma pada
you read it as you choose to see it. i said none of that. what i said was that politics like everything else is consciousness. time will tell.
and no, not a “feeling.” now you are simplifying what i said for your own convenience. i simply don’t attach my very survival to every thought that crosses my mind or every word the president — or anyone else — utters.
So, what do you recommend?
The 64 dollar question !
How many more eat or get health care by slinging hopelessness? As for Europe, better, yes. Still hasn’t achieved my vision.
and they never will, either.
as Glenn points out:
time for some serious, nonaligned, progressive social movements, unfettered by unrequited devotion to either ruling political legacy party.
look what happened to MoveOn – they turned themselves over to the (D)’s in 2004, and the entire antiwar social movement went under the bus.
the (D)’s might someday follow serious social movement reform, if forced to, but not before first trying all efforts to co-opt it, neutralize it, and steal all its rhetoric.
so, counterplan demanders – it is recommended that you let the inimical Democrats flounder electorally and transfer some energy and hope to where it is not wasted – local, grassroots, authentic, principled formations.
Test, anybody else getting failure to connect to database error messages?
for what it’s worth, my 2 cents. might also show why i think glenn’s article i linked to above is so important.
but i also think, at this time, we have to stop defending the dems in deecee or identifying with party politics. that, i think, is where i disagree with glenn (but take that with a truck load of salt as i’ve been wrong before and glenn should get to speak for himself).
Did briefly but it quickly corrected itself.
Precisely my feelings. That however makes blogging at TP for instance a futile exercise .
it can be observed that hugh simply enjoys being disgruntled. we are all much clearer on what’s not working and what “will” work is so incremental as to be unobservable, but that doesn’t mean it is not happening. it is an inevitable force of nature, we can only affect the shape it takes.
TP?
Think progress
I bow to your greater knowledge.
thanks for the translation. i don’t know TP that well, so i’m probably way off base to say it may not be futile. but then, i’ve continued commenting here even in the face of pretty severe name calling / bullying etc. and i even think it worthwhile to attend the tea party protests as an exercise in listening and counter-organizing.
oops. just got accused of nihilism by a front pager. off to argue unless it seems futile. *g*
A good and important post.
There are basically two ways to go with it.
1) Obama deceived us, disappointed us, was a conservaDem masquerading as a progressive, electing him was the best we could do and it wasn’t enough, so screw it, to hell with politics, etc.
2) Obama deceived us, disappointed us, was a conservaDem masquerading as a progressive, so now the thing is to keep working to FORCE Obama and the rest of the Democratic party to live up to their campaign rhetoric.
1 is the quitter’s response which shows that we weren’t that serious to begin with. 2 is the in-it-for-the-long haul response.
We need to watch ourselves lest our emotions completely overwhelm our political sense. Does it matter if Republicans gain control of Congress? After all, we couldn’t pass a decent health-care reform with supposedly veto-proof majorities. The fact was, we never had veto proof majorities, Al Franken and Arlen Spector(wtf?!?!?) to the contrary. As long as the Democratic party refuses to act like a party such totals are meaningless.
So long as the Democrats behave as if IT’S OKAY if every progressive initiative falls one vote short so that the maximum number of members can proclaim to the voting base of the party that they’re on the right side, while not actually passing anything, thereby alienating the funding base of the party, we can’t imagine success so near.
But yes, it does matter if the GOP gains control again. Then we are back in the same boat we were in four years ago trapped – AT BEST – in a Ground Hog day of back and forth without any real progress. At worst, we start to see real oppression.
Unfortunately, though they don’t deserve it, at present, unless and until something better comes along, we need the Democrats to retain control. I am perfectly fine with some Blue Dogs losing, thereby making the caucus overall more progressive, as long as they are not the minority party.
As I’ve said before though, we should not focus solely on replacing bad Democrats with better ones, though that’s something. Primary Blanche Lincoln. By all means. And if Lieberman is replaced by or becomes a Republican, what loss is that? Harry Reid should have a challenger within the Democratic caucus if the voters of Nevada do not take care of that for us.
But we should not accept that Republicans will march in lockstep forever and give them a pass because they’re just doing what we expect them to. We should also be on the lookout for vulnerable Republicans. If there is no essential difference between a Lieberman and a Republican, then there is no reason why we shouldn’t be as ready to attack one as the other. It is the solid Republican front that gives the Democratic turncoats their “superpowers”. By all means work to defeat Michelle Bachmann and other lunatics from blue and purple states – and not just with Blue Dogs either. Don’t buy into the idea that conservaDem is the way to go. Vigorous progressive populism has also succeeded in these areas when it’s been tried.
Obama has abdicated the role that Presidents by tradition always play – titular head of their party. He doesn’t WANT to be leader of the Democrats. He wants to lead some bipartisan coalition that exists only in his head. That means there’s a leadership vacuum waiting to be filled.
Who will fill it?
It is tempting to just say forget about it. Where’s the change I can believe in? I agree that politicians should be judged by their actions. That is true for both for politicians that are on side and those who are not. It is also true for us as progressives.
Just look at what we gave up in the vain hope of just getting just one more vote for the public option. In 2010 we can get one more vote for real healthcare reform. This election is too important to ignore. If we sit on our hands, or work against our own interests to teach sombody a lesson, we are giving our opponents exactly they want.
His tactics are looking like weathervane in chief lately.
When one is in the middle of a deadly storm, as I believe he is, we can not really expect better. If he isn’t sensitive to the alternating forces, how can he survive?
The people who oppose the progressive agenda always seem to kill our leaders, so maybe having a follower in office is actually a good idea.
I did not think it would have been possible to elect a progressive president last time anyway, there were too many unresolved issues. Obama was the best we could do. If we elect one next time, we will be doing a terrific job. Taking the presidency in two cycles from a party of zero would be very impressive.
Didn’t the party of Lincoln do that? They had a strong leader. We have a strong goal.
i don’t know if your kidding or not but please, don’t bow. it’s really not epic, it’s just something i study from a historical prospective.
Please stop and think what it means to increase people’s store of morale and to keep their hope alive.
Does this mean anything? How are we supposed to increase our hope, by a sheer will of effort? Are we supposed to concentrate more strongly on this idea? What does this idea look like? How do we know when we achieved the proper level of hope and can then take a rest?
The same goes for morale. Do we go from zero morale to a hundred units of morale and then stay there, or are there stops for rest along hte way? Do we do this eery day or just on days when it will really make a diference, say on election days?
What you are proposing is complete and utter nonsense. I think what you mean to say is that we need to act.
Hoping and wishing and praying will not get you into his arms, as they say.
For me personally, it would help immensely to reconcile with my family.
I keep thinking of things and policies I would like to discuss, but no one is talking to me. I think once I became an activist, everyone was warned not to talk to me. It is really quite hard to take.
Don’t confuse anger for hopelessness . I once heard Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche say something to the effect that anger is not an emotion to hold onto but has it’s place as a boost in energy to transend limitation . A force for change .
“Take the example of anger, for instance. There is the primitive, conflicted quality of anger and there is also the energetic quality of the anger, which is quite different. ”
Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche
Get mad !
Unlike you “gruntled” folks, I apply the same criteria to both Republicans and Democrats. I will accord no more hope to the one group over the other unless there is a valid reason or evidence for doing so.
In response to Glenn, I have pointed out many times that progressives need to move into opposition to the Democrats. Our alliance with them has gained us nothing and has lost us considerable credibility. In practical political terms, I also favor primarying Democrats (all of them) with progressives. This avoids some of the complications of third party runs. We need in particular to run people who are primarily progressive with no allegiance to the Democratic party. That’s a start anyway.
No not kidding. You obviously have a great deal of academic knowledge of the subject and I am incapable of debating fine points.
My knowledge is anecdotal. I have done a little reading and have had a number of friends through the years who practice Buddhism, two who are monks. It has been my distinct impression that a major tenet is the respect for all life and none of the folks I know support war in any form, much less defend it as Obama did. That is not to condemn completely those who carry out wars as they are living creatures and worthy of regard if not agreement.
Hugh, there’s merit to your argument. For myself, I can’t justify a third party alternative, because it splits liberal voters and aids conservatives. Primary challenges where possible — especially where the message might convince other officeholders — makes sense.
In any case, we have to make our case over the heads of elected incumbents and persuade the hearts and minds of other voters. The threat of this, of course, is one reason serious funding for a progressive alternative to right wing infrastructure has been so problematic. The people with the money don’t want to create an independent, progressive force.
Sorry to disagree, though I certainly mean we need to keep acting.
Must confidence, hope, optimism and courage be quantifiable to be real? How about love?
The demoralized become passive, which is why tyrants work so hard at it.
We will not get sufficient numbers of people to act unless we help them see there is light at the end.
I’d be more open to your charge of “complete and utter nonsense” if you would show me one time or place in history where the hopeless have accomplished anything resembling progressive change.
This little gem from Albert Gore whose access to a bully pulpit is boundless and of whom we should be able to expect some information as opposed to pablum, encapsulates the reason I voted for Nader:
We Are Now in a Crucial Moment — It’s Time to Make a Decision
“The world has arrived at a moment of decision.
As long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points—points which scientists have repeatedly warned would, if crossed, threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.
I’ve said it numerous times already, but right now we are trapped in a dangerous cycle—borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf, and then burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.
Right now, here in the US and all over the world, people are demanding action. There is a much broader consensus than there was when President George H.W. Bush negotiated—and the Senate ratified—the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. And there’s much stronger consensus than when we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
The road to the signing of an agreement in Copenhagen will not be easy, but the world has traveled this path before. More than twenty years ago the US signed the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we banned most of the major pollutants that created the hole in the ozone over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support: President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill joined hands to lead the way.
We can do it again and solve the climate crisis, protecting our planet for future generations.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/we-are-now-in-a-crucial-m_b_383058.html
From the womb of Fascism: Fascism 2.0:
Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi Attack At Milan Rally Condemned As “Act Of Terrorism”
yeah, even if i prefer not to “engage” any person’s behavior, i focus a lot of my attention — which is the guiding spirit of meditation — on not judging anyone’s divine right in consciousness to be who they are. that does not mean i sanction their actions. my “preference” in the best of all worlds would be ending the engagement in afghanistan absolutely and now, but i also recognize some very world and less realized concerns that require less realized responses. and that that is the world our president is operating in. at least i believe in the integrity of his choices. that he is considering these things in his decisions.
it is easy to live on purely principled opinion when balancing all those other concerns is not your job. but that is barack obama’s job, so while i may not agree with every position he takes, i make every effort not to judge it. in fact, i have a much harder time practicing the “namaste” of the thing with the dick cheneys of the world.
there is another axiom: i am only as close to god as the person i hold at the furthest distance. there are many people that are much more challenging to me in that regard than the president.
Let’s refocus, because we are in serious danger of wandering off into the ephemral realm of love here.
I will be willing to go this far and no further. The primary thing is to act in accordance to our perceived and well reasoned interests as a society. We will be guided by rules such as fairness to all involved. Also to justice as those terms are rigorously understood in ethics.
That’s it. No further.
As for your want of an example, let’s take a recent one although there are a myriad. In Venezuela Hugo Chavez was abducted in a coup recently in 2002. The people who had benefited from his reforms were outraged at the thought that their interests and well being were being put in jeopardy and they acted in response. At some risk.
Some may have have had good morale and some may have had a lot of hope, who knows. It wasn’t either that accounted for their action, it was their realization that one, acting collectively they could restore their recently improved condition. And two, that they were outraged at the thought that their rights were being put at risk.
It adds absolutely nothing to say that they had hope or that they had high morale. Mostly I think you could say they were mad as hell and some frightened.
It is in my opinion a monumental waste of time to appeal to emotions that are imprecise and could even be vacuous. For instance what happens if someone had equal measures of hope and disappointment, would the sum be zero?
Most things that are accomplished for the betterment of people are done in the dispassionate light of reason. You see a wrong and you take steps to correct them by virtue of the harm they can produce. Emotions such as hope and morale don’t enter into the picture and are in fact best left out.
Let’s refocus, because we are in serious danger of wandering off into the ephemral realm of love here.
I will be willing to go this far and no further. The primary thing is to act in accordance to our perceived and well reasoned interests as a society. We will be guided by rules such as fairness to all involved. Also to justice as those terms are rigorously understood in ethics.
That’s it. No further.
As for your want of an example, let’s take a recent one although there are a myriad. In Venezuela Hugo Chavez was abducted in a coup recently in 2002. The people who had benefited from his reforms were outraged at the thought that their interests and well being were being put in jeopardy and they acted in response. At some risk.
Some may have have had good morale and some may have had a lot of hope, who knows. It wasn’t either that accounted for their action, it was their realization that one, acting collectively they could restore their recently improved condition. And two, that they were outraged at the thought that their rights were being put at risk.
It adds absolutely nothing to say that they had hope or that they had high morale. Mostly I think you could say they were mad as hell and some frightened.
It is in my opinion a monumental waste of time to appeal to emotions that are imprecise and could even be vacuous. For instance what happens if someone had equal measures of hope and disappointment, would the sum be zero?
Most things that are accomplished for the betterment of people are done in the dispassionate light of reason. You see a wrong and you take steps to correct them by virtue of the harm they can produce. Emotions such as hope and morale don’t enter into the picture and are in fact best left out.
you really rely alot on pure reason which is commendable in it’s own way, but i am feeling — yes, feeling — some real compassion for you if you don’t know the particular value of intuition and sensitivity to the info you can glean from the psychic energy emanating from other people. in a purely practical sense, understanding “feelings” and interpreting what i intuit provides far more useful info than what i can see in the bright light of a judicious mind.
and yes, hope is critical to our very survival and it is our responsibility to find the discipline of mind to get back to the consciousness of hope, even when it seems pointless and impossible.
I’m flattered thank you, I appreciate that you feel that way, given that you disagree with me. Maybe I will give your ideas a try. But I can’t guarantee much success.
I see the world more in terms of what can be done to alleviate wrongs. And that requires action above all. But action has to be guided by reason and fairness both. Emotions are just icing on the cake, they are just rewards for doing the right thing. They don’t guide your actions they just tag along.
well, i always appreciate the civil discourse, but as i am sure you realize, i am in a totally different camp as i will always check my instincts and intuitive response to a person or situation first. that will often tell me things that circumstances take time to make apparent.
I should add though, that if we each arrive at the same place I see no harm in taking different paths to get there.
If you are right, I look forward to a future of pure robots, who will always behave in the pure light of reason. Creativity, of course, will be left far behind, as will love, which I don’t believe is as ephemeral as you say.
You are a Kantian, and that’s fine. As recent neuroscience has shown, though, reason and emotion are intertwined with one another all the way down. Take away emotion, and reason goes with it.
Some part of me thinks you are just pulling my leg. I hope so.
Emotions are certainly an essential component of reasoning ability.
However when one takes a word such as Peace and the complex of emotions it commonly evokes and then associates it to violence and war there is erosion of aversion the stage is set for murder and the killings to continue.. The “Just War,” killing for “Peace.”
However Obama is caught up in the stream of events, I believe he intentionally made that association. And I don’t understand why.
Let’s just say that in making a case for change, or anything else, we don’t really need to arouse the crowd. It’s better to make them see the light. If we do there will come a point where one says “Oh yeah I see”.
That point doesn’t come about by persuasion. You can’t egg someone along to make them understand things. That requires an explanation. That act of explanation is what I refer to as the use of reason.
Things like hope and morale are not part of that process. They are not what makes one say “Oh yes I see what you mean, now I understand”.
Explanations are the way to spur action, they are indespensible, hope and morale are completely dispensible to understanding.
Keep in mind also that too much entusiasm is a dangerous thing.
Let’s see how things turn out before we head down the path of the tea party. Those people are so consumed by spite they cheer when a Republican loses to a Democrat. I want no part of a (D)ee party.
“It is in my opinion a monumental waste of time to appeal to emotions that are imprecise and could even be vacuous. For instance what happens if someone had equal measures of hope and disappointment, would the sum be zero?”
I expect you will not attempt to use the example of the Titanium and the Integrated Grand Prix campaign winner of 2008, to convince us of your somewhat absolutist views.:-)
I am also reminded, by way of example, of some documentaries produced by Leni Riefenstahl which seem to sport one Charismatic’s appeal to the vacuously, vain and vainglorious emotions of a massive captive audience in quite a convincing fashion and to devastating effect.
Anyway, just my two pennies.
I hate to see this thread die. I hope we can pick up on another.
Leni Riefenstahl was a genius no doubt. But, just my personal views, I think you underestimate the sophistication. I think she played to some of the most treasured of emotions and human values, Not least the return of the absent father, both nurturing and powerful.
I was actually referring to Adolf himself, – sorry for not being clearer.
And Kant said empathy was irrelevant to moral considerations, and now we know that is false.
I’m not arguing for some kind of ecstatic irrationalism. I’m saying no change was ever affected by people who in their hearts believed it impossible. You rely upon a rationality devoid of emotion. It doesn’t exist. It is a dangerous myth.
I must say, I never thought I would ever come across someone who argued that hope is irrelevant. I would not want to live in a world without it, no matter how technically “just” that world was.
One more thing. Yes, our complex of human rationality and emotion makes us subject to deceit and manipulation. But we can be and have been deceived by a spurious rationality that pretends to be free of emotion as we are by emotional appeals that bypass rationality.
Since somebody has raised Riefenstahl, I’d point out that the extermination of the Jews seemed quite rational to Hitler’s followers.
I don’t follow sorry, are you siding with me or against me? Or are you not taking sides at all?
I am also not aware of that Titanium example, but it sounds interesting.
As to not fall victim of myth making; the reality that apart from Jews, Hitler’s exterminations also included large numbers of Poles, Gypsies and others, should not be excised from the historical record.
I just think that propaganda appeals to both reason and emotion, and thus both views are correct.
“For me there is no doubt that Barack Obama was 2008 Best Brand, his campaign just awarded with the Titanium Grand Prix and Integrated Grand Prix in Cannes Lions 2009.”
http://digital-marketeer.com/2009/06/29/obama-presidential-campaign-titanium-grand-prix-and-integrated-grand-prix-cannes-lions-2009/
Hey now let’s not get nasty. I will not dwell on where you make points that I don’t make.
My point is quite innocent and benign even. If you are asked to get on a boat but the notion of boat is new to you and there is a raft and a life preserver and a boat in front of you someone needs to explain which is a boat before you embark. After the explanation a bulb comes on that says, “now I get it”.
So too if you are to know which health bill reform is best for all concerned and you are a novice someone needs to explain until you understand the different options. Then you “get it”.
My point is that it is entirely irrelevant what your frame of mind is in determining whether you get it or not. Your act of understanding is completely devoid of any emotion.
So if your aim is to convince people to act in their best interest regarding health care your job is not to make them hopeful or happy, your job is to explain how one option is the best and that is the one they need to pursue. Your job is one of explainer not of cheerleader.
Now does that make me a nihilist or newly minted Holocaust purveyor. Please, I think you may be protesting just a tad too much.
No act of understanding is completely devoid of emotion. You are simply wrong about this. Please read my colleague George Lakoff, or Antonio Damasio, or Franz DeWaal, or Mark Iacaboni, or any of dozens of other cognitive scientists.
As Lakoff would say, you are operating with an 18th century concept of human thinking.
Human brains are not machines that reach self-interested conclusions without regard to their “frame of mind,” as you put it. Not even you do that.
Without emotions, humans don’t even know what their interests or preferences are.
My reference to the Holocaust is only meant to show the limits of reason, not imply anything about you, by the way.
No act of understanding can be devoid of any emotion. Please read Lakoff, or Damasio, or Iacaboni, or Francisco Varela, or any of dozens of other cognitive scientists.
To paraphrase Lakoff, you are stuck in an 18th century concept of mind.
You also defy all historical understanding and common sense.
Finally, a being of pure rationality devoid of all emotion that concluded my suggestions were irrelevant would have coldly concluded that no response was needed to the irrelevant. In other words, even your own arguments are motivated in part and marked through and through with emotion.
Apologize for some duplication. Site maintenance hid first response.
“My point is that it is entirely irrelevant what your frame of mind is in determining whether you get it or not. Your act of understanding is completely devoid of any emotion.”
This statement is so devoid of inherent logic, it boggles. If my frame of mind is addled by irrational fears, you’ll need a special kind of reasoning to get me to support your thesis, to wit: better than half the population of the US elected Bush twice.
More over, without emotions there would be no need of Mad Men in the selling of consumerism, all you’d need is rational men.
My thinking is more in keeping with Wittgenstein but that is not important.
A simple question.
How exactly does a given emotion facilitate the act of understanding?
The aquisition of new information is facilitated by the repetitive use of synaptic tracts. How exactly do emotions fit in here and why one emotion rather than another? And to what degree must it be present to effectuate that facilitation. And how do you know this?
The mind body problem is far from being solved and very likely is beyond being determined. Our ability to comprehend things is after all limited.
If you are saying that in order for the brain to be receptive to the acquisition of inforamtion we have to be awake and by being awake some state of mind is going on. That is trivial.
Lastly how do you pretend to elicit hope in someone or raise their morale? Do you it before the explantion and only then begin?
As you see there is a lot to consider. I think it is best to explain things and then impress on people the importance to act. Whether they are happy or hopeful or not.
You have me in a bind there with W followers, I admit. Who are the MadMen BTW, I don’t think our reading material completely coincides.
It looks now that you have in one fell swoop increased our task exponentially. How to explain to these folks that they now have to contribute their mind addled ideas for inspection at FDL.
Since you opened this can of worms the thankless task will fall on you. But be sure that they are in the proper frame of mind first, nice and happy and receptive to new ideas.
” The primary thing is to act in accordance to our perceived and well reasoned interests as a society.”
Not sure why you feel we’re in some bind because of W, nor why you should think that I am promoting FDL to be the ultimate inspector of what constitutes, and whose, best interests. Whom would you recommend to be the dispassionate arbiter of what is reasonable and whose well reasoned facility we should chose to elect Oracle?
Did you pass the Captcha test before commenting here?
Seriously, have you ever tried this argument on a loved one, whom I assume you chose after careful measurement of genetic predispositions and strict, quantifiable compatibility measurements and without regard to those bothersome and annoying unquantifiable and pesky things called emotion, which, if we weren’t bothered with, we could take up life in some kind of Turing Paradise already?
Are you Spock?
I think we are talking past each other, what I say is not reflected in how you respond. And this may be getting at the root of things actually. There may be an inability for the two of us to capture the same idea,aside from our present feelings.
Much like sight, audition and language the brain/mind has abilities. These are hard wired they come with standard issue brains. Understanding things is a feature of the mind that only operates if the brain is awake. It involves making associations “somehow”. It seems to happen when we are paying attention, sometimes it happens out of the blue after a while.
This ability is not an emotion clearly, nor is an emotion the same as understanding. They both are aspects of our minds, yes but they can occur independently of each other. It’s like saying that seeing and hearing are the same. They both require you to be awake, yes but one can ocur without the other.
So too with emoting and understanding. I think that we have hit an impasse. If you feel that our moods need to be present when we make sense of things I don’t agree.
That’s just it. Emotion and reason don’t occur independently of one another. Each influences the other. I guess we just disagree. I would urge you to seek out the vast amount of research on affect, how depression muddles thinking, for instance.
One last ditch effort and then I really need to hit the books.
An example, your friend is depressed and the doctor asks her to please hava seat and show me your right arm I want to take your pressure. Now you are standing there watching and she does exactly as she is told. As far as you are concerned she understood what she was asked.
If she on the other hand does nothing or shows the wrong hand or won’t sit then you don’t know what to think, only she does. But one thought you have is, maybe she just didn’t understand.
In the first instance the ablity to understand is clearly intact, but that ability in the second case is open to doubt. But in each case we are talking about the same thing. We are not talking about her mood.