US Politics: Sitting in Judgement

[SeanF]

23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Confusing empty promises with actual change is a far greater problem than whatever "moral absolutism" is supposed to be.

Your taking Obama as a positive example is a case in point: Obama promised a lot, and delivered almost nothing (he bailed out the banks and protected the profits of health insurers) ; Americans elected Trump immediately after him. This is no coincidence: lofty words with little substance breed disappointment, resentment, and cynicism. When asked what they like in Trump, his voters often mention honesty...

The entire point of taking down people like Thomas Jefferson from their pedestals is precisely to expose "convenient idealism," to warn against people who will "inspire others" rather than actually work to change things.

I think Obama was … not bad.  Better than average. But, my political views are well to the right of the consensus on this forum.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

32 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Your taking Obama as a positive example is a case in point: Obama promised a lot, and delivered almost nothing (he bailed out the banks and protected the profits of health insurers) ; Americans elected Trump immediately after him. This is no coincidence: lofty words with little substance breed disappointment, resentment, and cynicism. When asked what they like in Trump, his voters often mention honesty...

I think you're missing my point. I was talking about his command of rhetoric, not his governance. I even said as much in my previous comment. Inspiring rhetoric is not sufficient on its own, but it's an important and arguably necessary component for substantive change.

[kissdbyfire]

9 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I think you're missing my point. I was talking about his command of rhetoric, not his governance. I even said as much in my previous comment. Inspiring rhetoric is not sufficient on its own, but it's an important and arguably necessary component for substantive change.

Mango can be credited w/ “inspiring rhetoric”. Hopefully not very inspiring for most of us here, but very inspiring for his supporters. It can also be argued that he did bring change, even if he is not the creator of this movement but rather a symptom or manifestation of it. And unlike others who command inspiring rhetoric but fail to deliver, he is willing to actually deliver on his hideous and insane promises. Of course, not because he believes any of his bollocks but b/c it serves his purposes. Maybe that explains in part why his most loyal base is so devoted to him. 
So not only the inspiring rhetoric isn’t enough on its own, but when it is only that it can lead to a deep sense of frustration and hopelessness, and understandably so IMO.

[kissdbyfire]

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think Obama was … not bad.  Better than average. But, my political views are well to the right of the consensus on this forum.

I agree he wasn’t bad. I still remember well when he won. I stayed up all night following everything on tv and I was literally moved to tears; it was an incredible moment imo. I still like him as an individual; I think he is very intelligent, very articulate, and certainly his heart seems to be in the right place. In fact, I can’t think of a moderate centre-right politician I like more. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

23 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Mango can be credited w/ “inspiring rhetoric”. Hopefully not very inspiring for most of us here, but very inspiring for his supporters. It can also be argued that he did bring change, even if he is not the creator of this movement but rather a symptom or manifestation of it. And unlike others who command inspiring rhetoric but fail to deliver, he is willing to actually deliver on his hideous and insane promises. Of course, not because he believes any of his bollocks but b/c it serves his purposes. Maybe that explains in part why his most loyal base is so devoted to him. 
So not only the inspiring rhetoric isn’t enough on its own, but when it is only that it can lead to a deep sense of frustration and hopelessness, and understandably so IMO

I think there's a clear difference between inspiring rhetoric and demagoguery. Sure, both can be motivating. A dictator can uplift his people with dreams of some mythical past. But that's very different from a civil rights activist bringing people together with a commanding and inspiring narrative. Humans are narrative animals, so obviously there will be commonalities, but the differences are more important. Another way to put it is that fascists understand the importance of narrative more than people on the left sometimes do, but they take it way too far, opting to manipulate and strong-arm rather than convince.

More importantly, my larger argument about the Declaration of Independence was explicitly all about the history of liberal and progressive activism in America. This is an internal critique. It's in the interest of defeating fucks like Trump that we need to think about this stuff.

Edited February 10 by Phylum of Alexandria

[SeanF]

16 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I agree he wasn’t bad. I still remember well when he won. I stayed up all night following everything on tv and I was literally moved to tears; it was an incredible moment imo. I still like him as an individual; I think he is very intelligent, very articulate, and certainly his heart seems to be in the right place. In fact, I can’t think of a moderate centre-right politician I like more. 

I agree with all of that.  On the Republican side, I’d have no problem with Romney.

But Trump, Boebert, Gaetz et al?  They’re a ship of fools.

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, SeanF said:

I agree with all of that.  On the Republican side, I’d have no problem with Romney.

But Trump, Boebert, Gaetz et al?  They’re a ship of fools.

But Trump, MTG, Boebert, Gaetz are the popular ones. The MAGA crowd hates conservatives like Romney and McCain. It's mind-boggling.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

 But Stevens’ ideas would never have been acceptable to majority public opinion “which as a statesman, he was bound to consult” (as Douglass put it).

We do not know that because 1) Lincoln was assassinated; 2) Thaddeus Stevens died.  The war was barely finished, and indeed at the time of Lincoln's assassination, there was fighting still going on down south.

Thaddeus Stevens had been brilliant at his ability to organize enough legislators and politicians to keep his vision for abolishing slavery, and the objectives thereof, including the vote for Black men, alive throughout the the years leading to the war, during the war and after the war. This is where the Great Men of History theory meets what does or doesn't happen when they are taken out before their time, or by age and illness,  before the movement which they built reached apex.

Additionally, it seems I must again point out that if no one thought slavery was bad, why were slave traders, auctioneers, slave prison providers, etc. beyond the social pale, even for the south in which slavery, the slave trade and slave holding and labor was warp and woof of all parts of the society, from culture and economics to politics.  Indeed the entire political and legal system of the south was formed around the protection and expansion of slavery -- in spite of despise those who bought and sold slaves directly as their business, which made everyone else's ability to own slave possible.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Aristotle's argument is more along the lines of "some people are naturally slaves. Slavery is natural." Though oddly, he does distinguish between that and enslaved people who are not naturally slaves - the latter being enslaved by force and not by nature.

His 'friend' Plato, who was enslaved, could have some words about this natural condition of slavery.  

[Zorral]

37 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I agree he wasn’t bad. I still remember well when he won. I stayed up all night following everything on tv and I was literally moved to tears; it was an incredible moment imo. I still like him as an individual; I think he is very intelligent, very articulate, and certainly his heart seems to be in the right place. In fact, I can’t think of a moderate centre-right politician I like more. 

But he did NOTHING at all to cultivate and bring up a younger bench of effective Dem leadership.  All the Dems, everywhere, at every level, have utterly abrogated the obligation and responsibility.  The young, such as those labeled the Squad, got to the House and elsewhere, entirely outside the Dem 'leadership' in policy and funding, who have done little to nothing beyond their vigilance that nobody not Them get into influential positions.

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I think Obama was … not bad.  Better than average. But, my political views are well to the right of the consensus on this forum.

See, you understand you’re in denial?
 

“Not bad” “Better than average”

 

Is it so hard to say “good”?

Edited February 10 by A True Kaniggit

[SeanF]

17 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

See, you understand you’re in denial?
 

“Not bad” “Better than average”

 

Is it so hard to say “good”?

Pretty good.

[Rippounet]

45 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I think you're missing my point.

No, you're the one missing mine: the fact that discourse has been over-used as a substitute for governance invalidates your defense of "inspiring rhetoric."

That's not to say that ideas aren't important. Some of the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence are obviously worth defending. But ideas should not be confused with speech or discourse. Ideas can be debated and developed into actual measures ; discourse can end up being a great way to prevent any measures from being actually taken.
What I'm pointing to here is the "performative" dimension of US politics. Many people (like you, I'm afraid) focus too much on the "inspirational value" of grand principles like equality. I personally care little for inspiration, because I take many of these principles for granted ; it's not just that almost everyone agrees with it, it can be scientifically argued that "equality" as a principle is a necessary condition for the establishment of an organized human society. So "equality" in itself means nothing, it's all about how the principle translates into law ; if there are no laws to promote the principle, then the declaration rings hollow.
I think that's what you keep missing: the problem was there from the start. If Jefferson could write that "[...] all men are created equal... bla bla bla... unalienable rights... life, liberty and property the pursuit of happiness." while having slaves, then one should wonder whether any grand declarations in the future wouldn't be just as hypocritical. And since the US remains one of the most unequal of all OECD countries, perhaps they were. And perhaps instead of defending rhetoric and national myths, you should question the conception of equality, and wonder what it should entail when taken seriously.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

No, you're the one missing mine: the fact that discourse has been over-used as a substitute for governance invalidates your defense of "inspiring rhetoric."

That's not to say that ideas aren't important. Some of the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence are obviously worth defending. But ideas should not be confused with speech or discourse. Ideas can be debated and developed into actual measures ; discourse can end up being a great way to prevent any measures from being actually taken.
What I'm pointing to here is the "performative" dimension of US politics. Many people (like you, I'm afraid) focus too much on the "inspirational value" of grand principles like equality. I personally care little for inspiration, because I take many of these principles for granted ; it's not just that almost everyone agrees with it, it can be scientifically argued that "equality" as a principle is a necessary condition for the establishment of an organized human society. So "equality" in itself means nothing, it's all about how the principle translates into law ; if there are no laws to promote the principle, then the declaration rings hollow.
I think that's what you keep missing: the problem was there from the start. If Jefferson could write that "[...] all men are created equal... bla bla bla... unalienable rights... life, liberty and property the pursuit of happiness." while having slaves, then one should wonder whether any grand declarations in the future wouldn't be just as hypocritical. And since the US remains one of the most unequal of all OECD countries, perhaps they were. And perhaps instead of defending rhetoric and national myths, you should question the conception of equality, and wonder what it should entail when taken seriously.

Rather harsh, I'd say.

What do you propose in its place? I mean, the people I am talking about in my previous comment (Obama excepted) did fight for laws to expand on Jefferson's idea of equality. So yeah, his idea was flawed, but it's a starting point. Was that wrong of them?

I'm not against critiques of liberalism. And if someone is despairing honestly with the many flaws of a system, let them speak. I am simply asking, beyond despair and cynicism, what do you propose to do to change things? 

Maybe I said "inspirational" too much, but really I just mean you need carrots as well as sticks to get shit done. And the post-liberal left only cares about anger and sticks. I don't know what the optimal balance is, or even if there is one. I am just complaining that activist culture post-King has been woefully, tragically bereft of people interested in carrots.

Edit: @Rippounet, you like book recommendations, so if you haven't read Richard Rorty's Achieving Our Country. I highly recommend. He's more eloquent than I am.

Edited February 10 by Phylum of Alexandria

[A True Kaniggit]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think Obama was … not bad.  Better than average. But, my political views are well to the right of the consensus on this forum.

To press on from my last post.

Social issue wise?

Or economic issue wise?

[Zorral]

And I keep forgetting --  Phylum of Alexandria asked where in the Old Testament there was condemnation of slavery ... um the Books of Moses -- um particularly Exodus,* for starters. 

* Though now archaeology, history, Egyptian Studies etc., have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the enslavement of the Jews by Egypt and their exodus to Canaan.  Unlike the evidence that many Hebrews lived in the Babylonian Empire.

[ThinkerX]

26 minutes ago, Zorral said:

And I keep forgetting --  Phylum of Alexandria asked where in the Old Testament there was condemnation of slavery ... um the Books of Moses -- um particularly Exodus,* for starters. 

* Though now archaeology, history, Egyptian Studies etc., have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the enslavement of the Jews by Egypt and their exodus to Canaan.  Unlike the evidence that many Hebrews lived in the Babylonian Empire.

According to the Old Testament, one of the acts committed by the ancient Hebrews was to enslave the people they did not massacre in the land given to them by God. The OT does contain instructions on the treatment of slaves. Slavery was a common and accepted practice throughout the ancient world.

I have read sermons and publications by the slave owners of the Old South that made excellent biblically based arguments in favor of slavery. No great surprise, considering slavery was so deeply ingrained in the cultures that produced the bible that 'freedom for all' was an 'impossible concept.'

[Phylum of Alexandria]

54 minutes ago, Zorral said:

And I keep forgetting --  Phylum of Alexandria asked where in the Old Testament there was condemnation of slavery ... um the Books of Moses -- um particularly Exodus,* for starters. 

* Though now archaeology, history, Egyptian Studies etc., have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the enslavement of the Jews by Egypt and their exodus to Canaan.  Unlike the evidence that many Hebrews lived in the Babylonian Empire.

I think that was someone else. I only brought up Psalm 137.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Sorry @Rippounet, I read and responded too hastily. I re-read your comment as well as my previous one, and I think I know what you're getting at.

It's true that my comment started to mention soaring rhetoric more as it went on, ending with Obama. So that's probably why you thought there was an outsized focus on narrative and persuasion. But recall that I started out with Frederick Douglass, and mentioned Booker T, W.E.B. Dubois, Lincoln, and MLK. These men were not merely known for oration: they were men of action. So, to be clear, my primary concern is with policy and governance and real tangible change, rather than performance and rhetoric.

Even Jefferson's words weren't simply nice words. They were the official declaration an incipient nation to the king of England, not just a national creed but essentially a declaration of war. They inspired the revolutionaries of France, just as they inspired Ho Chi Minh to fight against French subjugation. For being just words, they had some damn powerful effects.

But also, narrative and communication are indeed very important to initiate and manage action, necessary but not sufficient alone. The post-liberal left has their own narrative that they rally around, but it's one of almost complete pessimism (in the US at least). When I said "inspirational," I was trying to say "not bleak angry cynicism and purity politics." We all cringe when someone says "patriotism," but I do think it's in our interest to redefine patriotism on our own terms rather than be too cool, too radical, or too jaded to present a positive vision for our nation. That's basically what Rorty's Achieving Our Country is about. Trying to reclaim optimism and pragmatism while still paying due attention to the wrongs and rages. 

[SpaceChampion]