[leftyted]

It used to be common knowledge that those "ready to abandon the possibility of America" were kids in college with little influence and that they'd grow out of youthful extremism.

But by writing this, Barack Obama seems to saying that this isn't the case.

> I recognize that there are those who believe that it’s time to discard the myth—that an examination of America’s past and an even cursory glance at today’s headlines show that this nation’s ideals have always been secondary to conquest and subjugation, a racial caste system and rapacious capitalism, and that to pretend otherwise is to be complicit in a game that was rigged from the start. And I confess that there have been times during the course of writing my book, as I’ve reflected on my presidency and all that’s happened since, when I’ve had to ask myself whether I was too tempered in speaking the truth as I saw it, too cautious in either word or deed, convinced as I was that by appealing to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature I stood a greater chance of leading us in the direction of the America we’ve been promised.

> I don’t know. What I can say for certain is that I’m not yet ready to abandon the possibility of America—not just for the sake of future generations of Americans but for all of humankind.

I see this as a philosophical debate boiling over into the public. Radical philosophers have been saying for a long time now that everything is a question of power and domination, that anyone pretending otherwise is complicit, and that -- in the final analysis -- the mere classification of things is a violent act. On the other side, you have people who are essentially liberal pushing back, insisting on the usefulness of ideals, pointing out that incremental progress is possible, and arguing for the necessity of a common language to talk about the world we have in common.

[marcusverus]

Obama is the consummate politician. I read this statement in the same way I read his comments in '08 and '12 about how he 'struggled' with the question of whether gay marriage should be legal. Now, as then, he is playing to the middle (In the case of gay marriage, to the middle of the American electorate. In the current case, to the middle of the Democratic party). He doesn't know which way the political winds are blowing for Democrats--further leftward or back to the center--and he is too shrewd to be left behind in either case.

[gnusty_gnurc]

> He doesn't know which way the political winds are blowing for Democrats--further leftward or back to the center--and he is too shrewd to be left behind in either case.

I'd argue the wind is blowing outward. Across the political spectrum, as the establishment parties are hollow shells of increasing extremism and the rest of America is a plurality of independents frustrated by the lack of anyone that can speak to them without left/right platitudes.

[vaidhy]

This seems to be a very cynical view. There also seems to be an expectation that people should stand in either end of all issues. Why not take his for his word that there are times he is conflicted and he is good at communication?

[acoard]

>Radical philosophers have been saying for a long time now that everything is a question of power and domination, that anyone pretending otherwise is complicit, and that -- in the final analysis -- the mere classification of things is a violent act.

Which philosophers are saying this? I majored in philosophy, still read philosophy (both ancient and modern academic), and have never encountered anyone saying that classification of things is a violent act.

It's true there has always been a struggle, going back to ancient Greece and Thucydides, about whether politics should be about justice (or morality) or power.[0] Between what is right, and who has force. And some, like Chomsky (who some might call a radical), say that everyone living in a modern society is complicit in some way[1]. But I've never seen anyone say that believing in justice/morality instead of power makes one complicit.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/#R...

[1] https://chomsky.info/200601__/

[leftyted]

> Which philosophers are saying this? I majored in philosophy, still read philosophy (both ancient and modern academic), and have never encountered anyone saying that classification of things is a violent act.

Foucault, Irigaray, Rorty, and Butler to name a few.

These thinkers believe that distinctions are bad, that the borders between things should be dissolved, that concepts like rational-irrational, true-false, objective-subjective, man-woman are oppressive.

Chomsky is not radical in the sense I mean. He's a liberal who believes in progress, responsibility, knowledge, and the possibility of relations between people that are not coercive. He's just pessimistic about human relations as they exist today. There's a Chomsky-Foucault debate on youtube. Chomsky sees a distinction between the responsible-irresponsible use of power and Foucault does not. You can also look up the Habermas-Rorty debates.

[throw0101a]

> I don’t know. What I can say for certain is that I’m not yet ready to abandon the possibility of America—not just for the sake of future generations of Americans but for all of humankind.

A point made in The Road to Unfreedom by Snyder is that one reason Russia is going after America is for domestic political reasons:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Unfreedom

Specifically if the Russian public can be shown that America, the supposed shining City on the Hill, is no better than Russia, then the Kremlin will not have to bother improving life for its citizens, and the oligarchs can continue on doing whatever they want to.

[hprotagonist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

not for the first time.

[nicodjimenez]

Well said. You can’t blame people for their limited world view though if they just haven’t spent any time in the private sector (writing a book about yourself doesn’t really count). Most progress and most wealth in our civilization has been created in the private sector. When people have no exposure to the realities behind their cheap paper towels, cheap books, cheap TVs, smart phones, etc, they often become radical and have a warped perspective.

[defterGoose]

Not really sure what youre trying to say here. Most adults i know have held one private sector job or another. The real question here is the externalities. If we didnt have "the private sector" giving us things like cheap paper towels and TVs, our lives would look different to be sure, but we also wouldnt have a lot of the consumptive industry thats driving climate change, etc. The warped perspective is that we need all of those things, and people becoming "radicalized" to them is the system shock of being exposed to the reality: because that reality is often not pretty.