Just checking
Some people are a little dubious about the, what shall I say, the emotionality surrounding the recent transition of power in the US. Our friend KB Player for instance.
Eyes fixed on the horizon? And with the inspirational statesman look? That was pseudo poetic bombast. As an outsider, I felt faintly embarrassed, and thought that a quick cup of tea with the Queen, a few words in front of Downing Street while the old incumbent leaves by the back door carrying a suitcase, that’s the way to do it. Democracy is a good thing, but it doesn’t need to be turned into a religion.
Some doubt was expressed in comments at Talking Philosophy but we ended up in more or less the same place. Anyway I asked myself (and not for the first time, being a suspicious type, and also being aware that since I make a habit of puncturing sentimentalities and pieties I sort of have to be cautious with my own) if I should be more skeptical. Am I making a messiah out of Obama?
That’s certainly possible, for obvious reasons – I really do admire him, to a very unusual and intense degree. I’m not accustomed to admiring public figures (much less presidents) in this way, in fact to be perfectly honest I have no precedent at all for my attitude to Obama. That is almost a guarantee of a susceptibility to mistakes and blindness.
I’m not so deluded that I think his plans for health care are any good though. Maybe I’ll use that as a meter – I’ll just keep checking myself – ‘Do you think “affordable health care” is meaningful or possible? No? Good; still functioning.’ I wish he hadn’t invited Rick Warren to do the invocation…but on the other hand, Michelle Goldberg pointed out that the outrage about Warren’s homophobia has caused him to remove some of the concrete signs of it, so perhaps the invitation has forced him to do better.
Ah, the hell with it, it’s not worth it; I still think Obama shouldn’t have invited him.
I wish we could ditch all the God-talk. I’m very glad he included non-believers, but I still wish we could ditch the God talk. But…(this is where things get really sinister) I don’t mind it as much as I would from someone else, or as much as I did from Bush or Clinton. Have I lost my mind? Partly, maybe – that is, the euphoria of the whole thing motivates me to bury my normal reaction so that I can go on being euphoric. That’s not what you’d call sound intellectual practice – so that’s a fair cop. I’m giving Obama a break that I wouldn’t give other people. (Fortunately, it makes no difference to him or to them – I don’t want to come over all self-important here! I’m just exploring how this stuff works, from the inside; I’m not saying What I Think Matters.) But some of that is because the God talk trails with it the old civil rightsy rhetoric. I wouldn’t want to be without The Promised Land or All God’s Children or (perhaps least of all) ‘Thank God almighty, we’re free at last.’ That’s in spite of the fact that in any other context that line would irritate the hell out of me, because stricly speaking it’s absurd – thanking god for freedom and just politely ignoring the previous four centuries. In any other context I would rudely ask why god gets the credit for the good stuff and none of the blame for the bad stuff; I would ask why, if god could free the slaves, god didn’t just prevent them from being enslaved in the first place. But – in the civil rights context, I don’t. If I had the choice, I would keep all the presidential language secular, but since I don’t…I feel inclined to turn a blind eye. That’s a double standard. Nolo contendere.
Now we’ve got that out of the way…well it’s the old Wordsworth line, you know, bliss was it in that dawn to be alive. Yes I know it’s soppy, but I do not care – I want to be soppy. I’ve never seen anything like this. None of us have. You don’t know what it’s like (well you do if you live here and it’s affected you too, but otherwise, you don’t) – you don’t know what it’s like to have all but everyone in the damn country feeling ecstatic and elevated and (cough) well I don’t know how else to put this, kind of united.
I can even explain one reason, one of many. For eight years we’ve lived with the unhappy awareness that everyone outside the US thinks of it as Bush country – with a few dissenters perhaps but at its core, Bush-like. Now it becomes apparent that the US is much more Obama country than it ever was Bush country.
Another reason is that the bliss (to call it that) was unalloyed by compromise. This was not hooray the firstblackpresident who is not otherwise so terrific – this was not (for instance) Al Sharpton. There was absolutely no need to think ‘well this is a great First but we had to compromise to get it…’ – so one could wallow with a clear conscience. Obama is a lot more talented than the usual white pol, not less so, so the First is more than legitimate.
And perhaps best of all – I have earnest hopes that the fashion for falling-down prison pants will die an abrupt death.
I suspect that an enormous part of many people’s emotional reaction (not excluding my own) is compounded by relief. What’s the old philosophical conundrum? Is having a powerful and persistent pain removed, such as a large nail pulled from your foot, in and of itself a pleasure?
It grows ever more evident to me that relief from pain is itself a positive pleasure now that some village in Texas has its idiot back..
I’m an American ex-pat living in Canada in part due to the Bush Admninistration. I honestly feel I could go back home now.
I was deeply moved by Obama on Tuesday afternoon despite the annoying excess of god-talk that only seems to take place in the America and Islamic states.
I think it worth mentioning that the euphoria is not just a U.S. phenomena. I was at the doctor’s here Tues morning where staff were discussing the inauguration and how to get a t.v. into the office. The cashiers at the grocery store I stopped by on my way home were talking about it and asking customers if they were going home to watch it. You could feel the excitement. “Free at last”, indeed.
I don’t mean to rhapsodize, but next to Obama’s radiance on Tuesday, George Bush looked absolutely shrinking and grey.
Malia’s Secret Service name is ‘radiance’! Hahaha.
It is quite possible to like and to admire a public figure without being in agreement with him or her. Sometimes one admires personal qualities, without necessarily agreeing with political decisions. For example, Chile’s current president, Michelle Bachelet, has not been a good president seen as a political executive, while she surely has been the most decent president since the return of democracy in 1990, in terms of human reactions, in terms of ethical integrity. She has good intentions; she hasn’t completely lost her innocence. Maybe the difference between the person and the chief executive can be applied to Obama too.
Well, Ophelia, I decided to turn a deaf ear to some of the god language, when the 30 year wonder from Lake Forest came up the to the podium, all 300 pounds of him, I muted his words! But I share your sense of euphoria. And I see nothing non-intellectual about it, so long as you keep your wits about you while you enjoy it.
I was impressed with Obama’s innaugural address. The critics were looking for resonances from the past, and were disappointed that Lincoln didn’t receive an echo. But, perhaps, in the future, critics will be disappointed that presidents to come don’t echo Obama. After all, considering the mess he’s inherited, his speech may not have won him plaudits, but anyone reading it in a reflective moment, will see that he hit just the right tone. Just enough past to give it momentum, just enough present to keep it form turning into nonsense.
Let’s face it, who wouldn’t be euphoric, seeing Bush leave the White House? But to see him replaced by someone of great promise (of intelligence, sensitivity and humanity) – and only time will tell whether Obama delivers on the promise or not – is something to be celebrated.
But I think those who hesitate about all the euphoria are probably right. Surely, the US is the only country in the world that celebrates its transition of power in such a fulsome way. There are obvious dangers in this. It vests an enormous importance in one person – an almost religious degree of worship and honour – and, like religion, is in danger of stealing the initiative from ordinary citizens.
Obama’s speech turned the tables, and I think that was a good thing. He made clear something that was not clear in the proceedings, that this was about all Americans, not just about him. And it’s that awareness, I think, that makes Obama a very important step forward in the idea of the presidency. This is not a god. Bush made that evident. He’s a man amongst men and women, chosen to do a very difficult job, and he needs help.
But even god-talk had its place, and when Joseph Lowrey began his ‘benediction’ with ‘God of our weary years, God of our silent tears,’ surely, even the godless can appreciate what those words meant to so many who had waited so long for this moment. As someone who has ‘prayed’ in public before, I know that prayers are not addressed to god or gods but to people. They’re the only ones who hear. And those were important words.
I couldn’t listen to the words of the fat one. But it was good to hear Obama speak of science and nonbelievers in his address. Surely, it is good to be a bit soppy at times, and sometimes it is actually justified. Enjoy the moment.
Sure, it’s certainly possible that Obama will turn out to be a mensch but a dud at the job. I think that’s not terribly likely, because of the qualities he has (for instance he’s not greedy in the way that Clinton turned out to be – he won’t cop feels and he won’t suck up to lobbyists) but it’s fer sher not ruled out.
I know, it’s true about the cult of the president. But – given our history, and given the realities of life for a lot of black children, in this particular case…I’m torn. I think the cult in general is unfortunate but in this particular case I think it has its good aspects, for reasons that have little to do with governance.
Yeah, I left when Warren came on.
But the people can still be involved. The transparency stuff from yesterday helps, and the system the Obama people set up for communication helps. They email us, and we can email them.
In Britain there is a ridiculous degree of cynicism towards politics so I find it hard to reproach anyone with not being cynical enough.
Witnessing the enthusiasm for Obama is certainly a refreshing change from hearing pub-bores going on about how the government are planning to use speed-cameras to steal our DNA.
After 8 years of a malevolent, corrupt, authoritarian administration, we now have a president who is intelligent and genuinely holds to democratic values and has a regard for human rights (notwithstanding the imperfection of his leftist credentials).
So why isn’t euphoria a perfectly sober and reasonable response?
Ophie, here’s what I was thinking for the last few days when I was all sniffly and teared up.
I have been so bruised up and bashed around by nasty, repellant appeals to sentimentality about baby jesu, about staying the god damn fucking course, about being a terrorist myself if I disagreed with Dick Wad Cheney, appeals to proud determined stupidity and know-nothing-hood, that I almost, almost got real true happiness mixed up with sentimentality. I thought I might be being a sap. Because I won’t have to cringe when I see a picture of the president at the border crossing or at the post office.
I don’t think so.
Maybe, like me and lots of us, you are recognizing a brand new thing, e.g. not feeling chagrined, furious, disenfranchised, belittled, lied to, I could go on and on, but actually feeling true genuine A #1 positive regard for the president and some of his ideas.
On the other hand, you may have too many toxins built up in your system. I hear the toxins thing is real easy to fix though.
Claire Ramsey: a picture of G.W. Bush at the post office would be delightful, if it were among the other ‘wanted’ posters.
When it comes to Dubya, Robert Browning got it almost right when he almost said:
“Ah, but a woman’s reach should exceed her grasp./ Or what’s a dart board for?”
Well, congratulations!
I don’t think the emotionalism at all foolish. The symbolism of the victory and the hopefulness of possibilities will now be implemented by the government actually doing stuff. I certainly agree that a top-class model for black youth’s aspirations will be a great thing.
Claire, well, yeah – it’s this mix of elation and unfamiliarity – this ‘oh, so this is what it feels like to actually like the guy in the White House and actually feel proud/thrilled/excited about my own country!’ And I don’t feel the smallest inclination to get rid of or disavow the feeling. I just want to, you know, make sure I can still disapprove of something should the need arise.
I would consider myself an obama skeptic but it is almost impossible not to like the man or wish him well, hell I would have even voted for him. What I found (and still find) the most suspicious about him is the cultlike gushing of his supporters and the media’s adulation. I just don’t understand the need for ‘inspirational’ leaders, quasi prophets who’ll lead their people to the higher ground. A civilrights struggle or a nationalist movement needs its MLKs and Gandhis but governance? Competence and accountability is all I’d ask for in a politician, I’d take a workhorse over a charismatic orator any day and think it is a damn fine thing to be cleareyed and a more than a bit suspicious about the motives of anyone who seeks out power.
I dont get the bush hatred either – what did anyone ever expect from that man but shambles and mumbles?
Watching the inauguration, I felt tremendous admiration for America, Americans, their political traditions, their civic institutions, their unabashed enthusiasm and hope. My admiration was not particularly centred on Obama and if and when it all goes pearshaped, I’ll not be too disappointed because the notion of “America” I have – the one that self-invents and self-corrects – will endure.
It was fantastic publicity for the US. Many I know, even the kids, watched or talked a bit about it. Poor China may spend billions on the Olympics, trying so very hard to showcase its ‘arrival’ on the world stage, only for the Americans to upstage them with a simple inauguration.
Along with prison pants n word rap lyrics as well?
Eric I dont think that the sort of racist clap trap spouted by Jo Lowery in his prayer has a place anywhere?
I had an email from an ex-pat friend, now living in the US, which observed
“…. I am so glad this guy is on our side, more or less.
If he was starting a fascist party or (God help us) a religion I would be truly
frightened for the world.
But the US seems to have elected a Green-leaning social democrat.”
Given the tremendous power and responsibility in the hands of POTUS, I think it is not unreasonable to hope that the person holding the office is truly extraordinary, in a good way. There’s nothing wrong with clinging to signs that he might be. It would and will be better for all of us if he is. And if he isn’t, it will become evident soon enough. Nobody gets cut the slack that JFK did any more.
“I’m very glad he included non-believers”
I was very, very glad. He didn’t have to. But he did. It was a surprise and a relief.
And in between all the both-one-thing-and-the-other talk, his reassertion of the freedoms of the constitution (if that’s how you phrase it) was a relief (I’m not American, but Offshore is affected by the USA’s lead on civil liberties).
I think the tendency to dismiss or downplay the god talk when it comes from Obama is very interesting given how often it was used as a stick to beat Bush with. To my ears Obamas invocations of god are much stronger than Bush’s ever were. Obama has more or less claimed that he is god’s representative on earth, that he has been selected by god to lead. So why doesn’t that set more left wing teeth on edge? I think it is because, deep down, people think he is lying, that he doesn’t really believe what he says, while Bush was patently sincere in his religion. That means (if true) that we must, after all, value hypocrisy in some of its aspects as a virtue. I think that makes sense (See Richard Sennett on this), but it is surprising if it is true.
O.B you also may feel more warmth toward Obama because he is rather a good looking chap with a nice looking wife and children? people cant help responding to that, maybe you are?and are cutting him slack that you wouldnt cut someone who looked like Dick Cheyne.
Ophelia, I am certain that your finely tuned sensor for things to disapprove of will continue to get a workout.
Once someone served Miss Marple something “american” as a novelty for tea, it might have been a cupcake or peanut butter finger sandwich or worse. Her response lives on: “The Americans have a lot to answer for.”
Don’t worry. Yesterday, despite the fact that Bush is gone and Obama is president, someone offered me hazelnut-flavored coffee. See? Plenty to disapprove of.
Soppiness and emotion don’t have to cloud your thinking. This is a great mistake intellectuals often make, to think that the presence of feeling dulls people’s minds. It can, of course, but it can also sharpen them, and an absence of feeling is dangerous in itself.
John Meredith, I think Obama is at least somewhat sincerely faithful, but I find the content of his faith much more intellectually palatable and less dangerous than Bush’s.
I don’t think questions of sincerity are very helpful when it comes to religious belief. What does it mean to speak of hypocrisy in relation to beliefs that one should turn the other cheek, take not thought for the morrow, love your enemies, and pray for those who treat you badly?
However, since John Meredith has made the rather surprising claim that Obama thinks of himself as god’s representative on earth, it would be nice to have some strongly corroborating evidence of this. Surely, more people would have noticed?
“However, since John Meredith has made the rather surprising claim that Obama thinks of himself as god’s representative on earth, it would be nice to have some strongly corroborating evidence of this. “
I wish I had the video, it was from the BBC documentary about him, but he made very strong claims (in church) of the ‘I am just here as a humble tool of the almighty’ kind. The sorts of things Pope’s always say. What it means is, ‘what I do is what god wants’. I don’t think Bush ever said anything quite so strong (but I may well be wrong. However, since he only seems to have discovered religion at the moment he discovered an interest in high political office, I think it is fair to assume he is faking it.
Eric – well said. I think, as it happens, its perfectly possible that Bush is cynically pretending to be Christian while Obama is sincere. I don’t know, I don’t have access to the contents of either man’s head.
As to why the secular left is more willing to give Obama a break than Bush? For me it has a lot to do with the fact that the god that Obama professes to believe in is a lot more palatable and in tune with my own beliefs than the one Bush professes to believe in. One who cares more about dealing with poverty and war than with gay marriage, stem cell research and so on and so forth. I don’t think that the left is being hypocritical in objecting much more to religious faith where it is used to justify the otherwise unjustifiable, than where it is used as a claimed ‘justification’ for doing what it is in any case the right thing anyway.
Not to say I don’t think there are problems with ‘faith’ in and of itself
“I don’t think that the left is being hypocritical in objecting much more to religious faith where it is used to justify the otherwise unjustifiable, than where it is used as a claimed ‘justification’ for doing what it is in any case the right thing anyway.”
They are being something worse: cynical. If religion is no justification for policies you disapprove of, it is no justification for policies you approve of. If Bush is an imbecile for being ‘guided’ byu hisrelgion, then so is Obama. Who is to say which ones religion is right (that is the whole potty problem with it)? But I don’t think we really believe that Obama has ‘faith’, do we? He is obviously an intelligent and apparently sane man. He just recognised that it was necessary to appear to be a Christian if he aspired to high office.
John Meredith: Don’t be an ass. To have fewer objections to religious beliefs consonant with secular moral reasoning than those directly opposed to secular moral reasoning does not require or imply taking religious claims as any sort of justification in themselves. Those who assert that their religious ideals demand they NOT set themselves up as arbiter of others’ morality (“Judge not, lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”) have religious beliefs which are less objectionable to a non-believer or strict separationist than those who feel not only that their religious beliefs demand that they judge and condemn others, but that their religious beliefs should be the basis for law backed by the coercive power of the state.
Moreover, Obama has been very clear on numerous occasions that he is in fact a strict separationist – and he’s a constitutional scholar who actually knows what separation of church and state means and why it is important. This makes him infinitely preferable to the Bush administration’s perpetual pandering to and legislating the agenda of the theocratic right.
The “tool of God” talk you cite is common to many committed Christians, but what it means differs substantially from conservative/fundamentalist Christianity to liberal/moderate Christianity. For the theocrat, to do the will of God simply means to advance whatever agenda you believe God has for the world (or whatever agenda your preacher tells you is God’s plan). It is a deeply authoritarian perspective, both in terms of the imagined relationship to God and within the confines of the churches which espouse it. The work that such a “tool of God” does is strictly a matter of adhering to and advancing rigid religious dogma – which makes them real ‘tools’ in the more colloquial sense as well.
For more progressive Christians – especially the sort of intellectualized Christianity that Obama has evinced, but also the Christianity of the African American denominations associated with the civil rights movement – to be a “tool of God” is to live well, to try to do good and to be good, to help others. This tradition has few or no authoritarian elements: It does not abrogate responsibility for reflection on what it is to do good to some authority or dogma, nor does it reduce helping people to proselytizing them. In fact, one of the key tenets of these denominations is that the only proper way to lead people to God is by being a good person and setting a good example, which is very different from the brainwashing “Jesus Camp” warriors-for-God approach of the evangelical types.
It is a sad truth of the current political atmosphere in the United States that no politician in American could be anything other than a publicly professing Christian and expect to win statewide or national office. This is especially true of African American politicians because of the deep roots of the Civil Rights movement in black churches. So Barack Obama must perforce be a public Christian, whether he is one in the privacy of his own mind or not. And I couldn’t care less, because I don’t believe it matters. I’ve heard Obama use lots of broadly religious rhetoric but have never heard him voice a moral or factual opinion rooted in religious authority of any sort – as opposed to George W. “I’m not so sure about evolution, but I’m dead certain about abortion and stem cells and abstinence only sex education and…” Bush. I’ve heard plenty of vague God talk, much of which has resonance with and connection to historical sources such as the Declaration of Independence and the Civil Rights movement – but I’ve also heard plenty of precise and detailed commitment to the First Amendment and preserving the separation of church and state. In a long speech he gave on religion and politics, he even specifically talked about the importance of engaging in public policy debates using publicly accessible moral arguments rather than private religious convictions – an essentially Rawlsian position (unsurprising, since I’m certain he’s read Rawls, given his educational background).
To make any claim along the lines of “God talk is God talk, and it’s cynical to judge Obama differently from Bush” in the face of all these enormous differences is simply asinine and indefensible. Cut it out.
Day one, it’s all good.
Day two, it’s all good.
George Mitchell for middle-east envoy? All good so far.
Ever since Tuesday I’ve found myself whistling ‘Hail to the Chief’ and I don’t even like the tune.
If he screws up then obviously we can all respond, but right here, right now I don’t see him screwing up through venality, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, bigotry, or panic.
I’m over 50 and a long term political activist. My default position is cynicism, but I can’t feel cynical about this. I think he really is something new. Maybe that just means he will find new ways to screw up, but until then I just want to hug America for getting it so bloody right when they might have got it so bloody wrong.
Richard, yes of course, about the beauty and charm – I’ve said as much in other places. But that also cuts the other way, and for me it initially did, for a long time. I resisted the cult of Obama until some time last spring precisely because it sprang up so abruptly and he is so pretty; I thought the whole thing was another Diana cult and I wanted no part of it. I did realize he also had considerable substantive qualities, but I didn’t let that sway me…and I should have. So initially the prettiness made me stupid in the opposite direction, which is sort of ironic.
But now, sure – it’s part of the long list of his good qualities, and it certainly does have its effect. (Again, I’ve said that before – there was that post about the picture on the front page of the Times (NY) on October 27.) On the other hand Dick Cheney isn’t the right comparison – the right one would be more like Jesse Jackson or John Lewis. Then the contrast becomes much weaker, and so does the point. Nevertheless I don’t dispute it. (But then again, the prettiness is part of what made him and will continue to make him so electable, which, given the more substantive qualities, is nothing to sneeze at. That’s the other thing I failed to realize when I was conscientiously unimpressed by the cult.)
“Ever since Tuesday I’ve found myself whistling ‘Hail to the Chief'”
Hahaha – me too! And I keep thinking, for the first time in my life, ‘I can even stand “Hail to the Chief” now.’ Seriously – it’s weird to have ‘Hail to the Chief’ in the head and not flinch. It feels like living in Looking-glass World – which it is.
“I don’t see him screwing up through venality, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, bigotry, or panic.”
I’ve been thinking exactly that (with some other items). I made an actual list; ‘not venal’ is one of the items. I also don’t see him screwing up through greed, temper, or sense of entitlement. (In other words I’m ticking off the Clinton flaws he doesn’t have.)
“Soppiness and emotion don’t have to cloud your thinking. This is a great mistake intellectuals often make, to think that the presence of feeling dulls people’s minds. It can, of course, but it can also sharpen them, and an absence of feeling is dangerous in itself.”
Agreed (cf Damasio, Nussbaum, etc etc). Or not so much agreed as yeah, absolutely. But I wasn’t worrying that the presence of feeling would dull my mind, but more specifically that it could cause particular kinds of bias – confirmation bias, double standards, that kind of thing. I think it’s pretty obvious that this kind of feeling carries a risk of doing that.
Hey, Richard – “I dont think that the sort of racist clap trap spouted by Jo Lowery in his prayer has a place anywhere?”
What racist claptrap? What racist claptrap? There’s not one racist word in there – I’ve just read it, to check.
You are amazingly nasty sometimes. I can’t imagine what you could have translated from that address (or prayer, if we must) that merits the label racist.
Tell us what was racist, or withdraw the claim and apologize. Here’s the address.
OB wrote:
“Richard, yes of course, about the beauty and charm – I’ve said as much in other places. But that also cuts the other way, and for me it initially did, for a long time. I resisted the cult of Obama until some time last spring precisely because it sprang up so abruptly and he is so pretty;”
How silly I feel to have to voice one of my few disagreements with you – about someone’s physical charms:) See, I don’t see anything particularly attractive, physically about Obama. No, he’s not ugly, of course not. I just find him. . well. . .distinctly average-looking. I suspected for a while that I must be the crazy one, since so many of my friends remarked on how good-looking they found him. I wonder, though, if they’re wearing the political equivalent of beer goggles: he’s so smart, so not morally bankrupt, that he looks positively ravishing.
Now Rahm Emanuel on the other hand. . nom, nom.
(ducking and running. . . )
Did you see those pictures of Obama in a tux Josh? he did not look average.
O.B I stand by my comment I was refering to this little gem that Lowery dropped into the prayer on the day a black man was being sworn in as president and D.C was packed with white well wishers. (we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right).
He basicly casts all black,asian and native American people as victims and insults white people for no good reason by implying that they refuse to do right by people of different races and ethnic groups, I took it as a personal insult and I think it is racist. That said thanks for a realy honest answer to my question, I agree there are plenty of good reasons to like Obama other than his looks so you were right to change your mind.
There was something that many asians would have enjoyed seeing – the racial diversity of Obama’s family, his half-indonesian sister and chinese brother-in-law. Malia and Sasha (such gorgeous kids) reminded me of little Tamil girls.
I’m with Josh on Rahm’s sexiness…
Don’t be silly, Richard. Tuxedos don’t make people’s faces more or less handsome, though they do help make the best of whatever one’s got.
OMG. I can’t believe I’m talking about Teh Sexy of politicians at B&W like some sort of schoolgirl. Or, in my case, schoolgay.
Richard, don’t be silly. Personal insults are what you get around here when you say something really dumb. Like completely failing to acknowledge that the whiteness of yourself and your ancestors was and is an unearned privilege.
Josh,
Oh yes, Rahm E is very cute. And I would agree with you that Obama is average (averageish) if it weren’t for the grin, but the grin changes everything. Did you see that Rolling Stone cover last summer? When I saw it I thought…Jesus, that looks like a fan magazine.
I’ve said this before, but that’s a Diana grin, and it’s solid gold. It all comes down to teeth in the end – Diana’s fame was largely a matter of teeth. She had them, Betty and Chuck don’t – the right teeth, that is. Same with Barack. Bush has that horrid little ferrit grin, Obama has what he has. Big difference.
You have license to talk about Teh Sexy on this thread; it’s kind of a schoolgirly thread.
Richard, for fuck’s sake, can’t you ever manage to rise above your petty little spites? That was an old civil rights ditty, and Lowery is an old civil rights war horse, and he dropped it in not ‘for no good reason’ but for the very good reason that the Capitol steps and the Mall were filled with old civil rights warhorses and their heirs. It was a kind of family joke, a wink, a nod to the past. Obama was smiling at it, did you not notice that? John Lewis probably smiled and sniffled at the same time. You were ‘personally insulted’ indeed – how self-important can you get?!
mirax, yeah – I didn’t spot Maya and her husband at the time, didn’t realize they were there until I saw the NY Times diagram of who was where, but I love the whole Indonesia thread.
Tsk – it’s like some Hollywood wet dream – I’ve always said so. Kenya, Indonesia, Kansas, a photogenic grin – maybe he’s not real, maybe it’s a movie.
Richard – and another thing – remember the bit where Obama said ‘a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath’? Did you take that as a personal insult too? I mean to say – he meant white people, you know. It wasn’t anyone else who was refusing to serve black people in Washington D.C.! So surely that was an insult to white people, dropped into his inaugural address for no reason – isn’t that racist, and personally insulting to you?
In fact, if you think about it, the whole dang civil rights movement was racist, and personally insulting to you. I think you should write a letter to the newspapers about it.
“John Meredith: Don’t be an ass. To have fewer objections to religious beliefs consonant with secular moral reasoning than those directly opposed to secular moral reasoning does not require or imply taking religious claims as any sort of justification in themselves.”
G, try not to get your knickers in such a twist. Your point is interesting but not really apropos. My point was that it is cynical to abuse one man for using religion to justify his actions but to be forgiving of another who makes equally (at least)strong and equally absurd claims of divine sanction simply because you agree with the political views of one and not the other. Either leave it out or admit that both men are equally at fault on this particular point (although you may very different estimations of their political programmes). Bush was routinely accused by many on the left of being a cretin because he believed in a personal god who, apparently, told him to do the wrong things he did. Obama claims also to be guided by a personal god (the same one) but nobody seems to thing that that is risible. It doesn’t add up and I think you know it.
“Those who assert that their religious ideals demand they NOT set themselves up as arbiter of others’ morality (“Judge not, lest ye be judged.” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”) have religious beliefs which are less objectionable to a non-believer or strict separationist than those who feel not only that their religious beliefs demand that they judge and condemn others, but that their religious beliefs should be the basis for law backed by the coercive power of the state.”
In other words, you find religious beliefs that support your world view acceptable and ones that don’t unacceptable. Some of us, though, object to all religious justification for political actions because it is irrational, not because it is inconvenient.
“Moreover, Obama has been very clear on numerous occasions that he is in fact a strict separationist – and he’s a constitutional scholar who actually knows what separation of church and state means and why it is important. This makes him infinitely preferable to the Bush administration’s perpetual pandering to and legislating the agenda of the theocratic right.”
I think Bush was a separationist too, he certainly acted like one. What was offensive about his administration was what he did, not the fact that people he did it for held one religious dogma rather than another. We don’t yet know what Obama is going to do, but it is still absurd to claim, as he does, that it will be the will of god. He deserves as much opprobrium for that as Bush, his position is the same, but I think we forgive him because we really think he is lying.
“The “tool of God” talk you cite is common to many committed Christians, but what it means differs substantially from conservative/fundamentalist Christianity to liberal/moderate Christianity.”
Does it? Are you sure? I can’t see how. I think this is just special pleading. Of course people with different political beliefs will support different political proogrammes, but we can object to the politics without having to understand the theology. Bush was mocked for his faith, in itself, quite apart from what he did with it (nothing tpo speak of). Obama is not mocked in the same way although his stated views on divine inspiration and supportr are stronger I think than Bush’s. I think that is intersting.
John Meredith,
Of course that depends on accepting your version of the comparative god-invocation of Bush and Obama. I don’t accept your version, because I think it’s inaccurate.
There’s also the fact that I have criticized Obama quite strongly for inviting Rick Warren to give the ‘invocation’ at the inauguration – so you’re wrong on those facts too.
Are you sure Bush did ‘nothing to speak of’ with his ‘faith’? Many people who know him say his conviction that he is doing what god wants him to do is the source of his ‘resolve,’ firmness of purpose, etc – what his critics call obstinacy and refusal to consider.
You’re quite wrong to think that Bush was a ‘separationist’ and that ‘he certainly acted like one.’ No he didn’t. Cf stem cells, abortion funding, Terry Schiavo, federal funding for ‘faith-based’ organizations with permission to discriminate in hiring. It looks to me as if you have zero knowledge on the subject and just want to score points.
I would suggest that Richard is not American, and not of the older generation. Commonwealth coutries don’t carry the US racist baggage; we have our own, and anyone under about 40 has grown up proudly anti-racist in most cases, both there and here. We also don’t know much old US ‘progressive’ pop culture. We heard of the Freedom Ride and Woody Guthrie but we certainly don’t know the lyrics by heart. Being made righteous in the eyes of the world (as many are saying results from Obama’s election), doesn’t mean that all the signifiers get understood by the world’s citizens in the same way.
And Obama’s election means ‘white privilege’ is a lot less extreme than it once was.
Holy Smoke! I opened up B&W this morning to find that the conversation was going on all night! Can’t catch up. But it’s worth mentioning to Richard, a bear of comparatively little brain, it seems, that the reference to whites embracing what is right, is not so much a slur as a compliment.
The song or the rap from which those words come speak of the black keeping back, the brown sticking around, the yellow being mellow, and so forth, and the being alright if you’re white – that is, a stiutation in which the only disqualifier is blackness. Lowry may not have done it elegantly, but he was alluding to the long struggle for acceptance of black Americans, and he was really saying, I think, that now the whites have embraced the right.
But it’s really too much to think that this one little reference could cast the whole thing in a racist light. This is really looking for trouble where there isn’t any. Grow up Richard.
The theme of “Lowery is a racist because he dissed whites in his prayer” has been screeching out of right-wing loony radio all week. And, what Eric said, looking for trouble where there isn’t any, is how they gather “news.” They were also all over 1) Obama isn’t really president b/c they screwed up the word order on the oath at the inauguration and 2) Obama isn’t really president b/c when they re-did the oath he didn’t have his hand on a bible.” Also a lot of other BS that is simple invention designed to lure the very stupid and poorly educated to join the gossip screeching.
In the context of U.S. Vernacular Black English (the Standard variety and others too) discourse, rhyming and parallel structures are a long tradition and extend to word games and competitions among men. (Kind of like lying competitions among men in Texas).
If you want to read more about one of the early written down versions of the “white is alright, brown stick around, black get in back” see Daily Kos. Big Bill Boonzy wrote it after WW2 and no U.S. music company would publish it. He got himself blacklisted. But guess where he went and where it did get recorded and pressed and distributed? Yes indeedy Europe, France specifically.
So any or all of us could know about this song or not know about this son. But in the U.S. the most likely audience who would get it would be African Americans, esp Civil Rights era participants, and some Anglos who were alive and alert and marching around in the Civil Rights movement.
Here’s a like to a good little discussion about it: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/22/23850/0001
Right-wing loony radio, ah, I suspected as much. That seems to be where Richard gets much of his er analysis – and then, bizarrely, he comes over here with it and deposits it like a cat depositing a slightly-chewed mouse.
“I would suggest that Richard is not American, and not of the older generation.”
Richard certainly loves to invoke Martin Luther King, Jr. (or at least the sanitized mythologized post-mortem version of him), so I think it’s perfectly appropriate to call him on ignorance of the actual, real civil rights movement.
Oh, Chris was saying I should cut Richard some slack, I get it; I couldn’t figure out what he meant at first.
Nonsense. Richard is always laying down the law about US politics and history, and he had no modest hesitation in branding Lowery’s comment ‘racist clap trap’ – he simply jumped right in with an ill-natured hostile slam based on ignorance and a kind of FoxNewsy aggression. If he didn’t start from a default suspicion of all things left and liberal he might have been able to figure out that at that moment in front of that crowd Lowery was actually probably not making a racist jab.
What Lowery was doing, of course, was much more like what Johnson was doing when he said ‘and we shall overcome’ in a speech to the nation in 1964 – making a deliberate invocation of the rhetoric of the civil rights movement. John Lewis talked about that moment a lot in the last week or two, and how moving it was. (He was sitting next to King at the time, they were watching Johnson’s speech together; King was very powerfully moved.) Lowery was invoking that past, and saying (implicitly) ‘and look where we are now.’ It’s disgusting as well as absurd that people want to smear that.
When you think about it, it would be kind of sweet if the wingnuts ran with the ‘not really president’ thing to its conclusions, and started disobeying the govt. Then Obama could go upside their heads with the Patriot Act they all had such fun passing, and see who likes having a can of whup-ass opened on them – do I have the vernacular correct there?
Meanwhile, anyone for “Dick and Joe, the Plumbers’ Show”? Send ’em to those world hotspots together, they can put it all to rights…
“Diana’s fame was largely a matter of teeth.”
OB, that should go down as one of the funniest, pithiest remarks ever. Shit, that’s good. Neither Dorothy Parker nor Quentin Crisp could have done better. Remind me to tell you the story sometime of picking up Quentin Crisp in my dilapidated car to ferry him to a speech at my college to gay students’ alliance.
To continue flogging this horse:
There was a bit more (or less) to Diana’s fame than teeth. To be more precise, there was something else about her beauty , and the phenomenon relates to the perception of Obama as physically stunning.
At some point in the late 80s, we began hearing Diana Spencer described as “one of the most beautiful women in the world.” In truth – and you have only to look at photos of her before marrying Charles – she was really quite plain. Nothing you’d turn your head at if she were bagging your groceries at the corner store.
She got herself a lighter shade of blonde, some designer clothes, and she combined it with a natural charisma. All of a sudden, she was a beauty queen. Her transformation into a goddess only deepened with her tearful (maudlin) public sobbing about her marital life.
You can observe the same thing with Eva Peron. She was a plain, even harsh looking woman. But she got herself an iconic style with her unnaturally blonde hair, the signature chignon, the Dior suits, and the gesticulations. The effect was undeniably magnetic.
Her supporters and the fan magazines waxed rhapsodic about her beauty, much like Diana’s supporters. Her painted images on stamps, political posters, buttons, and postcards were pure hagiography – she looked actually, not just apparently beautiful.
Of course, much of that was the direct result of the Catholic/Latin American affection for religious iconography. Many depictions of Peron were clearly referencing the Virgin Mary, down to the headdress covering her hair.
And both Diana and Eva Peron were subjects of the Virgin/Whore dichotomy, that peculiar paradox that paints certain women as pure and ravishingly beautiful while simultaneously depicting them as slutty temptresses.
OK, I’ve gone on enough with this.
The entire narrative of the U.S. movement for racial equality has always been a religious one. The leaders have been clergymen; the language Biblical; even many of the movement songs are traditional religious songs with political language (keep your eyes on the prize, for example). The best known non-Christian leader, Malcolm X, was a Muslim preacher. From Christians like Martin Luther King comes the strategy of non-violence; from the Muslim Malcolm X comes that of armed resistance. Obama is the heir of that movement. Endorsing the black struggle for racial equality seems to involve an implicit acceptance of its religious texture and roots.
You fought like a champion, Ophelia. You always do. Thank you.
Thanks Josh!
It actually wasn’t intended as an epigram though; I seriously think it’s true. Diana and Obama have in common the famously dazzling full-on smile. Well what makes it dazzling? The width of the mouth, and the teeth. Look at Bush grinning, look at the Queen grinning; completely different thing. It’s not magic, it’s just to do with the teeth.
Actually the U.S. movement for racial equality hasn’t been entirely religious – don’t forget SNCC (pronounced snick) for instance. It was founded as a secular alternative by people who really didn’t want so much churchiness.
Thanks cesperugo! [punch punch sniff sniff dance dance]
I won’t bother saying much about your response, John Meredith. You are either a clueless wonder of spectacular willful ignorance or you’re just yanking our collective chain.
I mean, seriously. You can’t have typed this with a straight face: “I think Bush was a separationist too, he certainly acted like one.” OB cited just a few of the many facts that make such a statement laughable on the face of it, so I can only think you’re funnin’ with us.
“You’re quite wrong to think that Bush was a ‘separationist’ and that ‘he certainly acted like one.’ No he didn’t. Cf stem cells, abortion funding, Terry Schiavo, federal funding for ‘faith-based’ organizations with permission to discriminate in hiring. It looks to me as if you have zero knowledge on the subject and just want to score points.”
OB, none of these things breach the division of church and state principle. They may be things you don’t like but they do not do what you seem to be claiming they do. I am for stem cell research and abortion etc, but those who are against are not challenging the division between church and state, whatever their motivation. Otherwise Obama makes the same breach whenever his religious views inform any policy decision (every one that would be if he were to be eblieved (which he isn’t, I don’t think)). Again, I am not trying to defend Bush, just notong the peculiar double standard here.
G, please, untwist those knickers, it is undignified. Usually I take the view that anyone who meets an argument with personal abuse is just a tedious internet, twat, but I have a feeling that you are just an hysteric, so I will be gentler.
Richard: “I took it as a personal insult and I think it is racist”
Unless you have a guilty conscience I really don’t see why.
John Meredith: “none of these things breach the division of church and state principle”
They are state implementation of church policies based not on review of the evidence but on faith. Yes, the finances and constitution of the state and church weren’t combined (except for state funding to faith-based organizations). They didn’t need to be as there was no separation between their programs. You’ve painted it red but the quacking and waddling give it away.
“I take the view that anyone who meets an argument with personal abuse is just a tedious internet, twat”
Hoist by your own petard. ;-)
“They are state implementation of church policies based not on review of the evidence but on faith.”
They are the implemntation of policies you disagree with for reasons you disagree with, that does not affect the division of church and state. The churches have no greater power following Bush than they did before him (a casue of much irritation in some circles). This is my point. If Obama gives his understanding of Christian justice as a main motive for closing Guantanamo would that make it a breach of the church and state separation? Of course not. Thereis a doiuble standard at work. I am not asking anyone to support Bush’s views on stem cell research (which are shared by some atheists, by the way).
2Yes, the finances and constitution of the state and church weren’t combined (except for state funding to faith-based organizations).”
Exactly. The only quibble you have in this regard is one that Obama will certainly do nothing about. He may, for all we know, show more interest in funding church based organisations. That would be consonant with his expressed beliefs.
“They didn’t need to be as there was no separation between their programs. You’ve painted it red but the quacking and waddling give it away.”
I hope you get now why this is wrong. The fact that Bush shares the views of members of a church and this is reflected in his policy decsiions does nortt equal a loss of church/state separation. If it does, we have exactly the same problem with Obama who claims that his policy decisions are rooted in his own Christain beliefs (yes, I know, he is probably fibbing about that, but we have to deal with what is on the table).
The only interesting thisng about this is the double standard and what it implies (a dsperate desire to believe uncritically in a charismatic leader, in my opinion, something that has got us into trouble before).
“Hoist by your own petard. ;-)”
Only if you can show where I have returned abuse for civil comment.
John Meredith, it seems to me that you are largely missing the point. Of course, people will act out of their own convictions, whether these be religious or secular. The problem with Bush is that he made Christian belief the underlying basis for practically everything that he did. The Justice Department, for instance, was staffed largely by young graduates from Liberty University. NASA supervisors were chosen who knew nothing whatever of the work they were supervising. Rules (such as the one instituted by Reagen and reinstated by Bush) were made based solely upon religious scruples. And as Ophelia points out, so-called ‘faith groups’ were given federal monies without any strings attached which expected them, in their hiring practices, to observe federal laws and regulations regarding employment. These are some of the reasons why it can rightly be said that GW Bush did not observe the strict separation of church and state. We must wait to see what Obama will do, but I think he will do better. But if he doesn’t, he will be subjected to the same expectations and disappointments. And saying that Obama is insincere about his religious belief is, quite frankly, none of anyone’s business but his own. How do you think it will show up? Because he does follow his religious conscience in all things, regardless of law and precedent? Or because he doesn’t? These questions should not arise, and if they do, it is because the separation of church and state, as defined by the constitution, is being violated. Just as a way of ending, I’d be careful, if I were you, with the word ‘twat’. In any context it is not civil, and it’s so downright sexist as to be a flogging offence.
It’s one of Christopher Hitchens’s complaints, that the church aspect of the Civil Rights movement is played up and the Left part played down – I think he goes on about that in his God is not Great book.
Anyway, they were brave people, and I was moved to see some of the veterans in tears on inauguration day.
“John Meredith, it seems to me that you are largely missing the point. Of course, people will act out of their own convictions, whether these be religious or secular.”
I think, obviously, that it is you who is missing the point and the circle now seems so tight that it is probably pointless to go on about it much more, but here goes one last time. We may prefer that he staffs the Justice department with atheists, but it is not a breach of the church state division to staff it with believers.
The suggestion that Bush acted solely out of religious scruples is daft, what religious scruple made him draft the Patriot Act, and, anyway, how do you know? You later admonish me for the presumption of speculating on AObama’s religious sincerity, how can you presume to comment on Bush’s (it’s that old double standard again).
All your instances of Bush’s behaviour are offensive to you because you do not share his religious beliefs. But they do not affect the division of church and state. To see the point more clealry imagine that he had done what you approved of but explicitly given religious scruple as the reason. Would it have breached the division of church and state if Bushg had refused to invade Iraq because he claimed his faith forbad it? Of course not. What if he had funded religious groups that gave counselling for rape victims who needed an abortion and provided help in getting one? Still a breach?
“Just as a way of ending, I’d be careful, if I were you, with the word ‘twat’. In any context it is not civil, and it’s so downright sexist as to be a flogging offence.”
Thanks for the advice, but I am always careful. I restrict the use to people who insult me without provocation on the internet. As to it being sexist, get over yourself. It’s as sexist as calling someone a ‘dick’.
The fact that some atheists oppose stem cell research is irrelevant. The problem is epistemology, not constituency.
As for the separation of church and state being breached only in practice, I refer you back to my duck analogy.
“Only if you can show where I have returned abuse for civil comment.”
You spoke of argument, not civil comment. But if you misspoke I withdraw the accusation.
I decide what’s sexist around here, and the word ‘twat’ is absolutely banned. Oddly enough, I have never had to announce that policy or to enforce it, because I have never before had anyone piggish or obtuse enough to use it here. John Meredith is the first, in more than six years. A signal honour.
“we have exactly the same problem with Obama who claims that his policy decisions are rooted in his own Christain beliefs”
No he does not. That’s sheer invention. Obama has on the contrary said that policy decisions must be justified with secular reasons, not religious ones.
John Meredith is talking to himself rather than to anyone here, but just for the record, briefly – there is no double standard here, because as I’ve already pointed out, I do object to Obama’s goddy stuff, including his plan to continue funding ‘faith-based’ charities, even though he does not plan to continue Bush’s policy of allowing such charities to discriminate in hiring. I do object to the goddy stuff and I do say so; hence no double standard.
Although the gratuitous sexist insult was breathtaking in its inanity, I am almost impressed with this bit of near-subtlety in Meredith’s arrogant and self-congratulatory comments here: In his first comment, he clearly accuses everyone here of rank hypocrisy – and when I called him an ass for doing so, he immediately attempted to claim the moral high ground and averred that he would normally never stoop to insults. Of course, “you’re all hypocrites” is in fact an insult, even if one doesn’t use the actual word ‘hypocrisy’ or its cognates. When the accusation of hypocrisy is backed by false assertions and willful elision of distinctions that make a difference, it’s infuriating as well as merely insulting.
And by the way, for the purposes of education for John Meredith and anyone else who might be tempted to pull his variety of b.s.: An ad hominem fallacy is committed when one responds with insults in lieu of arguments; or, more broadly, when one pretends that criticism of a person constitutes criticism of their argument – which of course it does not. For contrast, note that I responded to Meredith’s argument in some detail and in multiple different ways, and I also insulted him. The insult was a bonus, in no way substituting for argument.
Is it me, or does absolutely everyone who gets their jollies by pissing people off use the same strategy? First, show up and say things that are sure to piss people off. Then, when people call you on it and demonstrate with angry tone or invective that they are pissed off, you can be dismissive that everything they say is just emotional (see “twisted knickers” above) and falsely accuse them of argumentum ad hominem.
I guess that’s just one of the games trolls play: What I love best about this forum is that most of the frequent commenters here are too clever to find such tactics convincing or persuasive.
Absolutely G!
I expect when I piss people off to be squashed by argument.
BTW Richard it won’t absolve your mistake in raising the matter, but that ‘and white will do what is right’ bit caused debate here as well. For instance, a pious lefty used it to riff on ‘all you racist whites’ and a number of replies found it a jarring contrast to the luuurve in the rest of the inauguration. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2461
The phrase Lowery used is not ‘and white will do what is right’ but ‘and white will embrace what is right’ – which is quite different. If we’re going to keep up this inane complaint at least get it right.
I embrace your correction! You are right!
:-)
Amen.