Trust Obama to ask the right question. What kind of politics do we want? That was his question yesterday.
And I suggest, whatever your view of Obama (and it's hard for it not to be favourable in the light of his successor) this is the question all people in all countries need to ask now.
The Guardian covers him asking it yesterday. The target was, of course, Trump. But the question is bigger than Trump, however important he might be.
The question goes to the core of the search for truth.
And asks if we want a politics based on hope, and not fear.
And empathy, and not aggression.
And of mutual respect instead of mistrust.
In essence, it is asking do we care for the other person, whoever they might be, or not?
It is the question of our times.
Do we want ethical politics, or not?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I would suggest that rather than just the voter suffering under the concept of ‘naïve or false consciousness’ it is the politicians themselves who are also infected by this problem.
And although I agree with your suggestions, I think that we can’t really answer your question until this issue is addressed.
Even the man you quote (Obama) I believe languishes under his own self imposed limitations of what politics is about.
In his book ‘Economics: The Users Guide’ – Ha-Joon Chang says that ‘economics is too important to be left to the experts’. The same applies to politics which like economics seems to have got too technical and lost its common touch.
The only way to improve politics is to make sure that a wider range of real people are enabled to influence it bottom up. Democracy is being used to enable people like Farage, Hannan, Redwood and Rees-Mogg and the Phillip Greens. In the short term at least I cannot see this changing.
I agree with all of that.
I also believe that basic long term ground work, with much improved, life-long, civic and general education as well as development of local democratic involvement and accountability is desperately needed.
Politicians come and go, with varying levels of ethics.
Not one has ever been 100% ethical, ever. Nowhere on this planet.
Show me an ethical politician, or even an ethical political system, and I eat my slippers.
Power always corrupts. So all we can do is to limit both power and the potential for corruption.
In plain sight, politicians of all persuasions have always lied, cheated, betrayed electorates.
Not just now, when MSM and social media expose them daily, minute by minute even.
They always have. So no one can be fooled that they will amend their ways.
A system which would give most people fair treatment most of the time would be some sort of participative social democracy with regular, uncorruptible power checks. Any one out there with ideas on where to start?
A huge task, demanding constant scrutiny and evolution to keep up with changes.
Humans are fallible, one cannot change that. We can only be constantly aware of it, and provide strong and transparent mechanisms which minimise consequences for those on the receiving end of these faults.
When I consider the politics of the USA it is in from the perspective of an outsider, not as a citizen of that country. The politicians that they choose and the internal resulting policies are what they deserve. That is their democracy. They make their bed.
I believe that the effects on the rest of the world by the choices of the POTUS is more relevant. On that basis we should not give Obama a free ride. Certainly in terms of his attacks on Libya and then Syria and other places, which has left many regions in continued never ending war, mass deaths and many millions of refugees, some of whom end up heading towards Europe in dangerous circumstances.
President Obama was not the panacea he was promised to be when in office – why should he be one now?
Did you note my caveat?
“whatever your view of Obama (and it’s hard for it not to be favourable in the light of his successor)”
Are you kidding me? Obama who literally did nothing but bail out the banks while letting the rest of us twist in the wind. Who designed HAMP to “foam the runway” for Wall Street by prolonging the foreclosure process instead of forcing banks to write down mortgages. Who made sure that not a single banker went to jail for destroying the world’s economy, but that they got made whole and were given bigger bonuses than ever in 2009. Who passed the most pathetic idea of Wall Street reform in the toothless Dodd-Frank. The President who oversaw the largest loss of black wealth in history? The president who argued that Student Debt was a good thing. The president who continued pointless wars and drone attacks. Who refused to go after Bush era war crimes and then gladly continue to make his own. The Original deporter and chief. The president who arrested and prosecuted more whistleblowers than every president before him. Who stole the GOP’s healthcare proposal to make sure his donors could continue to make huge profits rather than push for single payer.
Here is my short list of links about how awful Obama was. https://www.one-tab.com/page/tBIH1H7SRFSc-SF31mJ0SQ
It’s hard to see how Trump gets elected if Obama wasn’t so self evidently awful that the only people who saw any recovery from the recession were the top 1%.
Didn’t you read the caveat?
It was deliberate
It’s impossible to separate Trump from Obama. Trump is Obama’s legacy. And honestly as far as I’m concerned the difference between the two is purely in presentation. They both pushed the same awful murderous oligarch loving policy. The only difference is Obama put a smile and some propaganda on top so the media loved him.
I confess it takes a very distorted worldview to think that
I agree Obama is neoliberal and part of a failing order but there is absolutely no way you can say he and Trump are the same politically because they are not
Trump is disrupting the model Obama promoted
“Trump is disrupting the model Obama promoted”
I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that assessment, Richard.
My reading is that Obama was happy to go along with an establishment agenda firmly entrenched and try to soften it a little. (Very Blair/Brown).
Trump threatened to kick over the traces (while he was on the campaign trail) and be disruptive, but it’s only his style which is now ruffling feathers, the content remains firmly on track, and Trump is very definitely inside the tent pissing out. For the time being economic indicators are flattering him (and his supporters amongst the electorate) into thinking he’s doing the right things. I don’t think that’s going to last. Do you?
I am not aaying Obama got my support
But to pretend isolationism is what Obama offered is wrong
“But to pretend isolationism is what Obama offered is wrong”
He killed the Copenhagen climate summit … just like that. I see that as part of a trend not an isolated incident. On his Watch Osama Bin Laden was ‘taken out’ in a unilateral military action on foreign soil. On his watch Libya was Bombed ? US foreign policy business as usual.
Sorry, Richard, I don’t agree with you on this. Obama just did it without fuss and the media pretended not to notice the implications.
I fundamentally disagree
I am not saying all Obama did was right, because I do not, by a long way
But to pretend that he and Trump are on the same page is ludicrous, because they are nowhere near each other and it makes no sense to pretend they are.
If political debate is going to lose touch with reality there is nothing I can do about it, except give up this blog.
I admit that after comments in all sorts of media over the last couple of days I am sorely tempted to do so, such is my despair at the apparent extremism I seem to be encountering everywhere now, which has ghastly poretent for humanity
“I fundamentally disagree” [About Obama and Trump being ‘on the same page’]
I know you do Richard.
I’m not really equating Trump with Obama, I’m saying that the office of President is not what we take it to be. We are told Mr President is the most powerful man in the world. It’s a powerful piece of mythology. But I don’t believe it to be true (although the incumbent does have some awesome powers to act by presidential diktat and without the say so of elected representatives).
To a considerable extent it is not important who is the president at a given time. The president sets tone, not policy. He doesn’t call the shots.
Would you tell me next that Theresa May is in control of the Conservative party and its policies ?
It’s a convenience to identify policy with an individual leader, but it doesn’t reflect the reality. That’s all I’m saying. If that makes me a conspiracy theorist, so be it.
Democracy is a complex political system, and it isn’t what we pretend it is. And it isn’t democratic in the sense of government, the ‘cracy’ bit being of by and for the people, the ‘demos’ bit.
You do know this. The best we can do is attempt to hold the powerful to account and I’d rather you didn’t give up on that, because you’re really rather good at it, and good at exposing the way power is abused to manipulate our lives against our best interests. The most powerful tool in the abusive power structure today is finance, and it’s power relies on the ignorance of most of us about the mechanisms it relies on. You have an understanding of many of those systems and your blog is daily exposing chicanery to the public gaze.
You’re definitely not wasting your time. IMO.
That’s an argument
And I can respect that, completely
I admit to being very bored having to deal with claims far removed from arguments in the last few days
Thanks
I may be jaded do to the fact that Obama’s refusal to do anything significant to fix the economy has left me with a useless engineering degree, no job prospects, and more student debt than I could ever possibly pay off; which will be the cause of my suicide in the next few years. But that doesn’t make me irrational. Obama and Trump differ in tone and style, not in substance.
Here is a good summary: https://limitedhangoutblog.com/2017/01/20/donald-trump-and-the-continuing-bush-obama-legacy/
I’ll gladly come up with links to Obama saying or doing just about everything Trump has done. Pick a topic. Since trade was mentioned:
NAFTA: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/15/john-mccain/obamas-been-critical-of-nafta/
China:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-obama-currency/obama-says-china-must-stop-manipulating-currency-idUSTRE49S7FQ20081029
Mini trade war with China: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/12/15/china-gets-revenge-on-obama-with-tariff-on-u-s-autos/#4510abcd315b
Trade in General: https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/politics/international-reaction-sotu/index.html
Purely a difference in style and emphasis.
With respect, I think this is nonsense. It’s hardly worthy of further comment.
I am not defending Obama’s neoliberalism, but Trump is not promoting the same model, at all.
Personally, I think you have to go back to Ulysses S Grant to find the right sort of chap. Since World War I we seem to have had a lot of bad variety acts playing to the media audiences of their time.
What’s wrong with the last socialist president of the USA my hero FDR ?
What is wrong with FDR?
Whilst I agree that he was truly a progressive president for America (and good for them – watch Michael Moore’s ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’) his attitude to international relations is less clear.
FDR also had it seems an ‘America First’ agenda especially as the UK’s empire quickly receded. He had already met with Arab countries before his death to secure cheap oil from what were British dominions. Given that the US all too quickly ended lend-lease we can assume that he may have been involved in that decision in some way. So as far as FDR is concerned , what is good for the USA may not have been good for the rest of the world.
Even a left wing President would need to use American economic hegemony to create the ideal conditions at home in which to create and sustain a better life for his people.
As Obama and Trump have such disparate psychological profiles one should be wary of judging the cake by the icing, so to speak. It could be argued that at least with Trump his dishonesty is in plain-sight. Whereas 8 years of Obama showed his charmingly witty public & family personae to be deceptively different from his political agenda and achievements. He was neo-liberal to the core (Harvard Law School offers a clue). Both are snake oil salesmen but in different suits.
As to your question ‘What kind of politics do we want?’ – there can be no simple answer as there are too many contingent variables, e.g. the ‘we’ is not a homogenous group. However, for the sake of simplicity, if one conducted global research (maybe it’s already been done) there would probably be a consensus on core human values and the desire for them to be both promoted and protected by those in a position to do so. The American Constitution might serve as quite a good starting point.
So the big issue is not so much what kind of politics do we want but how can it be delivered within the constraints of a country’s culture and political mechanisms. Effectively, the process is more important than the stated objective. Hence the necessity for a properly functioning macro-economy. (As an aside there needs to be an MMT equivalent for ‘Godwin’s Law’ because in any socio-political discussion there will come a point when the issue of understanding money via MMT will be inescapable!)
There does seem to be a growing feeling that we’re entering uncharted territory with more voter fragmentation and resultant frustration, which both the US and UK democratic models are especially ill-designed to deal with. So, even if a country could agree on a set of ‘moral’ political values such as the ones you list, delivering them is going to be tougher than ascending Everest. But, sticking with the analogy, it’s not impossible. And extending the analogy further – to manifest the dream requires a complex process in which the participants are highly skilled, motivated, trained and effective, with little room for error. And that’s just about as far away from our political culture as you can get.
Probably the biggest threat to achieving democratically elected political management fit for the 21st century is a potential indifference infecting the 80% who have witnessed the dishonest, hypocritical – and sometimes criminal – incompetence of leaders such as Clinton, Obama, Trump, Blair, Cameron, Macron, et al. Hence the growing collapse of the so-called ‘middle-ground’. No easy solutions I’m afraid and the immediate future is looking bleak.
It’s now way beyond coffee time. Barista!
John D says:
“…voter fragmentation and resultant frustration, which both the US and UK democratic models are especially ill-designed to deal with…….”
Two-party dominant systems based on FPTP vote counting ?
Certainly makes nuanced changes very difficult, if not impossible to vote for with any expectation of representation.
The old canard that PR voting systems generate hung parliaments and messy coalitions, becomes a hollow complaint when we are faced with the choice of two parties both of which are broad church coalitions and we get hung parliaments anyway.
I wonder aswell at the wisdom of allowing a professional political class to develop. It would be difficult to undo that now. I don’t believe it is how democracy was ever intended to be delivered.
I think I’ll join you and have a coffee, John. No barista though. I’ll have to make my own. 🙁
I could do with one…..I need to get to an airport first though
In response to the question you asked re ethical politics…the answer would seem to be ‘no’. We don’t collectively show any majority appetite for it, beyond perhaps thinking ‘it might be nice, but….’
Will that attitude change ? I sincerely hope so. If it’s already changing I’m not seeing it.
We should all question ourselves constantly as to whether our behaviour towards others is as we would like to be treated ourselves.
I’m sorry to say this, but can you really be unaware that even your most unfalteringly complimentary commentators must see the irony of somebody with your confrontational nature, and intolerance of others points of view, making calls for empathy, and having mutual respect for others?
I am very tolerant. Anyone can post here. But not if they are rude to others, me included.
And not if they do not respect the rules of the site, which are clearly stated.
I am entirely in favour of an exchange of views. But not when others seek to oppress when doing so.
“….your confrontational nature, and intolerance of others points of view,…”
He must be thinking of somebody else. Take no notice.
Interesting, given the topic of tolerance and acceptance of others views, but what does your contribution add to the discussion Andrew (Andy) Crow ? Richard is big and gracious enough to answer questions directed at him, so can I respectfully ask what Drives you to think that you have to insert yourself into every conversation, even when the question really doesn’t concern you ?
I appreciate Andy’s presence
Look at the contribution he has just made
Well exactlly. Thank you for highlighting that.
“I appreciate Andy’s presence”
Thank you, Richard. I very much appreciate your blog.
I’m curious to know what aspect of your subject matter of politics, economics, taxation and our national common welfare Stephanie thinks don’t, or shouldn’t, ‘concern’ me.
Perhaps she will enlighten us. (?)
I’m afraid we have never been modern or democratic as we dream of either in freedom. Unlike Steven Pinker I think what we get is shiney, happy news as a gloss over the planet’s problems. We lack a general population capable of producing a deliberative opinion. This would now have to be global. Ideology is ideology wherever it comes from, so I see no hope in either capitalism, socialism or any “return of the noble savage” (Pinker merely confirms anthropology on this murderous state). The politics we need is clearly deliberative, green and global. It would help to look more closely at what is in the way of this. I’m a scientist so noy impressed much by history as taught almost everywhere – the theme of the book ‘Lies My Teacher Told Me’ (Loewen) based on US textbooks is universal. Everywhere I’ve been history has been taught as parochial rot as described. A minority know this is bulldung, not Bildung. My answer involves dropping all cultural pretensions involving chosen people and human superiority. Loewen is all over You Tube.
I find Trump in Cleon 2500 years back. Cleon has convinced the Athenian demos to set sail to commit genocide and enslavement, The boats have left, but people are no having second thoughts and a new debate ensues. Not unlike Brexit, with Channel 4 now telling us 54% want to remain. The Athenians did commit genocides, but not on this occasion. What’s really interesting in the debate reported by Thucydides is that the content is not about genocide good or bad, but using ‘Trumpology’ better than Cleon. A lot of today’s politics writ large is in this debate and we have clearly not caught on to the dangers of rhetoric since. Some still revere these Greeks practising in a sexist, slave economy – in a sense they were a pimple on the Persian Empire and as Dorics may have destroyed much more ancient and egalitarian societies. The presence across education, Hollywood-BBC and in what we call politics of the corny rhetoric of these ancient times is dire. Aunty Beeb claims it is balanced while banning ‘Sing if you’re glad to be gay’ and without ever letting climate scientists loose on us without being “balanced” by red-braced City twerps. At the same time we don’t get into the issues of difficulties with the world peace, population control and fair shares based on need that would underlie a modern politics. Everyone must have noticed we distrust politicians. This has long been incorporated in the rhetoric they use as they offer false choices that amount to running the same old Establishment – one that amounts to the old Athenian tribal and racist imperialism or Brits, Yanks and Yorp waving flags we should be ashamed of – let alone our ignorance of the origins of sloganeer politics (strong and stable etc.) in Mein Kampf. A new politics has so many nettles to grasp, including proper use of new technology so we are all talking to each other as a main media and how we police ourselves to stable freedom, that one might despair. Movements for democratic foreign policy failed in the 1920s, though ED Morel unseated Churchill in the 1924 Dundee by-election on this ticket in 1924. Henry Wallace had the Democratic nomination gerrymandered from under massive support at the end of WW2. Mao and Stalin did us no favours, though we owe the people of their countries for the sacrifice that put down a viler imperialism than the West. New politics needs a grip on science, control of leadership wielding manufactured distrust, visions of genuine representation and a spirit of why we are living not produced as unchallengeable myth. Calvinist work ethic looks pretty dumb in robot heaven, though so does humans getting fat and slobbing about as robots do all the work. We need new glimpses of the future to put much of our current pre-supposition in relief. Such big-scale stuff is smeared as Utopian almost before utterance – though More’s book is truly horrible – a panopticon paradise! Our contribution to new politics will just be as fossil record and fragments like Ancient Greece if we continue as now. There is no green future on the planet if we offer “groaf” to ourselves and for two-thirds of people to join us in its benefits. We need an image of what the future ‘should’ be and what this means in daily detail. Democracy is as much a myth today as on Thucydides’ critique of the Athenian one of smart orators vying support from an elite rabble. The alternatives through history have been worse. Taxation was problematic then too and democracy also used as a means of participative management by Persian Kings. May and Corbyn are currently denying the second vote that led the Athenians to send a boat to stop the genocide (though the lads on the first ships were having their own second thoughts). New politics would presumably focus on actually important issues like food, housing, pollution, loneliness, freedom, creating no reason for war – all a paradox in a world of corrupt religion (old and economics) and production. It looks as though I want the democratic ideals and need to remove the myth of democratic practice to achieve them. The resistance to small starts like country by country taxation or declaring Jersey a pirate island demonstrate how worried the Establishment are of a snowball effect. The Economist intelligence unit has the UK and US dropping out of true democracy and its criteria has only around 20 out of 164 countries. We don’t, globally, even have the “old politics”. In short, I want ethical politics on a new ethics.
So do I
Archytas says:
“A minority know this is bulldung, not Bildung.” Love it. The minority just got bigger by one. 🙂
…and the serious content is thoughtful and wise. I’ve been reading EH Gombrich’s ‘A little History of the World’ and it is sobering to realise that in many ways we have made little consistent progress as a species in five thousand years of living in ‘state’ societies
We seem to have a history of ‘social boom and bust’; rise and fall; blooming and withering. Maybe we are on another cusp, but which way are we moving ? It is all to play for. Our societies (particularly, perhaps, on the western world model) are frighteningly fragile at present. The GFC of 2008 was a close call, and ‘we’ don’t seem to have taken much heed of the warning.
Sorry folks but if people are seriously suggesting that Obama is no better than Trump then I respectfully suggest that an awful lot of perspective has been lost. I don’t expect perfection from politicians and leaders. I recognise that they are called upon to make appallingly difficult decisions and to try to balance conflicting interests and constituencies. ‘Whataboutery’ is an easy game to play, especially in hindsight, and especially for the armchair critics who may not have had to take ownership and responsibility for such decisions. Not to mention the perennial protestors of this world…
I am with you Robin
Robin
What if the difference between Obama and Trump is nothing but a difference in presentation? I really do not like Trump at all but I sort of admire the fact that what you see is what you get. He’s not hiding anything about the odious creature he really is.
Obama on the other hand…………….?
The American anti-poverty campaigner Chris Hedges gets a mention here quite often. If you asked his opinion of Obama I think you might be little surprised. The usual venerable suspects in the Left – such as John Pilger for example are not impressed either.
I would encourage you to watch this documentary if only to get another view:
https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/lifting-the-veil-obama-and-the-failure-of-capitalist-democracy-2011/
There is something worse than Trump. And it is a Democratic party and its leadership that says it wants to help but……doesn’t – maybe? The real leadership in the Democrats lies with people like Saunders and Liz Warren and a few others.
The main rump of the Democratic party has given up and become true Neo-liberals and that began with Bill Clinton believe it or not.
But Trump is not a neoliberal
He is worse
It’s a pity the core question, “Do we want an ethical politics or not?”, except for a few honourable contributions, was shunted aside by a rush to denigrate Obama as little better than Trump. I think Obama’s presidency certainly had many serious flaws. My wife thinks he’s fundamentally a decent man but was constrained by the political machinations of the US system.
I certainly want an ethical politics and an end to the current system which is lurching towards the fascist politics of authoritarianism, racism, and corporatism and where many politicians (and voters) seem to think it’s ok to have grotesque inequalities of wealth, income, education, housing and health .
What would it look like? Nothing like we have at present, but a fresh look at the original concept of democracy where some of the necessary conditions would include government by the people, chosen by lot in deliberative fora fully serviced by mentors, advisors etc.
Could it happen? Well, when did power elites ever voluntarily give up power?
I accept the difficulty
I live in hope
I think that people here have answered the question. They DO want ethical politics G Hewitt.
That is why there is dissatisfaction with Obama aimed at him or at the political system he is a part of which is ethically bankrupt as far as I am concerned. Obama promised much but did not deliver whatever the cause.
Obama? Courageous? No way. Or in what way?
Saunders on the other hand – too Left for the Democrats? But closer perhaps to the concerns of the people?
As for Trump I would say that he is no Republican but he comes across to me as a sort of extreme Neo-liberal for a number of reasons. Firstly he conflates wealth with debt – he has that blindness about money that Steve Keen has noted in the NL brand. He flouts rules everyday laid down by those before him and rather than accept that anything he does causes problems, would rather blame it on others.
All typically neo-lib traits in my book at least.
But he does not serve all the elites NL serves so I cannot consider it neoliberalism
Doing an academic piece on this right now
I doubt my co-author will be happy with me blogging it
‘But he does not serve all the elites NL serves’.
Let’s not forget presentation here. It maybe that this is manufactured in order to increase his credibility with an electorate who are sick of both Republicans and Democrats. Some sort of pact with the Devil has been made I warrant.
I await your blog on this subject with eagerness.