Tom on Obama
I just read Tom McRae's blog entry on Obama' inauguration. (http://mcraetheism.blogspot.com/2009/01/cynicism-101-even-easier-than-hope-for.html) And the comments.
As much as they're all perfectly right in not wanting to get their hopes up too much, I think they overlook some important issues.
First of all most of us like to live in a sort of democratic system. Personally, I think I wouldn't disagree with a certain form of enlightened despotism, if truly enlightened, of course. But nothing wrong with a good democracy, (mind: a good one, please) so let's stick with that one.
One of the advantages of democracy is that never a people chooses radical change. True, in exceptionally hard times they might vote or support such a movement or political party, but most only do so believing it's the only way to solve their most dire problems. Political leaders can of course use their power to accomplish ideals which voters don't necessarily support. Most people in the first place want a decent reasonable life and they vote according to how they think they might get one. In this view the main reason for Hitler to come to power, is the huge economic regression in Weimar Germany, and the hope to change that through a radical different approach. How and why didn't matter too much and if jews were the problem, well so be it. Just as long as the nazis put the exonomy got back on track, people would follow. Of course the following chain of events did create a different situation which would be needed to explain the happening of the holocaust and the Second World War and so on, but that doesn't matter here.
Point is: a people almost always, I believe, has a more or less conservative majority. Very often, that's not at all a bad thing beacuse it lessens the chance to irrational, sudden changes giving in to whims rather than to reason. As a politician you need to convince a lot of people to sea the reason behind you ideas. It takes time and time is good to get a clear view on the consequences, the pros and cons.
So as much as Tom and his commentators would all like some radical changes, (don't get me wrong, I think they're right to do so) this seems to me the reality they have to take into account. And that reality is not all bad. That's a major issue I think being a flaw in their analyses. Their dissatisfactions stem from idealism - which is great - but I think somewhere fail to connect with the current political situation as it exists, at least partially with very good reason.
Now I seem to assume they all demand radical change where in fact most of them just describe the existing situation and from it draw quite fatalistic conclusions. They just state 'I fear Obama's not gonna change the world as much as we need it changed'. Perhaps that's true but even if it is so, what's really the point of stating it bold and valiantly?
What's important is that Obama might really change what is realistically possible. It won't be radical, we all know that, he won't save the world being perhaps two terms in office but he might actually take all measures possible in the currect atmosphere. And with that, he might change that atmosphere which in the future would make more and more radical changes possible.
In fact, he allready is doing so by moving millions of people in America and all over the world. The authorities in Iran actually consider the US as a partner in discussion, thanks to Obama, his moderate appoach and probably the massive support he gets all around the world. If even Iran might be prepared to talk to the US government, certainly more international relations are loosening, switching distrust and silence for debate and negotiations. An even better example: a -well- black man elected president of the USA. It might be just one man, but it actually is a huge statement, even more so if you're black yourself, I suppose. It gives people hope, it shows change actually is possible.
People are prepared to follow Obama because he appeals to them by taking their actual situation into acount and slightly changing it. Thus he's in a great position for opening up the minds, making way for more change. Not abrupt but in time. You can force change upon people or you can promote it so to apply it when people's minds are ready.
Obama's promoting it in his way (and I hope with great but probably longterm effect) as Tom McRae and his fans are in theirs.
And to end this all: politics nor economics determine all of a human's life. They're huge influences of course, but no matter how terrible circumstances, people always bounce back in different ways. Like a bunch of singersongwriters organizing their own Hotel Café Tour when the shrinking music industry makes touring increasingly difficult . Politics and economics aren't the only fields of human activity to measure happiness, prosperity or what else. Of course we can hardly underestimate their impact so we definitely got to make the best of them.
P.S.: Because this text, along with my time writing it, was getting increasinly long, I decided to skip my hobby-economist's thoughts on how the free market is remarkably good at self-preservation, so how it will probably just bounce back into life some day and about how I think a mostly self-regulating market doesn't necessarily ignore ecological or social issues. So though I myself strongly tend to some core marxist's ideals, I don't think the defeat of capitalism to be the top priority of our civilisation, as I had the idea some of the Tom McRaeïsts seemed to imply. Especially not on short notice. (For reasons explained above.)
P.P.S.: First I thought of posting this entry as a comment on Tom McRae's blog but I'm really not sure about my English, about being incredibly boring and/or pompous and especially about being too harsh on Tom's or one of his fan's ideas, which was in no way the intention. So I guess I just won't and I will keep it to myself and my four friends.
As much as they're all perfectly right in not wanting to get their hopes up too much, I think they overlook some important issues.
First of all most of us like to live in a sort of democratic system. Personally, I think I wouldn't disagree with a certain form of enlightened despotism, if truly enlightened, of course. But nothing wrong with a good democracy, (mind: a good one, please) so let's stick with that one.
One of the advantages of democracy is that never a people chooses radical change. True, in exceptionally hard times they might vote or support such a movement or political party, but most only do so believing it's the only way to solve their most dire problems. Political leaders can of course use their power to accomplish ideals which voters don't necessarily support. Most people in the first place want a decent reasonable life and they vote according to how they think they might get one. In this view the main reason for Hitler to come to power, is the huge economic regression in Weimar Germany, and the hope to change that through a radical different approach. How and why didn't matter too much and if jews were the problem, well so be it. Just as long as the nazis put the exonomy got back on track, people would follow. Of course the following chain of events did create a different situation which would be needed to explain the happening of the holocaust and the Second World War and so on, but that doesn't matter here.
Point is: a people almost always, I believe, has a more or less conservative majority. Very often, that's not at all a bad thing beacuse it lessens the chance to irrational, sudden changes giving in to whims rather than to reason. As a politician you need to convince a lot of people to sea the reason behind you ideas. It takes time and time is good to get a clear view on the consequences, the pros and cons.
So as much as Tom and his commentators would all like some radical changes, (don't get me wrong, I think they're right to do so) this seems to me the reality they have to take into account. And that reality is not all bad. That's a major issue I think being a flaw in their analyses. Their dissatisfactions stem from idealism - which is great - but I think somewhere fail to connect with the current political situation as it exists, at least partially with very good reason.
Now I seem to assume they all demand radical change where in fact most of them just describe the existing situation and from it draw quite fatalistic conclusions. They just state 'I fear Obama's not gonna change the world as much as we need it changed'. Perhaps that's true but even if it is so, what's really the point of stating it bold and valiantly?
What's important is that Obama might really change what is realistically possible. It won't be radical, we all know that, he won't save the world being perhaps two terms in office but he might actually take all measures possible in the currect atmosphere. And with that, he might change that atmosphere which in the future would make more and more radical changes possible.
In fact, he allready is doing so by moving millions of people in America and all over the world. The authorities in Iran actually consider the US as a partner in discussion, thanks to Obama, his moderate appoach and probably the massive support he gets all around the world. If even Iran might be prepared to talk to the US government, certainly more international relations are loosening, switching distrust and silence for debate and negotiations. An even better example: a -well- black man elected president of the USA. It might be just one man, but it actually is a huge statement, even more so if you're black yourself, I suppose. It gives people hope, it shows change actually is possible.
People are prepared to follow Obama because he appeals to them by taking their actual situation into acount and slightly changing it. Thus he's in a great position for opening up the minds, making way for more change. Not abrupt but in time. You can force change upon people or you can promote it so to apply it when people's minds are ready.
Obama's promoting it in his way (and I hope with great but probably longterm effect) as Tom McRae and his fans are in theirs.
And to end this all: politics nor economics determine all of a human's life. They're huge influences of course, but no matter how terrible circumstances, people always bounce back in different ways. Like a bunch of singersongwriters organizing their own Hotel Café Tour when the shrinking music industry makes touring increasingly difficult . Politics and economics aren't the only fields of human activity to measure happiness, prosperity or what else. Of course we can hardly underestimate their impact so we definitely got to make the best of them.
P.S.: Because this text, along with my time writing it, was getting increasinly long, I decided to skip my hobby-economist's thoughts on how the free market is remarkably good at self-preservation, so how it will probably just bounce back into life some day and about how I think a mostly self-regulating market doesn't necessarily ignore ecological or social issues. So though I myself strongly tend to some core marxist's ideals, I don't think the defeat of capitalism to be the top priority of our civilisation, as I had the idea some of the Tom McRaeïsts seemed to imply. Especially not on short notice. (For reasons explained above.)
P.P.S.: First I thought of posting this entry as a comment on Tom McRae's blog but I'm really not sure about my English, about being incredibly boring and/or pompous and especially about being too harsh on Tom's or one of his fan's ideas, which was in no way the intention. So I guess I just won't and I will keep it to myself and my four friends.