He was unserious in the choices he made, choices that resulted in the destruction of the majority he had on entering office. I say that as someone who raised a million dollar for him in 2008. I thought at the time we were finally "winning the election of 1968." But within six weeks of becoming president, he had made the decisions that led to his downfall, and they were all simple shit that any politician with actual experience would have known not to do.
Obama was the most inexperienced president to hold the office prior to Donald Trump. Beginning with his appointment of Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff on Inauguration Day, he allowed all of the strategies and systems that had been developed by the party - which had resulted in not only his election but a strong majority in the House and a "filibuster-proof" Senate majority to be pissed away by 2010, with the result that the party was plunged into a hole we have yet to crawl out of. Emanuel fired Howard Dean, creator of the "50-state strategy," and then to shutter Obama For America - the best grassroots organization I had seen in 50 years of political involvement, just when the GOP wheeled out the "Tea Party," and then he failed to campaign in 2010, an act of political malpractice. And don't throw the racism card as your only defense about this - his mistakes were the mistakes of overconfidence and inexperience. Those are not "racial" in nature.
I take all of these criticisms in earnest, though I would add that some of this wasn't Obama himself but the Democratic Party as a whole.
For example, him not campaigning in 2010 was, as I recall, because his poll numbers were terrible at the time and candidates thought he would be a drag on them, no? Much of this had to do with the fact that—much like with Biden—we were in the midst of an economic disaster when Obama took over, and Americans in their ignorance blamed him for the fact that he hadn't completely fixed it by 2010.
I am more receptive now to criticisms of his political inexperience, but I guess I don't see this so much as him being "unserious" as it was perhaps being overly earnest and naive. To be sure, I was one of the people who at first thought he was being too accomodating to Republicans, and that they were basically taking advantage of that. So I guess I can relate to an extent.
But then I sort of settled into a mindset of taking his example and trying my best to communicate with and understand Republicans. To be more moderate and reasonable, the way I used to think before the Bush administration made me a frothing partisan. Of course, it was easy to be kumbaya when someone I liked was in the White House.
I think where you and I are different, TC, is that you are clearly a veteran of politics, and I'm just a guy who was once an apolitical person with intellectual interests in STEM areas. As I've become more politically aware and educated about real world issues outside of my esoteric bubbles, "politics" for me is about nuanced policy debates.
Which of course, is different from engaging in the actual practice of political campaigning. And I honestly don't know how you all do it. No offense meant—I know that political campaigning is a necessity, and you all put in a ton of work, but the way complex issues need to be boiled down to a few digestible soundbites just drives me mad.
I don't know if it's ever seemed this way to you, but it feels almost Machiavellian at times—what simple phrases do we need to keep pounding into people's skulls to get them to pull the lever for our guy, even if we are eliding a lot of important details? In the best of cases this is an earnest attempt to communicate efficiently and in good faith. In the worst of cases, like Trump, it's an utter orgy of stupidity and demagoguery designed to appeal to the worst in us.
So what I'm saying is that I think Obama was serious—about policy and governing. He was smart and had vision, ran a clean government that served the American people pretty well. He wasn't perfect and I think there are a few foreign policy criticisms to be made (although ironically *that* part could be defended on political grounds, as the American public were weary of foreign military entanglements from the Iraq boondoggle).
And he was also serious about bipartisanship. So serious that the other side took advantage of it whenever they could, because the Republican Party has long operated under the premise that Democrats have no business governing, and have spent years trying to game the system rather than honestly earning their support. From deceptive robocalls to lies about voter fraud to stealing a Supreme Court seat to refusing to work in good faith with Obama, the Republican Party has been anything but good faith.
So, I can believe he made political blunders, but in large part I have trouble criticizing the Democrats when they're working against a sprawling right-wing propaganda complex, a Republican Party increasingly beholden to the obscenely wealthy, fascist Christians, and their own desire for power, and an American public which is currently drowning in disinformation.
But you would certainly know better than me on the political front, so I can largely defer to your expertise, even if I respectfully disagree a bit.
Agree completely. I was never a supporter of Obama during the primaries entirely because of the inexperience. I figured the Republicans in DC would eat him alive. But I voted for him enthusiastically at the national. And I'm glad we had him as our president for all of the good things he brought to the WH. That said, he never knew how to manage DC and made all the mistakes you mention and more. But I was never disappointed, because my expectations were not that high.
But Obama won reelection. The Tea Party and MAGA are a direct result of white Americans who were horrified that a Black man won the presidency twice. Not because Obama was a horrible president or made mistakes. It was because he was Black. You cannot argue that away. Not after "W". Then Trump. If the Dems had not run a Black woman, Trump would have lost by double digits this past election.
Obama was unserious in his dealings with Russia. 2014 was his time to rise up and stand against Russian overreach against a country the US was treaty-bound to defend (it’s in the Budapest Memorandum, which the US underwrote). Instead he threw a few sanctions at Russia and hoped they’d be satisfied with Crimea, which wasn’t theirs to take, and gave some basic military aid to Ukraine when the Donbass war started. This underwhelming reaction taught Putin he could go further in Ukraine when he was ready; which he did in 2022.
Like most Europeans, I liked Obama. But at least in our region of the world, his foreign policy was indeed unserious.
There's a difference in being unserious and being incorrect. He made mistakes, not out of malice (like Republicans) but out of inexperience. I also thought him overly cautious at times. I thought he was wrong at times. But not unserious. Maybe our apparent disagreements here are just semantic.
Indeed there is. But in Europe, and in particular over Russia, he was both. And it was not inexperience, as when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexed Crimea and started a war in the Donbass, he had been president for nearly six years.
The Budapest Memorandum, as the name implies is not a treaty and confers no legal obligation. It famously, or perhaps infamously, did NOT offer security guarantees only assurances. While I do wish Obama had responded more forcefully to Russian aggression particularly after the bloodshed began in the Donbas, the Crimean takeover was so weird as to be hard to respond to with force. And it was complicated by the strange "gifting" to Ukraine by Kruschev in the 50s. Putin could more plausibly claim he was just taking it back.
You’re right: but it provided assurances and the understanding that an American president would stand by these assurances. Obama fell short of that, as did Germany and Britain, and Ukraine paid the price for this poor judgement in 2022.
I appreciate the general idea. I think your point about Clinton is particularly well targeted (speaking as a member of precisely the audience you meant to address). It's critical for members of both parties who can recognize the bizarre situation we're in to reflect how compromises in standards we made in the past contributed to lowering the ethical bar.
But there are actually few family resemblances among these examples, and they all have at least partial precedents long before. Biden's health cover-up (which postdates Trump's initial election) resonates with examples of Cleveland, Wilson, and most of all FDR, whose failing health was known by insiders as they helped him to a fourth term in the midst of a world war. No moronic successor emerged. Clinton was hardly the first rake in the White House: JFK and before him Harding are examples. They were not followed by morons. The war crimes of the Bush II era were awful but not normalized any more than the crimes of William Calley and his ilk under Nixon (and presumably LBJ before him). And, really, I know what you mean about Obama's "smugness" (though he's a president I admire) but the Republic survived greater arrogance from Carter (whom I also admired) and your claim of unseriousness is post facto twisting of a single incident: Obama generally made more fun of himself than of others.
There are character flaws or, in the best presidents, character lapses that we can identify. (Perhaps we can except Washington and Lincoln -- we've had our lucky times too.) But I think what you're really talking about is the cost of excusing those flaws or lapses by partisans.
And, in the end, the spectacle of millions of Americans raising to semi-divine status an outlandishly vulgar, incontinent, predatory, ignoramus who presents in appearance, speech, and grossness of lies as a MAD Magazine parody could never be traced to the scale of flaws you're pointing to. This isn't a case of "he's our bastard." Rather, "He's our Cyrus!" (and for some he's one step up on the messiah scale). This is a social pathology much deeper than anything we can hang on common flaws of commonly more or less competent presidents.
A thoughtful response. I'd quibble at the margins with some of your characterizations as you have with mine, but the central issue is this: The presidents you name all had their failings, but they are scattered across the timeline. Clinton, W. Bush, Obama, and Biden poisoned the political pond one after another after another. The cumulative effect of their individual defects is on full display in the Oval Office today.
I appreciate your posting this reply, Mr. Kasparov. I continue to agree that we need to reflect on how compromises we've made on character and conduct for partisan reasons have led us to this pass.
I agree with your facts, but the reality is that we're all carrying around more computing power than the US had in those earlier times. Mass media, Reagan killing the Fairness Doctrine and propaganda have played a big part in taking the stupidity of the American people to a level usually only heard of in jokes about us outside of the country.
I do wonder how it's possible to be so completely disinterested and so careless when it comes to our country and the great things that voters just threw away. I don't think they're stupid, but I do think it's time for everyone to start learning civics. It doesn't take hours to stay informed. It can be done by listening to real news for a half hour a day, so I can't give the people who voted for trump believing that he would bring down prices or end wars on day 1 any kind of pass. If a citizen is going to vote, that citizen has the obligation to be educated on the basics. We have rights but they come with responsibilities, and far too many in this country have forgotten or never learned about those.
If you can't admit that the Democratic Party has lost elections, not that the GOP has won them, then you're a political illiterate and your inability to face reality is why we're in the hole we are in.
IMO, just wrong on so many points. Just two examples: first, the Dumpster doesn’t command unshakable personal loyalty. Rather, his sycophants are either 1) afraid of him; or 2) riding his coattails for what they can get.
Second, Dubya was a decent guy? REALLY??? Since when? He ignored warnings about an attack on the U.S. He lied this country into two wars that cost us trillions. He started the privatization of Medicare and wanted to gut Social Security. And on and on.
I think the Mencken quotation is applicable, but I don’t agree with much else that Kasparov says in this case.
💯 - "He was the inevitable result of a cult the Republicans had already built. This is the obvious part of why trumpism was never about trump. He was just their first presidential candidate to so publicly stroke racist and bigoted egos by saying the right-wing quiet parts out loud with the same shameless pride they had heard for decades in conservative media"
I have the quote framed and up on my bathroom wall. It’s a Jack Ohman cartoon. As for Obama, the hope that a post-racial generation would rise was an illusions. Democrats never understand how mean people can really be when they are threatened. The playbook needs to be thrown out. Letting the bankers and hedge fund managers off the hook while folks went bankrupt didn’t help either.
I just watched RFK Jr on Fox repeat the falsehood that COVID vaccines increase death rates in children.
The perniciousness of the mis & disinfo of rightwing media (not including more factual, conservative media) has really prepared its consumers to believe lies & conspiracies embodied in politicians like Trump.
Good points, but you need to go back a little bit further. Ronald Reagan was the first one of these, propped up by people like Newt Gingrich, not to mention quite a few never -Trumpers who are still around these days. If we're going to be honest, let's be honest. The game show-ification of the presidential election process has been going on for almost 50 years.
and how did we the people let it happen maybe an unserious public taking their freedoms for granted and a lack of the education of all of us in both history and civic responsibility who is in charge of this education as is honest voting are both functions of local governments that you and the town village or city you live in change will start at the bottom with us
I would note though Trump does not have Dictatorship like control over the media he does indirectly control right wing old and new media. It allows him to lie without any accountability to MAGA.
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments! We do not have to all agree—this kind of thoughtful debate is exactly what we are trying to cultivate. I am reading your replies and will answer a few. And I am writing a new piece, coming soon, to respond to the recurring charge of "both sides-ism"!
Mr. Kasparov, I respectfully disagree with your characterizations, and therefore I guess, with your thesis.
Obama was absolutely a serious President. Ended financial crisis, got ACA, eliminated Bin Laden, eloquently explained racial issues, empathetically comforted grieving Americans. He brought joy into his work (see e.g., “thanks Obama”), and belief in democracy deeply rooted in community organizing- - the epitome of your request that a president “show that public service is a noble thing in a democracy and demonstrate a little internal consistency. You call him “arrogant”, “smug”, “self-assured”? Oh my, the racist history of such criticisms of the “uppity black folk”. I recall his being raked over the right-wing media coals for having worn a tan suit, for having Dijon mustard on his hamburger. (And Michelle for having worn a sleeveless dress.) And then Biden? Regardless of whether, at the time the decision was made, Biden should or should not have run for a second term, accusing him of lacking character is ridiculous, meritless, laughable. Forty-some years of public service, a presidency marked not by personal aggrandizement but by consistent, savvy, hard work and compromise to increase the well being of the American people; bringing us out of the pandemic economy, passing critical infrastructure, manufacturing, science, and environmental legislation for the long term good of the country regardless of personal credit. A deeply religious man, but who protected religious freedom for all. This is who you accuse of “lacking character”? No person, no leader is perfect, and clearly something is wrong when half the country falls for a con, over and over again to remain so fiercely loyal to this demagogue. But the culprit is not the character of our previous presidents. Could it be a confluence of several characteristics of both our times and historical patterns within America. Hard times have made and still make many people fearful of “the other”, and scapegoat those outside their group. We’ve had hard times in the economy and in the pandemic. These fears make many people more susceptible to demagoguery, and make them crave an authority figure to direct them and cause them to follow one who claims to be able to fix their problems. At the same time, the rise of cable, internet, social media un-vetted propaganda masquerading as news, has made it hard for many people to distinguish truth from fiction. Perhaps even the the now-decades-old rise of commercial television promoting, consciously and subconsciously, the substitution of reading with passive watching, the commercialization of Americana’s brains to be addicted to consumption and envious of the lifestyles of others, real or embellished, seen on the tube. And what has made so many of us, as a people, lose interest in civic life? Is it because in the past we had to band together for the common good? (Barn raising, hiring the school teacher, forming insurance guilds), and now, more and more, we are physically able to live without joining our fellow citizens in civic matters, including debating the issues, voting, volunteering in the community? And that without the need, some never grow that community spirit that undergirds democracy? Is it because the gem of community life, and the wellspring of an competent voting population has been our public education, but we consistently try to undercut it rather than allow for it to function in a funded and professional way? I don’t know the answer, but I don’t think your thesis works. However, no one can argue with your final assertion to carefully evaluate the candidates before voting!
a different way to say this is that who left the party and who joined and replaced the republican's that left one party worked on reduction of citizens the other trying to serve all and more citizens one party only has rhetoric not support other trying to make government work for more one constant obstruction other just holding on
Biden was a pretty good president and got through three massive pieces of legislation thanks to his bipartisan experience. He left an economy that was the envy of other countries. His subsidies were beginning to return green and high-end industrial jobs to the US. He supported unions and the ordinary people.
His one mistake - and unfortunately it’s a biggie - was to go back on his commitment that he’d only be president for one term. Had he stuck by that, there would have been time for a proper Democratic primary. Whoever won it would have had full legitimacy that could not be questioned.
this represents the basic problems which divide the democrats now being suggested in an under covered conflict seen between Carvel (sp) From Louisiana and Hogg check it out
Re Obama, by unserious I think GK meant that Obamas lack of experience led to some mistakes. Kasparovs last point was the best one. It IS our obligation to learn about the candidates before voting, especially in presidential elections. The downside to that is we may find out that the american people are not who we thought..or hoped..that that were.
Who Trump is is obvious to everyone. In December 2016, looking for my roommate from college, I found his father instead. Alvin the father and I ended up talking about the election. He said, “No one voted for Trump.” Then explains why he voted for Trump. Very few who voted for Trump do not know what they voted for.
A lively debate in this comment thread! I've responded to some of your comments, especially the charge of both-sidesism. https://thenextmove.substack.com/p/are-you-ready-to-lose-again-a-response
"Obama was arrogant and unserious."
This sounds like you're offended he dared to rise above "his place." And you really had to dig to find a moment that qualified as being unserious.
Be better.
Yup. Not that Obama didn't make mistakes. But I can't characterize him as unserious.
He was unserious in the choices he made, choices that resulted in the destruction of the majority he had on entering office. I say that as someone who raised a million dollar for him in 2008. I thought at the time we were finally "winning the election of 1968." But within six weeks of becoming president, he had made the decisions that led to his downfall, and they were all simple shit that any politician with actual experience would have known not to do.
Which decisions were those, and what would you have done differently?
I would like to understand the decisions that were made. I have not heard this point made prior to now.
That's just a strange thing to say about "six weeks" after becoming president considering he would be re elected
Obama was the most inexperienced president to hold the office prior to Donald Trump. Beginning with his appointment of Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff on Inauguration Day, he allowed all of the strategies and systems that had been developed by the party - which had resulted in not only his election but a strong majority in the House and a "filibuster-proof" Senate majority to be pissed away by 2010, with the result that the party was plunged into a hole we have yet to crawl out of. Emanuel fired Howard Dean, creator of the "50-state strategy," and then to shutter Obama For America - the best grassroots organization I had seen in 50 years of political involvement, just when the GOP wheeled out the "Tea Party," and then he failed to campaign in 2010, an act of political malpractice. And don't throw the racism card as your only defense about this - his mistakes were the mistakes of overconfidence and inexperience. Those are not "racial" in nature.
I take all of these criticisms in earnest, though I would add that some of this wasn't Obama himself but the Democratic Party as a whole.
For example, him not campaigning in 2010 was, as I recall, because his poll numbers were terrible at the time and candidates thought he would be a drag on them, no? Much of this had to do with the fact that—much like with Biden—we were in the midst of an economic disaster when Obama took over, and Americans in their ignorance blamed him for the fact that he hadn't completely fixed it by 2010.
I am more receptive now to criticisms of his political inexperience, but I guess I don't see this so much as him being "unserious" as it was perhaps being overly earnest and naive. To be sure, I was one of the people who at first thought he was being too accomodating to Republicans, and that they were basically taking advantage of that. So I guess I can relate to an extent.
But then I sort of settled into a mindset of taking his example and trying my best to communicate with and understand Republicans. To be more moderate and reasonable, the way I used to think before the Bush administration made me a frothing partisan. Of course, it was easy to be kumbaya when someone I liked was in the White House.
I think where you and I are different, TC, is that you are clearly a veteran of politics, and I'm just a guy who was once an apolitical person with intellectual interests in STEM areas. As I've become more politically aware and educated about real world issues outside of my esoteric bubbles, "politics" for me is about nuanced policy debates.
Which of course, is different from engaging in the actual practice of political campaigning. And I honestly don't know how you all do it. No offense meant—I know that political campaigning is a necessity, and you all put in a ton of work, but the way complex issues need to be boiled down to a few digestible soundbites just drives me mad.
I don't know if it's ever seemed this way to you, but it feels almost Machiavellian at times—what simple phrases do we need to keep pounding into people's skulls to get them to pull the lever for our guy, even if we are eliding a lot of important details? In the best of cases this is an earnest attempt to communicate efficiently and in good faith. In the worst of cases, like Trump, it's an utter orgy of stupidity and demagoguery designed to appeal to the worst in us.
So what I'm saying is that I think Obama was serious—about policy and governing. He was smart and had vision, ran a clean government that served the American people pretty well. He wasn't perfect and I think there are a few foreign policy criticisms to be made (although ironically *that* part could be defended on political grounds, as the American public were weary of foreign military entanglements from the Iraq boondoggle).
And he was also serious about bipartisanship. So serious that the other side took advantage of it whenever they could, because the Republican Party has long operated under the premise that Democrats have no business governing, and have spent years trying to game the system rather than honestly earning their support. From deceptive robocalls to lies about voter fraud to stealing a Supreme Court seat to refusing to work in good faith with Obama, the Republican Party has been anything but good faith.
So, I can believe he made political blunders, but in large part I have trouble criticizing the Democrats when they're working against a sprawling right-wing propaganda complex, a Republican Party increasingly beholden to the obscenely wealthy, fascist Christians, and their own desire for power, and an American public which is currently drowning in disinformation.
But you would certainly know better than me on the political front, so I can largely defer to your expertise, even if I respectfully disagree a bit.
Agree completely. I was never a supporter of Obama during the primaries entirely because of the inexperience. I figured the Republicans in DC would eat him alive. But I voted for him enthusiastically at the national. And I'm glad we had him as our president for all of the good things he brought to the WH. That said, he never knew how to manage DC and made all the mistakes you mention and more. But I was never disappointed, because my expectations were not that high.
Your points are well made. Thank you.
But Obama won reelection. The Tea Party and MAGA are a direct result of white Americans who were horrified that a Black man won the presidency twice. Not because Obama was a horrible president or made mistakes. It was because he was Black. You cannot argue that away. Not after "W". Then Trump. If the Dems had not run a Black woman, Trump would have lost by double digits this past election.
Dunning-Kruger effect in practice.
I appreciate your comment, though we clearly disagree! I've responded to your thoughts here: https://thenextmove.substack.com/p/are-you-ready-to-lose-again-a-response
Obama was unserious in his dealings with Russia. 2014 was his time to rise up and stand against Russian overreach against a country the US was treaty-bound to defend (it’s in the Budapest Memorandum, which the US underwrote). Instead he threw a few sanctions at Russia and hoped they’d be satisfied with Crimea, which wasn’t theirs to take, and gave some basic military aid to Ukraine when the Donbass war started. This underwhelming reaction taught Putin he could go further in Ukraine when he was ready; which he did in 2022.
Like most Europeans, I liked Obama. But at least in our region of the world, his foreign policy was indeed unserious.
There's a difference in being unserious and being incorrect. He made mistakes, not out of malice (like Republicans) but out of inexperience. I also thought him overly cautious at times. I thought he was wrong at times. But not unserious. Maybe our apparent disagreements here are just semantic.
Indeed there is. But in Europe, and in particular over Russia, he was both. And it was not inexperience, as when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexed Crimea and started a war in the Donbass, he had been president for nearly six years.
The Budapest Memorandum, as the name implies is not a treaty and confers no legal obligation. It famously, or perhaps infamously, did NOT offer security guarantees only assurances. While I do wish Obama had responded more forcefully to Russian aggression particularly after the bloodshed began in the Donbas, the Crimean takeover was so weird as to be hard to respond to with force. And it was complicated by the strange "gifting" to Ukraine by Kruschev in the 50s. Putin could more plausibly claim he was just taking it back.
You’re right: but it provided assurances and the understanding that an American president would stand by these assurances. Obama fell short of that, as did Germany and Britain, and Ukraine paid the price for this poor judgement in 2022.
Yup, I was thinking the same thing Mary. He may have well just used the word “uppity”.
I appreciate the general idea. I think your point about Clinton is particularly well targeted (speaking as a member of precisely the audience you meant to address). It's critical for members of both parties who can recognize the bizarre situation we're in to reflect how compromises in standards we made in the past contributed to lowering the ethical bar.
But there are actually few family resemblances among these examples, and they all have at least partial precedents long before. Biden's health cover-up (which postdates Trump's initial election) resonates with examples of Cleveland, Wilson, and most of all FDR, whose failing health was known by insiders as they helped him to a fourth term in the midst of a world war. No moronic successor emerged. Clinton was hardly the first rake in the White House: JFK and before him Harding are examples. They were not followed by morons. The war crimes of the Bush II era were awful but not normalized any more than the crimes of William Calley and his ilk under Nixon (and presumably LBJ before him). And, really, I know what you mean about Obama's "smugness" (though he's a president I admire) but the Republic survived greater arrogance from Carter (whom I also admired) and your claim of unseriousness is post facto twisting of a single incident: Obama generally made more fun of himself than of others.
There are character flaws or, in the best presidents, character lapses that we can identify. (Perhaps we can except Washington and Lincoln -- we've had our lucky times too.) But I think what you're really talking about is the cost of excusing those flaws or lapses by partisans.
And, in the end, the spectacle of millions of Americans raising to semi-divine status an outlandishly vulgar, incontinent, predatory, ignoramus who presents in appearance, speech, and grossness of lies as a MAD Magazine parody could never be traced to the scale of flaws you're pointing to. This isn't a case of "he's our bastard." Rather, "He's our Cyrus!" (and for some he's one step up on the messiah scale). This is a social pathology much deeper than anything we can hang on common flaws of commonly more or less competent presidents.
A thoughtful response. I'd quibble at the margins with some of your characterizations as you have with mine, but the central issue is this: The presidents you name all had their failings, but they are scattered across the timeline. Clinton, W. Bush, Obama, and Biden poisoned the political pond one after another after another. The cumulative effect of their individual defects is on full display in the Oval Office today.
I appreciate your posting this reply, Mr. Kasparov. I continue to agree that we need to reflect on how compromises we've made on character and conduct for partisan reasons have led us to this pass.
How much of Obama's unimplemented policy was down to the dissidence of DINO senators like Joe Lieberman?
I agree with your facts, but the reality is that we're all carrying around more computing power than the US had in those earlier times. Mass media, Reagan killing the Fairness Doctrine and propaganda have played a big part in taking the stupidity of the American people to a level usually only heard of in jokes about us outside of the country.
I do wonder how it's possible to be so completely disinterested and so careless when it comes to our country and the great things that voters just threw away. I don't think they're stupid, but I do think it's time for everyone to start learning civics. It doesn't take hours to stay informed. It can be done by listening to real news for a half hour a day, so I can't give the people who voted for trump believing that he would bring down prices or end wars on day 1 any kind of pass. If a citizen is going to vote, that citizen has the obligation to be educated on the basics. We have rights but they come with responsibilities, and far too many in this country have forgotten or never learned about those.
I gotta say, I truly despise bothsidesism.
Please.
If you can't admit that the Democratic Party has lost elections, not that the GOP has won them, then you're a political illiterate and your inability to face reality is why we're in the hole we are in.
It’s always telling when a person doesn’t respond to the issue stated but instead makes an ad hominem comment.
IMO, just wrong on so many points. Just two examples: first, the Dumpster doesn’t command unshakable personal loyalty. Rather, his sycophants are either 1) afraid of him; or 2) riding his coattails for what they can get.
Second, Dubya was a decent guy? REALLY??? Since when? He ignored warnings about an attack on the U.S. He lied this country into two wars that cost us trillions. He started the privatization of Medicare and wanted to gut Social Security. And on and on.
I think the Mencken quotation is applicable, but I don’t agree with much else that Kasparov says in this case.
Agreed!
💯 - "He was the inevitable result of a cult the Republicans had already built. This is the obvious part of why trumpism was never about trump. He was just their first presidential candidate to so publicly stroke racist and bigoted egos by saying the right-wing quiet parts out loud with the same shameless pride they had heard for decades in conservative media"
https://samray.substack.com/p/trumpism-is-narcissism
I have the quote framed and up on my bathroom wall. It’s a Jack Ohman cartoon. As for Obama, the hope that a post-racial generation would rise was an illusions. Democrats never understand how mean people can really be when they are threatened. The playbook needs to be thrown out. Letting the bankers and hedge fund managers off the hook while folks went bankrupt didn’t help either.
I just watched RFK Jr on Fox repeat the falsehood that COVID vaccines increase death rates in children.
The perniciousness of the mis & disinfo of rightwing media (not including more factual, conservative media) has really prepared its consumers to believe lies & conspiracies embodied in politicians like Trump.
Good points, but you need to go back a little bit further. Ronald Reagan was the first one of these, propped up by people like Newt Gingrich, not to mention quite a few never -Trumpers who are still around these days. If we're going to be honest, let's be honest. The game show-ification of the presidential election process has been going on for almost 50 years.
and how did we the people let it happen maybe an unserious public taking their freedoms for granted and a lack of the education of all of us in both history and civic responsibility who is in charge of this education as is honest voting are both functions of local governments that you and the town village or city you live in change will start at the bottom with us
I would note though Trump does not have Dictatorship like control over the media he does indirectly control right wing old and new media. It allows him to lie without any accountability to MAGA.
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments! We do not have to all agree—this kind of thoughtful debate is exactly what we are trying to cultivate. I am reading your replies and will answer a few. And I am writing a new piece, coming soon, to respond to the recurring charge of "both sides-ism"!
Mr. Kasparov, I respectfully disagree with your characterizations, and therefore I guess, with your thesis.
Obama was absolutely a serious President. Ended financial crisis, got ACA, eliminated Bin Laden, eloquently explained racial issues, empathetically comforted grieving Americans. He brought joy into his work (see e.g., “thanks Obama”), and belief in democracy deeply rooted in community organizing- - the epitome of your request that a president “show that public service is a noble thing in a democracy and demonstrate a little internal consistency. You call him “arrogant”, “smug”, “self-assured”? Oh my, the racist history of such criticisms of the “uppity black folk”. I recall his being raked over the right-wing media coals for having worn a tan suit, for having Dijon mustard on his hamburger. (And Michelle for having worn a sleeveless dress.) And then Biden? Regardless of whether, at the time the decision was made, Biden should or should not have run for a second term, accusing him of lacking character is ridiculous, meritless, laughable. Forty-some years of public service, a presidency marked not by personal aggrandizement but by consistent, savvy, hard work and compromise to increase the well being of the American people; bringing us out of the pandemic economy, passing critical infrastructure, manufacturing, science, and environmental legislation for the long term good of the country regardless of personal credit. A deeply religious man, but who protected religious freedom for all. This is who you accuse of “lacking character”? No person, no leader is perfect, and clearly something is wrong when half the country falls for a con, over and over again to remain so fiercely loyal to this demagogue. But the culprit is not the character of our previous presidents. Could it be a confluence of several characteristics of both our times and historical patterns within America. Hard times have made and still make many people fearful of “the other”, and scapegoat those outside their group. We’ve had hard times in the economy and in the pandemic. These fears make many people more susceptible to demagoguery, and make them crave an authority figure to direct them and cause them to follow one who claims to be able to fix their problems. At the same time, the rise of cable, internet, social media un-vetted propaganda masquerading as news, has made it hard for many people to distinguish truth from fiction. Perhaps even the the now-decades-old rise of commercial television promoting, consciously and subconsciously, the substitution of reading with passive watching, the commercialization of Americana’s brains to be addicted to consumption and envious of the lifestyles of others, real or embellished, seen on the tube. And what has made so many of us, as a people, lose interest in civic life? Is it because in the past we had to band together for the common good? (Barn raising, hiring the school teacher, forming insurance guilds), and now, more and more, we are physically able to live without joining our fellow citizens in civic matters, including debating the issues, voting, volunteering in the community? And that without the need, some never grow that community spirit that undergirds democracy? Is it because the gem of community life, and the wellspring of an competent voting population has been our public education, but we consistently try to undercut it rather than allow for it to function in a funded and professional way? I don’t know the answer, but I don’t think your thesis works. However, no one can argue with your final assertion to carefully evaluate the candidates before voting!
The intellectual decline of the GOP has been pretty steady since Reagan.
a different way to say this is that who left the party and who joined and replaced the republican's that left one party worked on reduction of citizens the other trying to serve all and more citizens one party only has rhetoric not support other trying to make government work for more one constant obstruction other just holding on
Biden was a pretty good president and got through three massive pieces of legislation thanks to his bipartisan experience. He left an economy that was the envy of other countries. His subsidies were beginning to return green and high-end industrial jobs to the US. He supported unions and the ordinary people.
His one mistake - and unfortunately it’s a biggie - was to go back on his commitment that he’d only be president for one term. Had he stuck by that, there would have been time for a proper Democratic primary. Whoever won it would have had full legitimacy that could not be questioned.
this represents the basic problems which divide the democrats now being suggested in an under covered conflict seen between Carvel (sp) From Louisiana and Hogg check it out
+1K
Trump IS a moron. Obama had decency.
In America, the populace sides with "Strong and Wrong over Weak and Right. '
Re Obama, by unserious I think GK meant that Obamas lack of experience led to some mistakes. Kasparovs last point was the best one. It IS our obligation to learn about the candidates before voting, especially in presidential elections. The downside to that is we may find out that the american people are not who we thought..or hoped..that that were.
Who Trump is is obvious to everyone. In December 2016, looking for my roommate from college, I found his father instead. Alvin the father and I ended up talking about the election. He said, “No one voted for Trump.” Then explains why he voted for Trump. Very few who voted for Trump do not know what they voted for.