StemCell Therapy

Before I start criticizing anyone, let me start with this: I appreciate any Republican who stands up to criticize this sorry excuse for a president. Two such anti-Trump Republicans are the NYTs Ross Douthat and David Brooks. My appreciation for their efforts notwithstanding, they both managed to mangle the same topic in recent columnsAmerican national identity.

In a piece titled Who Are We? Douthat put the back of his hand to his forehead (just do it and youll see what I mean) and lamented that liberalism has crafted a narrative of the American story too focused on oppression, one that ignores the traditionally understood elementsthe heroic founders-and-settlers narrative of which it once consisted. He recognizes that that traditional story stopped making as much sense and that we needed to correct it. Douthats no extremist on this, hes not running around waving a red #MAGA cap. He says we need a unifying story that includes both heroism and the truth about what befell blacks and Indians and others in order to bury Trumpism (as opposed to just beating Trump). Clearly, Douthat supports that goal, so I take his call as a sincere one.

Similarly, just this week, David Brooks called for the revival of something weve lost, namely our unifying American story. This, he says, is the Exodus story, a narrative that unites us around a common multigenerational project, that gives an overarching sense of meaning and purpose to our history. He cited Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Reinhold Niebuhr and Langston Hughes (America never was America to me/And yet I swear this oath/America will be!) as all having embraced this narrative.

Brooks blamed the loss of our common story on radical secularists [who] expunged biblical categories and patriotic celebrations from schools, and closed by calling out for somebody who can tell us what our goal is, and offer an ideal vision of what the country and the world should be. Like Douthat, he also wants to bury Trumpism, and slammed the jingoistic chauvinists who measure Americanness by blood and want to create a Fortress America keeping the enemy out. Good on him.

Heres the thing, gentlemen. Both of you have just described the exact narrative of our history and our national identity that Barack Obama has spent the last dozen years preaching on the national stage.

First, lets talk about the individuals Brooks cited. President Obamas approach bears the strong influence of Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, and Brooks knows it. In fact, he wrote two different opinion pieces about the influence of Niebuhr on Obama (here, and here). For what its worth, Douthat wrote one too. On the other people cited, Ive written extensively about the influence of Rev. King on Obama.

More broadly, Obama has repeatedly offered precisely the unifying story Douthat and Brooks assert our country needs, one that includes both the traditional heroes from the older narrative Douthat says appeals to many, as well as figures representing a much broader cast of characters, i.e., those excluded from the older narrative, and who are pretty heroic as well. The 44th president wove all their stories into a single history of a diverse, yet unified people working to realize the ideals laid out at the founding. Obamas story of America is, in fact, just what Brooks called for: a progressively realized grand narrative.

To the chagrin of some, Obamas Americarightly, in my viewrejects both the whitewashed narrative that was predominant in the 1950s and the overwhelmingly negative vision Brooks criticized, one steeped in American tales of genocide, slavery, oppression and segregation. To be sure, no one could be elected president running around talking about America in such a negative. Furthermore, anyone demanding that a progressive candidate must do so in order to earn their vote is only helping elect candidates who espouse the opposite understanding of America. Obamas narrative describes our progress as uneven, yes, but nonetheless moving toward the goal we as a people set for ourselves.

Of dozens of examples in which Obama lays out his conception of American history and national identity, here are a few that span his time on the national stage. From his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, heres one that offers a unifying narrative paralleling what Brooks says we need:

On the night he won the 2008 Iowa caucuses:

From the first day of his second term:

In his eulogy for Reverend Clementa Pinckney, one of the nine African Americans murdered by a white supremacist in a Charleston, South Carolina, church:

And from his farewell address:

Maybe the blindness of writers like Douthat and Brooks isnt blindness at all, but instead strategy. Maybe they feel like theyll lose their ability to reach anti-Trump Republicans if they acknowledge that Obama has already done what they are calling for someone to do. Part of me can understand that thinking. But another part of me says that the strategic value of a Republican saying: if its a choice between Trumpism and Obamaism, Ill take Obamaism would be far better. Plus, just tell the damn truth if you know what Obama has been doing.

Giving Obama credit for putting forth a balanced, inclusive conception of national identity wouldnt mean endorsing the whole of the Democratic policy platform. Even on the national narrative itself, if Douthat and/or Brooks want to say that Obama hasnt been effective enough in selling the vision he (and they) have described, thats a point we can debate as well. But if they honestly believe that he hasnt been putting that vision out there time and again for years, well, then they just havent been listening.

See the original post:
The Blindness Of Anti-Trump Republicans - Huffington Post

This entry was posted on March 30, 2017 at 8:43 am and is filed under Blindness. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |