Obama on the Obama Presidency

July 1, 2016 11:03 AM

Interview with Barack Obama (NPR's Steve Inskeep). "And I believe that our politics — when our politics are at our best — is not based on identity politics, but it's based on a sense that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should get a fair shake. Everybody should be responsible for doing their fair share, and you know, that theme you'll see in every speech that I've given since I was running for the state Senate, and it hasn't changed much now that I am nearing the end of my political career."
posted by bluesky43 (48 comments total)

Can I just say that the term "identity politics" is a phrase that when used unironically by a speaker makes me dismissive of what they say?
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:13 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

That's your problem. Get over it and move on or you're part of the problem.

/hamburger
posted by saulgoodman at 11:15 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Imagine how much further along we'd be if he didn't have a bunch of old useless racist fucknuggets in Congress obstructing his every move.
posted by leotrotsky at 11:16 AM on July 1, 2016 [37 favorites]

Mmmm, fucknuggets.

What dipping sauce?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:18 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher:

"Mmmm, fucknuggets.

What dipping sauce?"

Santorum.
posted by charred husk at 11:23 AM on July 1, 2016 [56 favorites]

BRAIN BLEACH NOW PLZ
posted by lalochezia at 11:24 AM on July 1, 2016 [34 favorites]

Thing is, "identity politics" obviously are a very real thing: The Southern Strategy was a deliberate and conscious application, Bush's courting of the Christian evangelical vote was another. Those things played major roles in wrecking our politics and society. Nobody really denies that. And the psychological mechanisms for how the trick works are pretty well understood: people really do get defensive and irrationally combative as all hell when confronted with something that seems to threaten or challenge their understanding of who they are. How can you not agree the use of those kinds of manipulative and socially divisive tricks are a bad thing for a society unless your goal is to take that society apart?

That is not at all the same thing as saying identity doesn't matter in politics; it's exactly the opposite--a conscious recognition that identity does matter, a lot, and so needs to be dealt with carefully and conscientiously in the political arena.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [33 favorites]

Can I just say that the term "identity politics" is a phrase that when used unironically by a speaker makes me dismissive of what they say?

I mean, it's just a 50-year-old phrase that was developed by American minority groups to help them find language to articulate their shared experience, which was often minimized or excluded by the mainstream, but, you know, dismiss away.
posted by maxsparber at 11:26 AM on July 1, 2016 [55 favorites]

Seems that the President, like all Presidents before him, has reached that point in his presidency and career where he is concerned about his legacy. Unfortunately for him, like all Presidents before him, his legacy is partially shaped by Congress.
posted by AugustWest at 11:28 AM on July 1, 2016

Decrying "identity politics" is the domain of two groups-- first, the conservatives who make their living stoking up resentments against "them," for whom identity politics is something they believe they CAN'T do because, obviously, conservative whites are "real Americans," and every other group and policy advocate is just a "special interest." Next is the earnest liberal moderate who believes that all we need to do is put aside our petty emotional political demands and just all agree on the rational, mathematically optimal policy, and then we would all be better off.

America was FOUNDED in identity politics, in that it was all about states fighting over their interests and relative autonomy. It was only when the "wrong people" started demanding their interests be represented that "identity politics" was considered a bad thing.
posted by deanc at 11:32 AM on July 1, 2016 [20 favorites]

My fantasy is that his career is not actually drawing to a close, and that President Clinton nominates him for the Supreme Court, and has the votes.

But I shouldn't say so. Other people's fantasies are often uncomfortable to hear, even when they're nice ones, which is why I was never a fan of The West Wing.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:32 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]

I mean, it's just a 50-year-old phrase that was developed by American minority groups to help them find language to articulate their shared experience, which was often minimized or excluded by the mainstream, but, you know, dismiss away.

You missed my point. At this point, the people who I see using the phrase are those who are railing against the idea that minority groups might have political interests based on their identity and that might influence how they actually vote, and somehow that makes those political interests illegitimate and it becomes abundantly clear that it's being used as a shorthand for "how dare these groups actually push for their interests".

Yeah, those sorts can go get fucked.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:37 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]

Yeah, that point was not clear. There has been a concerted effort by the right to abscond with the phrase and weaponize it against the people who invented it, but they do that with everything.

Yes, fuck those guys, but I'm of the opinion that they don't get to steal our language from us.
posted by maxsparber at 11:41 AM on July 1, 2016 [9 favorites]

My fantasy is that his career is not actually drawing to a close, and that President Clinton nominates him for the Supreme Court, and has the votes.

And keep his family in DC longer than it takes for his daughters to graduate? Michelle would set her on fire.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:42 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

As an out queer, the term identity politics always reminds me of the phrase "the personal is political", which was founded in feminism but is oh so much a part of being an out queer.

I have an identity, a person that I am, and a lot of politics that I am interested in has to do with that person that I am. And there is A FUCKTON OF POLITICKING that goes on around my person. Not directed at me, personally, but certainly feels fucking personal.

I feel generally that identity politics is when actions are taken against me and my brothers and sisters. Striving toward equality is not identity politics, IMO; it's the assholes passing bathroom bills in North Carolina or the newly struck-down Mississippi "religious freedom" law.

All the movements toward full equality and full opportunity for anyone, that is not identity politics. That is, as Obama said, our politics at its best.
posted by hippybear at 11:42 AM on July 1, 2016 [10 favorites]

What politics ISN'T based on competing groups which identify differently?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:48 AM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

#allidentiesmatter?
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:51 AM on July 1, 2016

What politics ISN'T based on competing groups which identify differently?

White male cis-hetero christian capitalist greed politics, which dominates our entire system and is considered the default.

But the actual answer is in both my comment and the Obama pull-quote. Politics that move everyone toward equality -- that is that answer to your question.
posted by hippybear at 11:55 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

America was FOUNDED in identity politics, in that it was all about states fighting over their interests and relative autonomy. It was only when the "wrong people" started demanding their interests be represented that "identity politics" was considered a bad thing.

This more or less reinforces what I read Obama's point to be, though: sure, you might start from a balance of competing interests all vying for a seat at the table and acceptable accommodations. But at some point to move forward, we have to transcend that and reach for some general principle.

Slavery one of several bad accommodations that made it into the union by this definition of "identity politics" (which is slippery, but is fair enough). And boy did we have to work to get beyond that into the better general principle that people simply aren't ever property, and we still haven't shaken off the legacy of that.

The complaint shouldn't be identity politics is "bad," because it's not, and furthermore, it's necessary. Sometimes resources are limited and it's moral to prioritize our attention to various inequities and injustices that are specifically identity-related. But it's legit to call that approach inherently limited, and I think that's really Obama's point.

Then again, the idealism behind Obama's point has limits as an approach too. I think he knows this, and you can see it in how he's attempted to work -- a dance between the practical politics of identity/interest and a more general idealism that we hope can work for everyone.
posted by wildblueyonder at 12:00 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Oh my god, let's just fight over a two word phrase rather than discuss anything else in the interview.

I thought his perspective on the long-term prospects of the Republican party (their current abysmal condition will not persist forever), the ability of the US to be competitive under globalization, and how post-recession austerity really screwed the economies of Europe were interesting.
posted by figurant at 12:29 PM on July 1, 2016 [10 favorites]

Obama sounds super pack-a-day lately.
posted by resurrexit at 12:30 PM on July 1, 2016

When I was in Chicago around the time of Trump's stunt cancelled rally just before the primary, I was staying with a couple friends (all of us canvassing for Bernie that weekend,) and we got to talking about political intentions and efficacy measurement and so on. While some of the details of that conversation are muddy, I remember very clearly one of the last things we talked about was Barack Obama and his legacy. I remember saying, I think the question was to why I felt like Obama was unable to relate to me the way Sanders had, that his worldview differs from mine in a very fundamental way.

To paraphrase what I remember from that conversation, I said the difference between Obama and myself, to my lived perspective, isn't necessarily our moral compass or our sense of details or political nuance or a deep and uneasy frustration with uncompromising hate-mongers but our health. What I believe, and I'm really just speculating, is that Obama has for most of his life had a pretty decent grasp. He's been pretty healthy. He's always been real smart and had a lot of self-control. It got him where he is, atop the world.

And while I haven't suffered nearly as much as many others, I have rarely been of consistent good health. I have always operated from a place of dysfunction, vice, frustration, depression. I've never been in complete control of myself, and I don't think I ever will be. I don't think Obama really understands what it's like to have no control, to be sick, to be desperate... even after all his experiences surrounding gun control and so on.

When Obama says things like, "if somebody is looting, they're looting," it really offends me. That's the antithesis of progressivism. That's what neoliberalism looks like. As soon as you, especially as the leader of a system, ascribe blame to the smallest cog in the machine, you make the world more dangerous. So every time in this interview Steve mentions that, "dude, things aren't getting better for most people." Obama retorts, "Well actually, look at the numbers, and look at the Republicans" as though he can't fathom how his ideological and inadvertent-or-otherwise acquiesce to the elite's favored flavor of world governance has harmed anyone. Maybe he legitimately believes that he's done the best he could, and things would really be fine and dandy if it weren't for obstructionism. Maybe you believe that too. I understand how you could, I think, and I only blame you for turning a blind eye and covering your ears when others disagree.

The way Obama glazes over inequality like some kind of ambiguous variable in the special political calculus tells me we'd still be fucked if he'd accomplished every single thing he ever wanted to, these past 8 years. I don't believe he sees any fundamental flaw in the power structures that be, and I see that as his.
posted by an animate objects at 12:54 PM on July 1, 2016 [19 favorites]

I think Obama's involvement is far from over. I think he will chart new ways to be effective in his post presidency and continue to lead in less formal settings.

Like Elizabeth Warren, I think he will be more influential outside the oval office than within it.
posted by yoga at 1:27 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

So, basically, it's not Republican obstructionism that is preventing repairs to systemic problems, or at least they are symptoms of the same disease. But Republican obstructionism is kind of inarguably a major problem that has prevented a lot of good things from happening, even if those good things are only treating effects and not causes.
posted by kafziel at 2:02 PM on July 1, 2016

If we could treat the causes of many of our problems with any sort of accuracy or effectiveness, we'd live in a much better society.

Most of what government can do is treat the effects, and hope The People can move themselves away from the problems. Mitigating effects of problems is what we have government for.
posted by hippybear at 2:04 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

Like Elizabeth Warren, I think he will be more influential outside the oval office than within it.

i don't think this has ever, ever been true of an ex-president
posted by p3on at 2:34 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

p3on: Jimmy Carter
posted by hippybear at 2:37 PM on July 1, 2016 [10 favorites]

When Obama says things like, "if somebody is looting, they're looting," it really offends me. That's the antithesis of progressivism. That's what neoliberalism looks like. As soon as you, especially as the leader of a system, ascribe blame to the smallest cog in the machine, you make the world more dangerous.

Maybe this is just my orthodox upbringing and my privilege speaking, but I personally find it troubling (and, yes, dangerous) to swing to the other pole and say that someone cannot be blameworthy by virtue of their position in society. At some level, it feels to me like exercising one's agency as a rational adult can't be disentangled from the need to take responsibility for one's actions. I get that people with less privilege than me have much less room to exercise their agency, and that in such a case their circumstances can be partially exculpatory. But I don't think it's incoherent to deplore both a person's choice to steal a television and the systems that led them to that choice.
posted by Johnny Assay at 2:56 PM on July 1, 2016 [10 favorites]

I am not saying either that Republican obstructionism (and really the Republican party and worldview more generally) is not a big roadblock for everybody's future or that people who do bad things should not be blamed for it, rather that choices about language and framing matter and are revealing of our perspectives and various biases.

Basically nobody thinks that either Republican Obstructionism isn't a problem or that people who are looting things shouldn't stop looting things and start not looting things. So what is the point of drawing attention to those issues? Is there some kind of value in a consensus on whether criminals are criminals? I think Obama chooses framings deliberately in a way that keeps his cards close because he's aware that those damn looters wouldn't be happy if he was more outspoken about what he really thinks of them, nor most working class Americans if he let on what he really thinks of corporatism and globalization.

What if the President were to say, "Republicans are terrible, but the real problem is people like the Koch brothers who pull all those strings. And there are people on our side pulling strings too. If we don't cut those strings, it's going to be very hard to prove to the American people that we're working for them and not for the corporate and financial entities who benefit the most from globalization" What if he said, "You know what, everybody knows it's wrong to loot. Looters know they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. They do it anyway. Why is that? I think part of the reason is those people have lost hope. They're mad, they're angry, they're struggling to get by. It's easy to blame them, obviously what they're doing is wrong. But we need to make a world where nobody needs to loot, because they're happy and healthy and safe and they have what they need. That's an America I think we all believe in, don't you?"
posted by an animate objects at 3:06 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

And he could say, "Globalization is inevitable. And it means there are jobs that Americans aren't going to be able to compete for. That's ok, because we can create new jobs. We can put in place robust legislature that ensures the corporations benefitting most from globalizations will shoulder the cost and be held responsible for the effect their profits have on our economy. Some people say regulation will drive corporations out of the country; I don't believe a word of it. America is the best place in the world to do business, and doing your fair share to give back to the country as an individual or a corporation is as American as apple pie."
posted by an animate objects at 3:14 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

What if the President were to say...

Isn't that sort of combining the plots of Dave and Bullworth? I mean, not literally, but figuratively.

I'd welcome a more frank discussion of the actual issues in our culture, and not in a Trumpian manner, which is actually just blowing past the dog whistles and speaking the actual bullshit that the Right has been disguising behind coded speak and dog whistles for generations. But an actual frank discourse.

I spent days tweeting about needing to see Clinton, Sanders, or Trump actually use the word "homophobia" in relation to the Orlando massacre. Clinton finally did... in a tweet. Still waiting for the speech that begins "We have a cultural poison in US culture that we need to address, one that is resulting in the deaths of many Americans. That is homophobia..."

For that matter, the same sentence, only with racism instead.

But no politician actually says anything that actually address the problems. Only the symptoms.
posted by hippybear at 3:14 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'd welcome a more frank discussion of the actual issues

Absolutely, likewise. And to take the idea a step further, I wouldn't mind a little "some people have to deal with racism, homophobia and sexism on a daily basis. Can you imagine how exhausting that must be?" followed by maybe actually giving the podium to those people.
posted by an animate objects at 3:19 PM on July 1, 2016

When Obama says things like, "if somebody is looting, they're looting," it really offends me.

I'm getting a lot more nuance from what he says than just looters = bad. He also says that he understands the frustrations that can cause the looting, but also sees their actions as counterproductive because they end up harming people from their own communities, the same people that are often facing the same issues that everyone else is.

For me anyways, I completely agree that it i extremely important to understand the underlying causes of why looting and rioting occur. But as it's happening in the moment looting has to be treated as looting, not because we're looking for someone to blame, but because stability and peace need to be re-established.
posted by FJT at 3:59 PM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

My fantasy is that his career is not actually drawing to a close, and that President Clinton nominates him for the Supreme Court, and has the votes.

I think he should just nominate himself, right now. Hand the mic to Biden for a few months of fun.
posted by Anoplura at 4:01 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

I find it troubling (and, yes, dangerous) to swing to the other pole and say that someone cannot be blameworthy by virtue of their position in society. At some level, it feels to me like exercising one's agency as a rational adult can't be disentangled from the need to take responsibility for one's actions.

You're not one of those reactionary atavists who believes in free will, are you? Coz that's unfashionable in these parts.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:15 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Look if calling out a looter as a looter is NeoLiberal, then I guess that's what I am.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:51 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

Oh my god, let's just fight over a two word phrase rather than discuss anything else in the interview.

Metafilter: etc
posted by Sebmojo at 9:57 PM on July 1, 2016

If we're going to fight over a two word phrase, how about "fair shake?" He was this close to saying "fair shake of the sauce bottle," which would have been amazing for US-AU relations.
posted by iffthen at 10:49 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

Thanks for posting this. Obama has been a great president; one of the five best ever, imo. I already miss him.
posted by persona au gratin at 11:15 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

He was this close to saying "fair shake of the sauce bottle,"

also within coo-ee of 'fair suck of the sav' which might have tipped Australia over into 51st state territory
posted by Sebmojo at 12:23 AM on July 2, 2016

one of the five best ever, imo

Curious to see who the other 4 are. They'd have to be War Time I'd think?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:39 AM on July 2, 2016

The Obama Years: Views On A Presidency, Across America
This is a partner article that goes with the interview. It's got some moving personal stories describing a president who has stuck up for people in some important ways and changed their lives. I first got it as an audio story which was really good, and moving but now I see the written site also has charts and figures.
posted by infinite intimation at 1:29 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

p3on: Jimmy Carter

the one president in the 20th century who could reasonably and objectively be called a failure, who brokered a peace agreement between israelis and palestinians, which has been dissolving and turning into a more horrific situation in every measure than it was before he engaged it... yes, i suppose that's one way of interpreting history
posted by p3on at 9:59 PM on July 2, 2016

Thanks for posting this. Obama has been a great president; one of the five best ever, imo. I already miss him.

you know what i miss? when working class wages kept up with economic growth
posted by p3on at 10:00 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Jimmy Carter's work has been key in efforts that come close to eradicating guinea worm. This may not mean much to Americans, but guinea worm is so uniquely horrible that if Westerners got it, it would be right up there with the Black Plague and the Spanish flu in the history books.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:25 AM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

the one president in the 20th century who could reasonably and objectively be called a failure

Is this true? It's an article of faith paired with Reagan's sainthood in the Republican circles I grew up in that Carter was a good man but not one who was capable of crafting practical/smart policy. I've since come to suspect that assertions about the weakness of Carter's policy decisions are about on par with those about the strength of Reagan's policies, but I don't feel like I have enough knowledge to make a real argument.
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:30 AM on July 3, 2016

the one president in the 20th century who could reasonably and objectively be called a failure

Seriously? Coolidge? Harding? Reagan and Bush?
posted by kafziel at 11:40 AM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

the one president in the 20th century who could reasonably and objectively be called a failure

For some values of 'reasonably and objectively' I suppose. I feel like this is being awfully generous to e.g. Ford.

Not to take this down a Jimmy Carter derail,* but wasn't the point of the comment you're responding to that he was more influential once he left office than when he actually held it?

I guess it could be construed as implicit that this influence was positive, which is debatable. But--and we can dig up some citations on this if challenged--Carter is generally held by historians to have accomplished more after his presidency than during it. He's been heavily involved in multiple prominent peace treaties and accords, including the Geneva Accord I assume you're referring to disparagingly above, humanitarian aid programs, and international debates.

I disagree vehemently with a number of Obama's policies, but I actually think it would be pretty terrific if he continued to have the sort of influence on world politics Carter has had, and remained involved in treaties, negotiations, etc. Maybe he could take a cue from the old peanut farmer and actually see the error of his ways WRT drone strikes, for example.


* <sub>Carter's presidency wasn't exactly a shining beacon, but it's not like he didn't accomplish anything.

The guy established the DOE and Department of Education, and deregulated the shit out of everything, leading to--among other things--the weird current US airline industry, the decline of American and beginning of imported Chinese steel, and the craft beer movement.

He came into office at the beginning of a massive global recession, an energy crisis, a complete distrust of government in the wake of Vietnam and the fallout from the Nixon administration, and worldwide political crises. Although he definitely bungled the hostage crisis, quite a bit of his unpopularity at the end of his presidency was due to factors largely beyond the control of his administration, including a press that was incredibly mocking and hostile, massive dissent within the Democratic party, and a media darling opposition candidate who was fully able to just make shit up and not be called on it.

(I still think you could probably characterize his presidency as a failure, since he wasn't able to actually do a whole lot, despite a democratic majority).</sub>
posted by aspersioncast at 11:52 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]