Happy New Year! The January Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species. Discuss it now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.)

Obama's 2016 warning

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Posts: 435
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Obama's 2016 warning

Post by Georgeanna » August 7th, 2018, 5:22 am

http://uk.businessinsider.com/obama-glo ... ?r=US&IR=T

'We're going through a bumpy phase in global politics'.

How long is a 'phase' and how are the qualifications below being met?

'...But as long as we stay true to our democratic principles. As long as elections have integrity, as long as we respect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, as long as there are checks and balances in our government. ... Then I have confidence that over the long term, progress will continue."

Wonder what he's thinking now...and what, if anything, he and intelligent politicians can do about what seems to be a planned global takeover by...who exactly ?

' The president also speculated about the roots of economic and racial anxieties in Western nations which have manifested themselves in major political shakeups like President-elect Donald Trump's upset victory and the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union.

"People are feeling less certain about their identity, less certain about security. They're looking for some means of control," Obama said.'

From this, I take it that:
We need to look at what we have in common and not that which separates us. Crude bigotry and specific targeting is taking place amidst a generalised anxiety, perhaps a global existential crisis, resulting in increasing conflict. The cycle of fear and violence runs on and on. Not a phase or a fashion. But a human sickness.

Will we never learn ?

Posts: 3547
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Obama's 2016 warning

Post by Fooloso4 » August 9th, 2018, 11:05 am

We are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an 'us' and a 'them
Some see globalism as the threat and nationalism as the solution. We are past the point where we can choose. Like it or not we live in a global economy. Trump’s America first policy is going to serve as an economic lesson, although it is a lesson many of his followers may not learn. Just as Trump’s wall would be paid for by the American taxpayer, his tariffs against China will largely be paid for by American consumers.

The term “made in America” has become meaningless since parts and materials may have been sourced from around the world. Foreign owned corporations have manufacturing and corporate sites in the U.S. that have created American jobs. On the other side, many American manufacturers have facilities abroad. His tariffs hurt them as well. Foreigners invest in the U.S. and Americans invest abroad.

The way past ‘us’ and ‘them’ may be via an extension of ‘us’ that is not defined by nation or ethnicity but by economic partnership. I think most people would prefer to see everyone prosper rather than ‘us’ not to. If they can see how attempts to hurt ‘them’ hurts ‘us’ they will be less likely to do so.

Posts: 5680
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Obama's 2016 warning

Post by Steve3007 » August 10th, 2018, 1:35 am

I think the question of whether this is just a phase depends largely on the question of whether democracies can ever really bring themselves to think of the longer term and the bigger picture. I think part of the definition of the term "populist politician" is a politician who is eager to gain short-term popularity at the expense of long-term well-being. One of the more obvious ways in which we can see this playing out is in the scrapping of various efforts to protect the environment. But we can also see it in the desire to supercharge the economy for a short-term boom and the appeal to nationalism and protectionism.

I don't think we, the voting public, can be relied on to think of the long-term in large enough numbers because we've been increasingly conditioned to be cynical and un-trusting of all external sources of information, so we naturally and logically fall back on our immediate experiences. We vote for politicians based on how they promise to change our lives right now in ways that we can measure directly without having to rely on the "fake news". Never mind such esoteric, far-off and probably fake-news issues like Climate Change, we think. That makes short term populism ... popular. It makes it more likely to work as a method of gaining political power.

Can we ever hope to have leaders who lead; who set out the arguments for long-term gain? The likes of Trump, Erdogan and Putin mean I'm really not sure any more. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Posts: 2357
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Obama's 2016 warning

Post by Eduk » August 10th, 2018, 3:48 am

I see no way that a democracy can be anything other than a popularity contest. Even if long term gain became popular one day.
Unknown means unknown.

Posts: 5680
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Obama's 2016 warning

Post by Steve3007 » August 12th, 2018, 6:43 am

Eduk wrote:I see no way that a democracy can be anything other than a popularity contest. Even if long term gain became popular one day.
Yes, this is true. But there are various different ways to sell a product (i.e. a politician) in order to make it popular. Selling based on long term gain is generally harder than selling based on immediate gain, especially in a world where people don't trust the sources of information that elucidate those long term gains. I was just wondering whether there will ever be politicians who believe enough in those long term gains to think it worth the effort of trying to use them as selling points.

Post Reply