Not only did Barack Obama's Cairo speech amply vindicate his election and inauguration as Barack Hussein Obama against the scare-mongering of 2008; it flushed out disingenuous ideologues on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

And -- stunningly, though so far not widely remarked - Obama made arguments against violence very much like those made here in April, thanks to the Israeli writer Gershom Gorenberg and the American writer Jonathan Schell, on the indispensability of coercive non-violence to struggles for liberation.

Obama's truths and arguments made believers in the armed-struggle, people's-liberation left squirm. But they made believers in the "This land is our land," Israel-Lobby right squirm, too. It's worth noting how.

Read more »

I don't think I could improve upon M.J. Rosenberg's summary of what the meaning of the Obama speech would be to the Mid East. Clearly it was directed at that audience and its reception (except perhaps in the Likud and other expansionist parties in Israel) was very good. What struck me was how a similar speech might be addressed to an American audience, perhaps at one of the Think Tanks that is at the heart of the American Military Industrial Complex. This is a speech that Americans may not be ready for, but some time in the next three years, Obama should make it.

Obama seeks a new beginning with the Arab World. Part of that is the acknowledgement of what can only be described as the Imperial history of American intervention in the Arab world. There are hints in the Cairo speech that he understands this legacy.

The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations...

Read more »

The Obama team's remarkable wordsmithery and the president's unparalleled capacity for delivery were exquisitely on display again today in Cairo. But this speech should perhaps be remembered as much for what was not said. Gone was the arrogance and lecturing: there was no lavishing of praise on Egypt's undemocratic leader - the word 'Mubarak' was not even mentioned once. Out too was the purple finger version of democratization and even the traditional American condescension toward the Palestinian narrative. But perhaps most remarkably of all, the words 'terror' or 'terrorism' did not pass the president's lips. Here was a leader and a team around him smart enough to acknowledge that certain words have become too tainted, too laden with baggage, their use has become counter-productive, today the Global War on Terror framing was truly laid to rest.

Particularly striking was that President Obama almost certainly has emerged from the Cairo speech having accumulated additional capital rather than expending it, with greater popularity, traction, and respect among not only his ostensible target audience, the Muslim world, but also globally, including at home in America and even in Israel and with the world's Jewish community. His future leverage across a range of issues has been enhanced.

It's true that whenever the speech descended from the lofty heights of 30,000 feet to the 100-feet resolution of policy specifics and details, the magic dust seemed to dissipate as it emerged from the clouds, and those details were too often more autopilot than reset. But this was a big picture speech, and there is room later to make those course corrections on policy detail.

Here then are ten quick thoughts:

Read more »

The attacks on September 11, 2001 sent shock waves throughout the world. This act of terrorism, despite its horrific brutality, created a global period of solidarity and mourning. It also presented an unprecedented crossroad where the world could choose a new era of engagement.

Today, in Cairo, President Obama began to work toward exactly that. He gave the speech that should have been given after the events of 9/11 setting the stage for a more abundant, prosperous and secure world not by demeaning others, but by asking them to join in creating a secure and affluent future for all. A feat that can only be accomplished by nations working together.

Make no mistake, changing the dynamics of the global propensity toward fear and mistrust will take time. Further, altering embedded systems that have been around for centuries is no easy task.

Read more »

President Obama didn't disappoint all those in the Middle East and America who care about enlightened progress. He continued with his relentless push to end Israeli settlement activity and he spoke as an American leader reaching out to the Arab world that can be, to a Middle East that can be.

As one of Israel's Knesset members, Haim Oron of Meretz, put it: "The speech was the feat of enlightenment." For Israel, this is precisely the choice--will it be a country of the 21st century or a country of the shtetl?

Read more »

Myself I was impressed by Obama's offering himself to the Muslim world as a leader, the supple use of the Koran and of Islamic teaching, the embrace of his own Muslim background, and the willingness to dive into women's freedom. The students here were wild for him on this basis too, many of them say the speech was "amazing," a word I heard again and again from them. Several have told me how moved they were by his appreciation for Islamic prophets.

Read more »

Mission accomplished. For the first time in memory, an American President spoke to Muslims and Arabs not as antagonists who need to take certain actions before achieving US acceptance but as equals. Not only did the speech specifically reject western (and American) colonialism, its entire tone was the antithesis of colonial. This is a profoundly different American voice, one that will do much to advance American goals rather than to sabotage them.

Arab leaders who were listening to this speech might want to consider a similar speech of their own to their people. That is not going to happen. But they have to realize that this speech will significantly raise expectations among their own people. This is the kind of speech they have never heard before, and they will expect something like it, but from their own potentates next time.

The President conveyed eight distinct messages.

Read more »

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." President Obama could hardly improve on this line, from his inaugural address, during his forthcoming much-heralded major speech to the Muslim world on June 4th. Better yet, he has already further reinforced this position when he announced--after an extensive strategic review--that the United States' goal in Afghanistan was "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda," full stop. To further this message, we have outlined here points we hope the President will include in his scheduled speech.

Read more »

Peniel Joseph's insightful post last week on equality smartly notes that on January 20th, "the very aesthetics of American democracy changed, both symbolically and substantively, through the ascension of a black man to the nation's highest office." It is the power of that image, and that ideal, that infused the week of inaugural activities from President Obama's address, to the first dance at each inaugural ball to the signing of each new executive order. This was a moment that much of America saw itself reflected back to itself from its leaders, a break from a history of white, primarily Protestant, Brahmin men, a triumph of meritocracy as well as the civil rights movement and perhaps the biggest push towards embracing a nation-wide movement of service to volunteerism in our history. A government by the people and for the people was finally of the people.

And yet amidst those cautious words of hope, I couldn't help but think of the continued economic, social, and tax marginalization of a group of Americans who were cast aside - particularly by this election and the presidential one before it. If we are to address community and equality in the Obama era, the legacy of this election's homophobic statewide ballot initiatives must be redressed through both legislative means and the President's bully pulpit. In the glow of our embryonic racial stabilization, it seems almost churlish to mention, and yet to not do so would be to undermine our communal path towards equality.

Read more »

There's little I disagree with in Michael Waldman's post or in his article on democracy for Democracy, and yet if it were a box of ideas, I would be unable to resist the temptation to dump it out and repack it differently.

The article brought to mind a concept one often hears in discussions of education or community development: We tend to focus on deficits - children's behavior problems or a community's problems with crime or poverty - and instead we should look for the child's or the community's strengths and build on those strengths.

It's a cliché in other fields, but the concept hasn't penetrated our discussions of democracy and the political process. The standard paradigm for talking about American democracy still always follows the deficit model: Identify a bunch of problems - big money, low participation, obstacles to voting -- and a set of procedural solutions to fix each one. The result is a list of reforms as long as your arm, not one of which is inspiring or has enough of an enthusiastic constituency to move it forward. For the last ten years, I've sat through countless meetings where democracy-reform activists insist that people "should" be more interested in these issues and then argue among themselves about which of the dozen or more complex, bloodless, over-hyped process reforms should be given priority, when and if the masses actually become interested.

Read more »

I just want to add a couple of points to the discussion on opportunity, one relating to progressives' tendency to get distracted by inequality when thinking about opportunity, and one relating to the evidence that is brought to bear when assessing how much opportunity there is.

When most progressives think of opportunity, they have in mind something like Amartya Sen's concept of capability - the chance to pursue whatever personal aims a person holds dear. As numerous political philosophers have recognized, there must be limits to what individuals can legitimately claim from their fellow citizens in pursuit of their aims. For instance, no amount of money might suffice to give the severely disabled "equal" opportunity. And I would expect that asking you all to subsidize me so I can go to Paris with my girlfriend would go over like flatulence in church. Nevertheless, the basic progressive conceptualization of opportunity is much less muddled than the idea among some conservatives that so long as there is a chance--any chance--at success in life, then there is equal opportunity.

Read more »

It's hard to disagree with much of Michael Waldman's lovely post. It is inviting at the level of principle (who, after all, is against creating a robust participatory democracy?). And he's right at the level of practice - matching funds and universal voter registration are entirely sensible policy proposals What Waldman doesn't say, however, is precisely why the proposals he offers will lead more people to engage with politics, and the why is far less idealistic than the happy notions of grassroots organizing and civic engagement that typically spring to the mind of progressives when they think about election reform. Political elites (parties, campaign organizations, political professionals, and candidates - all of the actors that progressives tend to disdain) are all but essential for generating the type of participatory energy and engagement that Waldman seeks.

Read more »

Theda Skocpol rightly draws attention to President Obama's focus in his inaugural address on promoting more broadly shared prosperity: "The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity," he said.

Indeed, to date, too many Americans have failed to benefit from our nation's economic growth. Between 1947 and 1973, productivity and real median family income both grew by 2.8 percent a year. Since 1973, however, productivity has grown by 1.8 percent a year while real median family income has risen by less than half of that. The disconnect between aggregate economic growth and the income of typical families is accompanied by a large increase in inequality. Since 1979 the share of income going to the top 1 percent has risen by 8 percentage points while the share of income going to the bottom 80 percent has fallen by the same amount. The problem has been particularly acute in recent years, with the gains of economic growth accruing largely to those at the very top; the tax cuts enacted since 2001 have reinforced this long-term trend, increasing after-tax incomes for high-income families substantially more than for the rest.

Read more »

President Barack Obama's inaugural address may well be remembered as one of the rare moments in history where substance matched symbolism. On January 20, 2009 the very aesthetics of American democracy changed, both symbolically and substantively, through the acension of a black man to the nation's highest office.

Read more »

I admire Michael Waldman's idealism in matters of campaign finance, for I have long since given up any real hope for reform in that thicket. Given the pre-eminence of the First Amendment, most proposed reforms won't work. Given the clever minds attracted to the highest levels of politics, most regulations are soon circumvented. The combination of these givens is toxic to finance reform.

But Waldman is absolutely correct about voter registration, though he leaves out the essential companion to his idea. In my own book, A More Perfect Constitution, I proposed that registration be automatic for Americans--a legitimate function of the state, just as it is in most European democracies. Opposition to this proposal is based almost entirely on a fear of popular will. That is incompatible with democracy, but it is based on a legitimate recognition that most Americans simply don't understand the issues or the system. There is no question that ignorance on civic matters is widespread; a thousand studies prove it. But the solution is not to place barriers in the way of broader civic participation. Rather, the answer is to dramatically improve the quantity and quality of civic education in our schools, from kindergarten through college. Nothing will invigorate a representative democracy more than a combination of civic knowledge and voter participation. The two goals go hand in hand, and both must be strengthened and broadened simultaneously.

I don't know about you, but I'm still glowing. The sight of Barack Obama, standing tall, taking the oath - cheered by one, heck, two million flag waving Americans, was an epochal affirmation of democracy. The Mall seemed a Walt Whitman poem come to life. It would be easy for our minds to follow our hearts, and assume that American democracy is in robust health.

So what's the worry about American democracy? Isn't the fact of Obama's election proof enough that the system works? And aren't there more pressing matters to occupy our attention?

Read more »

Theda Skocpol, as always, makes a compelling case for reweaving the social contract. But one crucial ingredient is missing in her list: organized labor. One of the greatest accomplishments of the New Deal was the National Labor Relations Act, which dramatically transformed the fortunes of working Americans. In 1950, more than one third of working Americans belonged to unions. Wages rose, work grew more secure, and the gap between the wealthy and the working class narrowed. The benefits of unionization provided an economic boost for most workers--even those in nonunionized industries. For a few decades in the mid-twentieth century, it was possible to hold a blue-collar job, live modestly but comfortably, and save for the purchase of a home and even a college education. Unionization made possible the emergence of a broad middle class in the United States.

Those days are gone. Today only a little more than seven percent of private-sector workers belong to unions. Nonunionized blue-collar and pink collar jobs are notoriously insecure. Many service sector jobs don't pay enough to lift workers out of poverty.

Read more »

There's a paradox at the heart of Obama's new presidency. I think it's one he recognizes, but, like most problems, recognizing it alone does not solve it.

The problem is a puzzle of power, and it is not just a technical one.

Much of the discussion of President Obama's rhetoric rightly praises him for finding a way to describe an imaginable, collective public -- a community. In Obama's America a self-conscious community works together to describe and then realize our public good. But that works only if representative government works. I would argue that President Obama, in his language as well as actions, also needs to help recreate Congress as the focal point of political power.

Read more »

I see that the early commenters on Jed's thoughtful and stimulating contribution seem a little suspicious of this whole community business. They raise fair points that those of us who are, to put it crudely, "pro-community" have to grapple with, because their comments reflect the age-old tension between the community and the individual - or between the larger national community, presumed to be an attempt to shoehorn all Americans into one category, however uncomfortable the fit, and the smaller, more self-selecting affinity groups whom Jed identifies, citing the work of Bill Bishop and others. This tension in turn reflects the vitally important question, for liberals, of how we best accomplish progressive goals - under the banner of the national community or of smaller discreet ones.

History teaches two different lessons here, both legitimate. There were times - the Great Depression and World War II most obviously - when we acted as a national community, or something close to it, in accomplishing great goals. But we ("we" weren't alive, but our forbears) learned later that that community wasn't as inclusive as Life magazine assumed it to be; it left lots of people out. Thus began the work of including those people and groups in the larger project. Here, the community often fractured. Significant portions of it opposed the work with literal violence. The civil rights movement, I would submit, was both things at different moments - at times a great communal effort that succeeded in part because millions who weren't directly affected by Jim Crow were able to see their own self-interest as bound up in the interest of those who were directly affected, and at other times a more particularist effort to secure individual and group rights.

Read more »

Without taking anything away from the authors of the other Democracy pieces, I want to especially recommend Jed Purdy's essay to anyone who has yet to read it. It concisely applies Tocqueville's observations on the paradoxical American brand of libertarian communitarianism to our post-materialist era, in which even fellow-feeling is steered in the service of self-fulfillment and -actualization. It's one of the most insightful reflections on American values that I can remember reading.

BUT....no, actually there's no but--it's just a great piece.

Read more »

I always learn so much from reading what Aziz Rana writes, and I'm grateful for his taking the trouble to join this conversation. The bottom line is that I agree with him: for Obama's language to turn into a real, concrete, and lasting version of national community, he's going to have to put on the line just what it means for us to take responsibility for one another. And although it may well be that more Republicans, more evangelicals, and more businesspeople will get behind, say, universal health care when Obama explains it than would have for a Clinton (this has been my hope since the start of the primaries), there's no question but that some oxen are going to get gored. (Everyone knows you can't make an omelet without goring some oxen - the bloodstained wisdom of a rural youth.) As Aziz says, we can't achieve a new social compact otherwise. At the very best, we can hope that Obama's politics of unity, and the still-ecstatic movement behind it, help to distinguish between two kinds of division: the dispensable kind, sown by tactical politicians or inherited from someone else's fight, and the (for now) indispensable kind, based in real disagreement about the good society or obdurate conflicts over wealth and power. The intense response to Obama's candidacy and the beginning of his presidency highlights how strong is the appetite to get past that first kind of division, and what a gorgeous relief it is to feel that (some of us, more of us than before) are just all Americans, together. With any luck, that will give progressives more confidence in engaging the second kind of division, and maybe even give everyone a stronger basis of commonality in coalescing around whatever arrangements come out of that struggle. I feel pretty sure there will be struggle, and some kind of unity after it.

Read more »

Jedediah Purdy's eloquent and careful examination of Obama's inaugural language and potential vision of community captures two critical points about the current moment. First, he underscores how Obama's election suggests a dramatic generational shift in American politics. As the camera panned to both the Clintons and the Bushes, one could not help but feel that power had been wrested finally (although perhaps impermanently) from the preceding decades' dynastic power struggles and cultural framings. Even more importantly, Purdy explores an ideal of national unity at the heart of Obama's appeal. This vision carries with it a sense that all Americans enjoy a "common fate," one capable of replacing our "balkanized communities" with "shared effort" and commitment. In my mind, the most moving element of yesterday's pageantry was the sea of people of all ages, creeds, and colors celebrating jointly in the possibility of a new American order.

Read more »

Although some have pooh-poohed Obama's Inaugural Address, it rewards thoughtful rereading of its central message and resonate passages. One powerful part speaks to today's TPM/Democracy discussion about Opportunity.

Having acknowledged the power of market capitalism to generate wealth and expand freedom, just-minted President Obama reminded us that socially regulated markets are necessary because "... a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."

Read more »