"A Nation Divided, Sports United" ~ The Equality & Other Issues Thread

[claycarver]

Five Thirty Eight uses popularity ratings to roughly rank Obama around 12 while historical scholars have him ranked 15-18:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-will-obama-be-graded-by-history/

As canman1971 said, it's too early to have any idea where he will be ranked as his legacy unfolds. Recency bias is huge in ranking presidents among the general public. So if we think that range is too high or too low, that probably says more about us than it does about President Obama.

[165bows]

Claim: In an objective ranking of Presidents by their performance, Obama will likely end up borderline top 10, W Bush will be borderline bottom 5 and Trump will be solidly bottom 5.

I hated GW with a passion. Problem was Obama continued most of his worst policies. Massive surveillance, unlawful foreign wars, jailed journalists etc etc.

[Froob]

Claim: In an objective ranking of Presidents by their performance, Obama will likely end up borderline top 10, W Bush will be borderline bottom 5 and Trump will be solidly bottom 5.

I hated GW with a passion. Problem was Obama continued most of his worst policies. Massive surveillance, unlawful foreign wars, jailed journalists etc etc.

It's a shame there was no competitive candidate that was against these things. All the ones that were against them were either buried by their own party or destroyed by the media. Obama did a fairly good job, but I can't say I loved the guy because of those big problems (the journalist one I'm not familiar with though). Makes you wonder if it even matters who is president when it comes to those issues.

[OBisHalJordan]

Claim: In an objective ranking of Presidents by their performance, Obama will likely end up borderline top 10, W Bush will be borderline bottom 5 and Trump will be solidly bottom 5.

I hated GW with a passion. Problem was Obama continued most of his worst policies. Massive surveillance, unlawful foreign wars, jailed journalists etc etc.

It's not a about president as individuals. Its the periods in which they lived, the relative power and wealth of the US, and general organization of society. Nixon was "more liberal" than any president that came after him. Eisenhower was much more a "socialist" than Obama ever was.

US power peaked in 1968. The 1990s were the "belle epoque," the autumn before winter. They were to the US as the 1920s was to the UK. GW Bush was the over extension of US power. Obama was basically extension of the Clinton or HW Bush administration, an attempt to return us to Post-Reagan "business as usual." Trump is symptom of the terminal decline of US power.

Also the only presidents who weren't total scoundrels were Lincoln, Grant, and FDR.

[Captain_Caveman]

Claim: In an objective ranking of Presidents by their performance, Obama will likely end up borderline top 10, W Bush will be borderline bottom 5 and Trump will be solidly bottom 5.

I hated GW with a passion. Problem was Obama continued most of his worst policies. Massive surveillance, unlawful foreign wars, jailed journalists etc etc.

I'd argue that Obama's term was defined by a massive drawdown in military activity, perhaps even too much so in Iraq. The drone bombing draws scorn, but was highly effective with a small footprint and relatively little collateral damage. Probably would not have been necessary had our ostensible ally in Pakistan not been sheltering Al-Qaeda terrorists like OBL.

As to the surveillance, it is a difficult question. The point is to save lives, and it almost certainly did on a fairly large-scale. Each of us also willingly gives up more privacy to private companies every second of every day.

I'm not getting the journalist comment.

[Captain_Caveman]

Claim: In an objective ranking of Presidents by their performance, Obama will likely end up borderline top 10, W Bush will be borderline bottom 5 and Trump will be solidly bottom 5.

I hated GW with a passion. Problem was Obama continued most of his worst policies. Massive surveillance, unlawful foreign wars, jailed journalists etc etc.

It's not a about president as individuals. Its the periods in which they lived, the relative power and wealth of the US, and general organization of society. Nixon was "more liberal" than any president that came after him. Eisenhower was much more a "socialist" than Obama ever was.

US power peaked in 1968. The 1990s were the "belle epoque," the autumn before winter. They were to the US as the 1920s was to the UK. GW Bush was the over extension of US power. Obama was basically extension of the Clinton or HW Bush administration, an attempt to return us to Post-Reagan "business as usual." Trump is symptom of the terminal decline of US power.

Also the only presidents who weren't total scoundrels were Lincoln, Grant, and FDR.

Good post, although I don't see how people like GHWB, Obama, Truman or Carter can be referred to as scoundrels.

As to our decline, I would just point to the UK. They were once the pre-eminent global power during the century of Pax Britannica that predated WW1. Their power has been in a steady "decline" since then, but their quality of life is currently the highest in human history.

The truth of our decline is much less threatening than many demagogues like Trump would make it appear.

[SmartWentCrazy]

What is your opinion of Obama on Syria, curiously?

[Curmudgeon]

Trump's presidency is the last gasp of white supremacy-- not just the extreme racists and neonazis, but the white middle class who feel that their whiteness should have entitled them to a better life than they have.

Decline of American power? It's all in the hands of the voters. Keep electing Trumps, and we will find ourselves increasingly isolated from the rest of the world. The foundation of American power was never military might or nuclear weapons. The foundation was the system of relationships that the U.S. built after WWII: NATO and other alliances in the military sphere, and other important relationships in the economic sphere, including trade relationships with Europe, Japan, SE Asia and China. Trump is doing his best to dismantle and weaken these relationships, to the great delight of Vladimir Putin.

[Captain_Caveman]

What is your opinion of Obama on Syria, curiously?

I agree with Thomas Friedman that Syria is the "problem from hell", with roots going back thousands of years.

But my big question on Syria is how W Bush ducks blame there? He was the one primarily responsible for destabilizing the region when he preemptively invaded a country that had never done anything to us over a WMD capability that they didn't have. One can argue that Obama drew down too much too soon in Iraq, which exacerbated the problem, but realistically, you have to get pretty acrobatic to make it about him. In the big picture, he did extremely well to clean up W's messes at home and abroad.

Also... in historical terms, things like Syria and Benghazi won't even qualify as footnotes wrt Obama's performance. They are small issues that were made to seem big by his political opponents who had to try to land blows on him however they could.

[Froob]

What is your opinion of Obama on Syria, curiously?

I agree with Thomas Friedman that Syria is the "problem from hell", with roots going back thousands of years.

But my big question on Syria is how W Bush ducks blame there? He was the one primarily responsible for destabilizing the region when he preemptively invaded a country that had never done anything to us over a WMD capability that they didn't have. One can argue that Obama drew down too much too soon in Iraq, which exacerbated the problem, but realistically, you have to get pretty acrobatic to make it about him. In the big picture, he did extremely well to clean up W's messes at home and abroad.

Also... in historical terms, things like Syria and Benghazi won't even qualify as footnotes wrt Obama's performance. They are small issues that were made to seem big by his political opponents who had to try to land blows on him however they could.

What about Libya though? Seems like we continue to make the same mistakes with regime change over and over again and then when another country does the same to us we get all upset. Kinda hard for us to bitch about Russian interference considering what the US has done since 9/11. We openly spent tax payers money to interfere with Israel elections (I believe it was Israel). Just give up on the middle east and spend that money on us instead. That huge DOD bill increase should have been spent on healthcare and/or education.

[OBisHalJordan]

I hated GW with a passion. Problem was Obama continued most of his worst policies. Massive surveillance, unlawful foreign wars, jailed journalists etc etc.

It's not a about president as individuals. Its the periods in which they lived, the relative power and wealth of the US, and general organization of society. Nixon was "more liberal" than any president that came after him. Eisenhower was much more a "socialist" than Obama ever was.

US power peaked in 1968. The 1990s were the "belle epoque," the autumn before winter. They were to the US as the 1920s was to the UK. GW Bush was the over extension of US power. Obama was basically extension of the Clinton or HW Bush administration, an attempt to return us to Post-Reagan "business as usual." Trump is symptom of the terminal decline of US power.

Also the only presidents who weren't total scoundrels were Lincoln, Grant, and FDR.

Good post, although I don't see how people like GHWB, Obama, Truman or Carter can be referred to as scoundrels.

As to our decline, I would just point to the UK. They were once the pre-eminent global power during the century of Pax Britannica that predated WW1. Their power has been in a steady "decline" since then, but their quality of life is currently the highest in human history.

The truth of our decline is much less threatening than many demagogues like Trump would make it appear.

The decline of US power doesn't mean that where going to transform into Haiti overnight or something. It means US is less able to lead "the world economy" and interstate system," whether by force or moral leadership. Since WWII, the "world order" been built around US power. The relative decline of the US means the chaotic transformation of the world.

Its on this basis that the comparison is made with the UK. From the end of the Napoleonic Wars to WWI, UK centered world order. From WWII the present, the US centered world order. The Great Recession is probably the beginning of the end for the US. Just like the 1931 collapse of the pound was the end for Britain. UK's position in a US-centered world order was pretty sweet. It's unclear what the US position will be in a what ever new global order may emerge.

Those presidents you mention might be scoundrels but none of them are really worth any kind of praise. Many did pretty terrible things.

Truman saw the creation of the national security state, i.e. the beginning of mass surveillance and increasingly powerful military ready for adventures like the War on Terror. He also failed complete the New Deal. Check out what FDR proposed as the workers bill of rights in his fourth inaugural address. Truman also conducted ideological purges of government (loyalty oaths). He was a tool who made disastrous policy choices that are still **** us over.

GHWB is ultimate manager. Probably the most cautious president in the forty years. Reagan had just smashed the welfare state that every administration form FDR to Carter had built and preserved. HW kept with the same bull policies--free trade, tough on crime and building prisons, and corporate deregulation--but the Reagan Revolution had just come and gone and established a "new normal." HW was just coasting in that wake. People think he was a good president because he was boring and uncontroversial. He did prosecute a lot of people for savings and loans 9unlike Obama with the more significant Great Recession).

Carter is just an failure at reform. In the end, he capitulated to his opposition. The policy shifts we associated with Reagan begin with Carter, chief among them being the Volker Shock (the rapid rise on interest rates, which put squeeze on unions and public sector). His failure gave made Reagan possible. Second most disappointing president of post-Nixon period.

Obama is just black HW but, instead of being boring and cautious, he was charismatic and cautious. Another soulless manager, not a visionary. His signature accomplishment was a Republican idea. Obama is particularly disappointing because he could have had an FDR or Reagan like impact on American politics where he set a durable policy consensus that shapes a generation. He didn't because he believes in nothing and just gave us same old Clintonite third way BS. If Obama actually was a socialist, even a soft ass one like Bernie, he would've been something closer to the transformative president many want make him out as. His failure to bring meaningful reform made Trump possible. Most disappointing president of post-Nixon period without question.

[Captain_Caveman]

It's not a about president as individuals. Its the periods in which they lived, the relative power and wealth of the US, and general organization of society. Nixon was "more liberal" than any president that came after him. Eisenhower was much more a "socialist" than Obama ever was.

US power peaked in 1968. The 1990s were the "belle epoque," the autumn before winter. They were to the US as the 1920s was to the UK. GW Bush was the over extension of US power. Obama was basically extension of the Clinton or HW Bush administration, an attempt to return us to Post-Reagan "business as usual." Trump is symptom of the terminal decline of US power.

Also the only presidents who weren't total scoundrels were Lincoln, Grant, and FDR.

Good post, although I don't see how people like GHWB, Obama, Truman or Carter can be referred to as scoundrels.

As to our decline, I would just point to the UK. They were once the pre-eminent global power during the century of Pax Britannica that predated WW1. Their power has been in a steady "decline" since then, but their quality of life is currently the highest in human history.

The truth of our decline is much less threatening than many demagogues like Trump would make it appear.

The decline of US power doesn't mean that where going to transform into Haiti overnight or something. It means US is less able to lead "the world economy" and interstate system," whether by force or moral leadership. Since WWII, the "world order" been built around US power. The relative decline of the US means the chaotic transformation of the world.

Its on this basis that the comparison is made with the UK. From the end of the Napoleonic Wars to WWI, UK centered world order. From WWII the present, the US centered world order. The Great Recession is probably the beginning of the end for the US. Just like the 1931 collapse of the pound was the end for Britain. UK's position in a US-centered world order was pretty sweet. It's unclear what the US position will be in a what ever new global order may emerge.

Those presidents you mention might be scoundrels but none of them are really worth any kind of praise. Many did pretty terrible things.

Truman saw the creation of the national security state, i.e. the beginning of mass surveillance and increasingly powerful military ready for adventures like the War on Terror. He also failed complete the New Deal. Check out what FDR proposed as the workers bill of rights in his fourth inaugural address. Truman also conducted ideological purges of government (loyalty oaths). He was a tool who made disastrous policy choices that are still **** us over.

GHWB is ultimate manager. Probably the most cautious president in the forty years. Reagan had just smashed the welfare state that every administration form FDR to Carter had built and preserved. HW kept with the same bull policies--free trade, tough on crime and building prisons, and corporate deregulation--but the Reagan Revolution had just come and gone and established a "new normal." HW was just coasting in that wake. People think he was a good president because he was boring and uncontroversial. He did prosecute a lot of people for savings and loans 9unlike Obama with the more significant Great Recession).

Carter is just an failure at reform. In the end, he capitulated to his opposition. The policy shifts we associated with Reagan begin with Carter, chief among them being the Volker Shock (the rapid rise on interest rates, which put squeeze on unions and public sector). His failure gave made Reagan possible. Second most disappointing president of post-Nixon period.

Obama is just black HW but, instead of being boring and cautious, he was charismatic and cautious. Another soulless manager, not a visionary. His signature accomplishment was a Republican idea. Obama is particularly disappointing because he could have had an FDR or Reagan like impact on American politics where he set a durable policy consensus that shapes a generation. He didn't because he believes in nothing and just gave us same old Clintonite third way BS. If Obama actually was a socialist, even a soft ass one like Bernie, he would've been something closer to the transformative president many want make him out as. His failure to bring meaningful reform made Trump possible. Most disappointing president of post-Nixon period without question.

I feel like even as we inevitably decline, we will still be the preeminent power. Who exactly is on the verge of overtaking us? Power will be more shared among several countries, but that should have always been the case anyways IMO. It was really just an anomaly of historical events that made us such an unprecedented and unparalleled power in the first place.

I think your reads on the Presidents listed are something of a harsh read, for the most part. Truman was trying to reshape the world in the wake of the horrors of WW2. I give a lot of leeway there. GHWB, Carter and Obama lacked the agency that you seem to attribute to them IMO. Carter was ineffective, but don't see making the leap to "scoundrel". And there is zero chance whatsoever that Obama or anyone else could have enacted a more socialist agenda. Not even possible to get elected with a Bernie platform, at least until it all goes wrong. I kinda think that is the wrong lesson to take from the opposition that Obama faced, that he didn't go far enough.

Obama and the Clintons went third way so they didn't have to sit on the back bench with their thumbs up their asses. They would have loved to be transformational liberal Presidents if circumstances had allowed it, but had to play the game. They'd have been trounced by people like Romney had they not run to win the middle ground.

[ryaningf]

What is your opinion of Obama on Syria, curiously?

As Cave alluded to, there's a lot of backstory/context to understand in Syria. This documentary is probably the best thing you'll find explaining a good chunk of it:

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

[OBisHalJordan]

What is your opinion of Obama on Syria, curiously?

As Cave alluded to, there's a lot of backstory/context to understand in Syria. This documentary is probably the best thing you'll find explaining a good chunk of it:

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Adam Curtis on realgm!

[Leprechaun18]

I thought peeps were gonna keep politics off the board.

[Bostondave]

I like some politics. I don't see how the NBA can keep kneeling out. Even if it's in the bylaws. What're they going to do about it? I think the solution is to just do away with the anthem.

[Curmudgeon]

I'd like to see the anthem played before every mass shooting, because they're as American as apple pie.

[Andrew McCeltic]

I thought peeps were gonna keep politics off the board.

They gave us a thread - it’s been mostly civil.

[Andrew McCeltic]

A positive moment we can all relate to, probably..

Read on Twitter

[poopship]

Not playing the anthem would deprive sports of it's symbolic nation-building purpose leaving americans with just a fun game.