"The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama (Review: Part 1)

I became interested in the senator after his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention and have become a bit of a fan since seeing a number of speeches and interviews, including his appearance on the Jon Stewart show. That's when I first got a look at Obama’s laid-back humour, something that appealed to my Australian-grown sensibilities.

It is true, I have weakness for funny. My other favourite candidate was Mike Huckabee, despite disagreeing with him on almost every issue. I am actually somewhat grateful that the current crop Australian politicians are completely devoid of any such sense of humour, or I might have to refrain from voting. We can't risk voting for a guy who wants teach creationism now can we?

Of course it also helps that my political views align very well with Obama’s and that I find him refreshingly candid about his positions. And whatever side of politics you are on, I think the following is a safe call to make: the elite list of orators that one can compare Obama to is a rather small list indeed.

Since 2004 we have been given ample evidence of Obama's skill with rhetoric. There was that commencement address for SNHU in which he asked graduates to broaden their 'ambit of concern'. Then I read 'Call to Renewal' a deeply empathetic speech on faith, recently brought to deserved prominence by a woefully misguided attack from James Dobson. Then came a slew of remarkable speeches during the democratic primary, beginning with that Iowa victory speech, in which he celebrated the nation 'coming together under a common purpose'. That was followed by the 'Yes We Can' speech in Nashua, the cadence and rhythm of which inspired Will.I.Am and others to sample it in their musical tribute to the candidate. There was also his Victory speech in South Carolina, where a tough defiance came through in response to the Clinton antics during that rough and dirty primary battle.

Then there was the gem of the lot; 'A More Perfect Union'. It was a difficult speech on race, given when the campaign was faltering with the Wright controversy. I along with most others was definitely expecting Obama to come out with his A game. I was expecting soaring, optimistic and beautiful. I was expecting another moving and inspiring tribute to ‘all of us working towards common dreams’ etc, etc…

Instead, what we heard was something unexpected. The speech he ended up giving was stripped of the rising cadence that Obama had become famous for. It was bare and matter-of-fact. It was respectful and empathetic. Most of all it showed a deep understanding of the painful and tortured elements of an issue that was not going to go away any time soon. What was always going to be an amazing speech turned out to be a historical one.

I'd read Dreams of My Father when he had just started out on the presidential campaign. Hillary was on around 40 points in the national polls. But I believed my most trusted political analyst (look at the date on that post) when he said it was going to be close. I read the memoir as a show of support. It was same logic that keeps me up at night when Arsenal loses a match that I failed to see.

As modern literary work on race and identity it is impressive. The guy can definitely write. There were your eloquent literary flourishes and artistic licenses but the book displayed a rare sense of self-awareness, almost to the point of being annoying. It was a memoir written when he was 30 and before his adventures into the political limelight.

I knew I couldn't expect that same candid inward-looking thought processes in his next book, and that is more or less the case. But not unfortunately so. The image that he portrays of himself is clean and careful, and the book revolves around policy and government more so than his own failings and struggles. Revealing personal truths as those found in Dreams of My Father are comparatively scarce. However, it is still a great insight into how the man thinks on the issues, and his overarching philosophical framework and his understanding of the idea of America. In comparison to the guarded and inscrutable faces of most of those in similar public positions, this book is indeed informative for those who want to come to a decision about the candidate.

The media furor over the New Yorker cartoon seemed rather ludicrous to me, especially after reading this. How can anyone mistake him for being unpatriotic? In his two books, and over all of his speeches, lies an underlying theme that reflects his deep affinity with the American ideal. It is almost as if his personal destiny is inextricably linked to the founding documents and the twists and turns in the American experiment. More so than his Christian faith, I feel that it is this that holds up and motivates the man's moral framework.

This is most evident when it is not explicitly stated, but rather when they are weaved through his descriptions of Capitol Hill, the White House, his meeting with elder senators like Robert Byrd and in his long discussion of the Constitution and the tension and compromise between the various ideals that it demands from the country. However he does come close to stating as such explicitly, in the opening of the chapter on values:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Those simple words are our starting point as Americans; they describe not only the foundation of our government but the substance of our common creed. Not every American may be able to recite them; few, if asked, could trace the genesis of the Declaration of Independence to its roots in eighteenth-century liberal and republican thought. But the essential idea behind the Declaration—that we are born into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will—is one that every American understands. It orients us, sets our course, each and every day.

What follows is an excursion on the continual difficulty of finding the right balance between competing values. He speaks of historical compromises and concludes with the ones dominating the news today. The compromise between civil liberties and national security, and the dual needs of those blue collar workers whose manufacturing jobs are getting shipped overseas and the needs of the economy to remain competitive. His earnest appeal seems to be the need to show an understanding of where the opposition is coming from and to acknowledge that they were all working for same thing.

From there Obama resumes his observations of the politics as it stands today. The central theme of this book, and particularly the first six chapters, is the "troubling gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics." He doesn't rail against it in the normal hackneyed manner but rather makes an almost exhaustive analysis of why things are the way they are, without assigning blame on any one party. He speaks of the spiraling cycle of vitriol and misrepresentations that seem to swallow up even the most genuine policy makers. His explanation for the political discourse is so compelling that you wonder if there really is any hope of changing this state of affairs, but he then has this to say:

Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there’s no escaping our great political divide, an endless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Or maybe the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most people see it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch-bellied gladiators and those who bother to pay attention just fans on the sidelines: We paint our faces red or blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or cheap shot to beat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters.

But I don’t think so. They are out there, I think to myself, those ordinary citizens who have grown up in the midst of all the political and cultural battles, but who have found a way—in their own lives, at least—to make peace with their neighbors, and themselves. I imagine the white Southerner who growing up heard his dad talk about niggers this and niggers that but who has struck up a friendship with the black guys at the office and is trying to teach his own son different, who thinks discrimination is wrong but doesn't see why the son of a black doctor should get admitted into law school ahead of his own son. Or the former Black Panther who decided to go into real estate, bought a few buildings in the neighborhood, and is just as tired of the drug dealers in front of those buildings as he is of the bankers who won’t give him a loan to expand his business. There’s the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager’s abortion, and the millions of waitresses and temp secretaries and nurse’s assistants and Wal-Mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope that they’ll have enough money to support the children that they did bring into the world.

I imagine they are waiting for a politics with the maturity to balance idealism and realism, to distinguish between what can and cannot be compromised, to admit the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point. They don’t always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal, but they recognize the difference between dogma and common sense, responsibility and irresponsibility, between those things that last and those that are fleeting.

They are out there, waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them.

This is what Barack Obama is about, this is the value added in electing him to office. It's not about implementing a progressive agenda and it is not about sweeping revolution. His brand is not about liberalism. Those that had thought otherwise are those who had seen a reflection of their own values on a blank slate.

Obama is about compromise and finding common goals. He is an incrementalist and a very cautious one at that. And this is precisely the antidote that is needed after President Bush's resolute belief in his own rightness. We need someone who recognises that the choices before us are complicated and nuanced. Someone who understands that there is a possibility that their own views are wrong. However, after repeatedly calling for such tolerance of views he concludes his thoroughly fascinating chapter on the Constitution thus:

The best I can do in the face of our history is remind myself that it has not always been the pragmatist, the voice of reason, or the force of compromise, that has created the conditions for liberty. The hard, cold facts remind me that it was unbending idealists like William Lloyd Garrison who first sounded the clarion call for justice; that it was slaves and former slaves, men like Denmark Vesey and Frederick Douglass and women like Harriet Tubman, who recognized power would concede nothing without a fight. It was the wild-eyed prophecies of John Brown, his willingness to spill blood and not just words on behalf of his visions, that helped force the issue of a nation half slave and half free. I’m reminded that deliberation and the constitutional order may sometimes be the luxury of the powerful, and that it has sometimes been the cranks, the zealots, the prophets, the agitators, and the unreasonable—in other words, the absolutists—that have fought for a new order. Knowing this, I can’t summarily dismiss those possessed of similar certainty today—the antiabortion activist who pickets my town hall meeting, or the animal rights activist who raids a laboratory—no matter how deeply I disagree with their views. I am robbed even of the certainty of uncertainty—for sometimes absolute truths may well be absolute.

Those who are disappointed by his so called 'shift to the center' haven't been paying attention. They haven't read The Audacity of Hope. The whole book revolves around finding common ground and empathising with the other side. They've been employing some selectivity when listening to what he says.

He has always been respectful to the second amendment and gun owners. He has always shown difference to the anti-abortion movement. People should not be surprised by his support for faith-based initiatives nor his position on Iraq, both of which have been consistent throughout the campaign.

I think the FISA compromise and the refusal to accept public financing are legitimate causes of disagreement. FISA was not a 'capitulation' as some have been saying but it is a reversal of position. On the campaign finance issue, we need to step back and acknowledge how successful the RNC will be at accumulating funds and at carpeting the swing states with attack ads. It is understandable that Obama chose the option that leaves him with the highest amount of ammunition for a counter attack. However, the way in which he made that announcement was with your garden variety double-speak and he deserves to get some flak for being such a tool.

The storyline that he is abandoning those who carried him out of the primary is a very interesting one, and the media has jumped on it with gusto. Unfortunately, once that storyline gets repeated often enough, every decision a politician makes will be defined through that prism. Every time Obama speaks out on his more centrist views it will be interpreted cynically. Every time he says something about 'absent fathers' it is going to be 'sister soulja moment'. A common-sense statement about listening to the generals on the ground becomes 'flip floping'.

Developing a new storyline and gaining traction with a disinterested public takes effort. Although he has enjoyed favourable press till now, things are going to change. He is no longer the underdog. He will have to take McCain on in an even playing field as far as the media is concerned.

In the book he acknowledges that he has been "the beneficiary of unusually—and at times undeservedly—positive press coverage", before going on to speak about the mechanisms by which partisan talking points take a stranglehold on the discussion:

Every reporter in Washington is working under pressures imposed by editors and producers, who in turn are answering to publishers or network executives, who in turn are poring over last week’s ratings or last year’s circulation figures and trying to survive the growing preference for PlayStation and reality TV. To make the deadline, to maintain market share and feed the cable news beast, reporters start to move in packs, working off the same news releases, the same set pieces, the same stock figures. Meanwhile, for busy and therefore casual news consumers, a well-worn narrative is not entirely unwelcome. It makes few demands on our thought or time; it’s quick and easy to digest. Accepting spin is easier on everybody.

Tolkien and Racism

The charge of racism has been frequently levelled at Tolkien after the release of Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings. I have been involved in a lot of discussion with interested viewers and readers who are genuinely concerned with the perceived racial elements of Tolkien. The following FAQ was written about the time of the release of the Return of the King. After seeing the volume of accusatory material on net I thought it might be advisable to compile all the arguments into one single FAQ-style essay so as to save future effort and redundant recycling of arguments. As a biased fan and I may have missed a lot of points so I would appreciate any further arguments from either side.

There are no African, Indian, Japanese (…etc) humans in the story. Is Tolkien guilty of racism because of this?
The story was written as a mythology for Northern Europe and specifically England. Tolkien explicitly states his motivation in Letter #131:

I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country; it has no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, and Germanic, and Scandinavian, and Finnish; but nothing English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing.

This would explain why most human races in the story are 'white'. You wouldn’t expect to see a large number of Caucasians in an Indian, African or Chinese myth would you?

Another factor is that Tolkien had used Celtic and Teutonic myths and the myths of the Anglo-Saxons of pre-medieval England as inspiration for his story.

An internal answer would be that Middle Earth resembles the descriptions of the English countryside, the northern reaches of Scandinavia, Ireland and Scotland therefore it would damage the authenticity of this geographical setting if races from other parts of the world inhabited these lands.

As a testament to how inclusive he was it may be worthwhile (even if it is irrelevant) to mention that he had considered non-European societies when constructing some of his cultures. Evidence of this can be found in Letter #211 where Tolkien compared several significant aspects of the society of Gondor to that of ancient Egypt.

Why was he so concerned about England and Northern Europe over other parts of the world? Isn’t he overly preoccupied with Nordic regions?
Personally I think this question is counter-intuitive but I have heard it being asked in earnestness many times so I will answer it using the following quote from Letter #294:

Auden has asserted that for me ‘the North is a sacred direction’. That is not true. The North-west of Europe, where I (and most of my ancestors) have lived, has my affection, as a man’s home should.

He also takes offence at the use of the word ‘Nordic’ as "a word I personally dislike; it is associated with racialist theories". And in any case,

the action of the story takes place in the North-west of 'Middle-earth', equivalent in latitude to the coastlands of Europe and the north shores of the Mediterranean. But this is not a purely 'Nordic' area in any sense. If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be at about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy.

Orcs are black and Elves are white. Isn’t this showing that 'black' represents evil and 'white' represents good?
Yes; but I don’t believe this to be racial distinction. Almost all mythology and imaginative stories in human history, whatever culture or society, have made the association of 'Darkness' to Evil and 'Light' to Good. This should not be mistaken for distinction based on colour of skin.

The sun is the primary source of energy for all living things. Humans are diurnal creatures and have always been afraid of the night. Thus it is not very hard to see why light and darkness have created these associations in our historical psyche.

The reasons are obvious as Tolkien states in Letter #131; "Light is such a primeval symbol in the nature of the Universe, that it can hardly be analysed".

Orcs are bad, Elves are noble, Dwarves are selfish and greedy. Doesn’t this mean that character traits are predetermined by race?
It is important to remember that Orcs, Elves and Dwarves are completely different species, not different races of humans. It’s a bit like comparing a domesticated dog to a tiger in the wild. In fact orcs aren’t really even ‘natural’ beings, but were actually manufactured by the Enemy.

How about the different classes of Humans that are defined by their blood and ancestry? In the Gondorian society why are the men of Numenorean decent considered nobler than men of mixed blood?
This is probably the question that has the least satisfactory answer. During Tolkien’s time there was a commonly held conception in his society that blood carried a set of rights with it. Even in this day the British (and many other societies) have a monarch and an aristocracy. This is really more to do with the right of material inheritance rather than the qualities inherent in blood.

We can find a more plausible answer in the story of the Edain, ancestors of Numenoreans, who "alone of the kindred of men fought for the Valar (gods), whereas many others fought for Morgoth." and for this they were rewarded with "wisdom and power and life more enduring than any other of the mortal race have possessed" (from the Akallabeth). I think all three characteristics were not just 'learnt' but were permanently endowed in their biology, to be passed on to their heirs. In addition to this the descendants of Elros further enriched the Numenorean blood. (Elros being the Elf who chose to be a human, one of only two Elves to be given that choice.)

Even given these gifts we know that the Numenoreans commit grievous crimes, eventually resulting in great catastrophe. The damage that they caused due to their arrogance and thirst for power was far greater than any other that Humans or Elves have caused since.

Ok then let us look at the different races of humans, the Haradrim and the Easterlings were described as swarthy and squint-eyed. Tolkien mentioned in the Two Towers that "they were ever ready to His (Sauron’s) will". Doesn’t that imply that they are racially predisposed to evil?
That statement was made by the character Damrod, a Ranger of Ithilien, and thus you must take into account his biased view towards his country’s historical enemies.

It is true that at the time of the War of the Ring, the Haradrim and the Easterlings were allied with the Enemy, but this was not always so. During Nirnaeth Arnoediad, Bór, the Chieftain of the Men from the East allied himself and many of his people with the Sons of Feanor against the forces of Morgoth.

We also have to consider their particular geographic position. The men of the West have access to the knowledge and experience of the Elves and Numenoreans, who have had extensive prior dealings with Morgoth and Sauron. The Southrons and Easterlings on the other hand are left to fend for themselves without such information.

It may also be true that the men of the West are more technologically advanced than those in the south and the east, because they had extensive connections with Numenor in it’s prime. In addition the exiles of Numenor had formed kingdoms and colonies in the west. Unfortunately for the Southrons and Easterlings, they had no such technological advantage available to them, making them a weaker opposition. They simply had to comply with the wishes of Mordor.

In LotR Tolkien has in fact made a point of making sure the reader considers the terrible situation that these 'strange' men were in. He wants us to understand what compelled them to do what they did. Sam, after witnessing the death of an Easterling in a skirmish, wonders "what the man’s name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil at heart, or what lies or threats had lead him in the long march from home; and if he really would rather have stayed there in peace."

Also as I mentioned earlier, even the Numenoreans, who are considered the most noble of Humans did commit great crimes.

We also know that some of the men of Gondor and Bree are dark skinned.

Aren’t the bad characters predominantly black or ‘swarthy’, i.e. Melkor, Sauron, Bill Ferny?
How about Saruman, Grima, Gollum, Boromir, and Denethor? There are just too many exceptions when you consider individual characters. Melkor is a Valar and Sauron is Maia in any case.

This statement was made by Tolkien in Letter #210: "Orcs are squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." How is this not racist?
This statement gave me a lot of grief initially. At first glance it can be taken as evidence of racism. However as a poster on this board (I’ve infortunately forgotten who it was) mentioned a long while back, the qualifier; "to Europeans" actually proves otherwise. It shows that he actually acknowledges the different measures of beauty existent in different cultures. He shows that beauty is not an absolute quality but is rather in the eye of the beholder whose opinions are shaped by social constraints.

I have to admit that by today’s standards this statement is highly inflammatory and insensitive and can be taken as evidence of his sub-conscious prejudices.

He also stated in Letter #45 (9 June 1941) that: "There is a great deal more force (and truth) than ignorant people imagine in the 'Germanic' ideal." Isn’t this admitting support for the policies of Nazi Germany?
The term 'Germanic Ideal' has been used in modern historic literature, erroneously and far too prolifically, to describe the ideals of Nazi Germany. This identification is racist in itself. The term could very easily mean the ideals of Kant, Hegel, Heidegger or Schopenhauer; all more influential than that “ruddy little ignoramus” (Tolkien’s words); Hitler.

“You have to understand the good in things to detect the real evil”. These words follow almost directly from the above statement. To me this shows a mind more than ordinarily aware of the importance of empathy and understanding of those who are different from us.

And goes on to say that the Nazis are "ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, which I have ever loved and presented in it’s true light."

Tolkien does admit to feeling that obedience and patriotism are virtues, but then again most people still feel this way today.

Here are some further statements made by him that goes a long way in showing that he is in fact ahead of his times when it came to ideas of pluralism and equality:

There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic extermination of the entire German nation as the only proper course of after military victory….The German have just as much right to declare Poles and Jews as exterminable vermin as we have to select the Germans; in other words, no right. – Letter #81

To me this communicates his ability to perceive beyond the prevalent mists of nationalistic antagonism to come to a rational outlook of the whole matter. If only the political leaders of his time and ours had such clear sight.

This next scathing letter was written to German publishers who inquired whether he was ‘arisch’ or Jewish. The laws of Germany at the time required this inquiry before any work was to be published:

…I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by ‘arisch’. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret to have no ancestors of that gifted people. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany:…I have accustomed…to regard my German name with pride…

…I cannot, however forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer he a source of pride." – Letter #30 (25 July 1938: Unfortunately his London agents failed to pass on this letter to the intended recipients for fear of financial repercussions.}

In my mind this letter absolves any doubt about Tolkien’s values. He is not only extraordinarily modern and rational but he also has the courage to stand up for his pluralistic values. His tone and dry sarcasm shows how deeply he is offended by the racist attitudes of the German publishers.

As Aule said a while back (in a post that I had luckily saved);

One of the major themes of Lord of the Rings is the coming together of the races in a common cause. It's just that the races are elves, dwarves, men, and hobbits rather than Whites, Blacks, Orientals, etc.

The fact of the matter is that most of us have preconceptions and prejudices in our minds. Tolkien is no exception. But by considering his rhetoric in social context I think we can safely claim that he was indeed far ahead of his time in his inclusive and pluralistic perspective of the world. The key to dealing racism is to accept that they exist within each of us and do everything you can to defeat it within yourself.