Charles C.W. Cooke:
Addressing his usual crowd in Chicago on Monday, President Obama briefly effected some humility. “You,” the president told the sea of reverent faces that had assembled to say goodbye at his point d’appui, “were the change. You answered people’s hopes, and because of you, by almost every measure, America is a better, stronger place than it was when we started.”
Within this stirring string of self-congratulation, two words stuck out, as might the recapitulation in a long-running sonata. “Change” was one. “Hope,” the other. Was it 2008 again?
From the moment he announced that he was running for president, Barack Obama has proceeded as if he enjoyed a monopoly on these words. And never was it so obvious as during his adieu. In the Obamian context, “change” does not mean “alteration” so much as it means “alteration that meets with Obama’s approval.” “Hope,” likewise, escapes the president’s lips as a narrow and cramped conceit. Historically, “change” has served as a neutral term in politics — a means of conveying that the status quo is toast. “Hope,” too, carries along with it no intrinsic value judgments; if a person hankers, its conditions are met.
During the Obama years, however, these terms have been appropriated. When, as he did on Monday, the president tells his audiences “to believe . . . not in my ability to bring about change, but in yours,” he is not being ecumenical or descriptive, but proprietorial and ungenerous. For better or for worse, Donald Trump also represents “change,” and, for many of his fans, he promises “hope” to boot. For better or for worse, the Republican Congress is gearing up for transformation. As secretary of education, Betsy DeVos is set to shake things up. But that’s not what Obama is talking about, is it?
Cynical as it may be, Obama’s trick is a clever one, for it has allowed him to cast even his most reactionary instincts as downright futuristic, and to portray the critics of his agenda as the enemies of progress per se. On the question of, say, entitlement reform, this president has been an unabashed champion of the status quo, whereas Paul Ryan is a radical and a reformer. That, though, doesn’t fit into Obama’s model. That’s bad change, and bad change must by rights be conservative. Nod as he might to the sanctity of democratic control, there has always been something of the millenarian about Barack Obama. Properly understood, politics is the process by which free people work out their civic differences without resorting to arms. In his rhetoric, Obama implies otherwise: There’s a path toward History, he is fond of contending, and he is walking straight down the middle line.
Such obstinate Whiggism can yield perplexing results. Throughout Monday evening, Obama uttered platitudes that, to any neutral observer, could quite easily have applied to Donald Trump. “You know,” the president said, “that constant change has been America’s hallmark; that it’s not something to fear but something to embrace.” Oh, really? Then should we expect him to lobby for the repeal of the ACA and the amendment of the National Labor Relations Act? “Change,” he added, “only happens when ordinary people get involved and they get engaged and they come together to demand it.” But what of Trump’s supporters, who did exactly that, or of the millions upon millions who voted for a Republican Congress? If, as Obama claims, he “still believes” in the capacity of political movements to bring about real reform, he should be Bill Mitchell’s best friend.
He’s not, of course, because in his world there is only one direction of travel, and thus there is always an excuse for his opponents’ successes.
Initially I listened to Obama’s speeches. His first term I thought, since he made so many diametrically opposed promises, there was the possibility he could turn on the far left just as well as he could turn on the moderates. His speeches gave promise to an attempt to works with all parties. He blew that out of the water pretty quickly.
By the time of his second inauguration speech, he SEEMED to take notice of the blow his arrogance and intransigence dealt to his party and administration. But, even after promising to work more with the opposition, he continued on his dead-headed path. At this point, I avoided the rest of his time-wasting speeches.
Obama had one goal and that was to weaken and socialize the United States. Weaken it in the world so that it could do no more “harm” and implement socialism throughout the government… to make everything “fair”.
Luckily, he will be gone before this destruction was complete.
this country turned right when it was expected by the garbage, snowflakes, media, academia, and the looser actors that it would continue on a left dismal course into slavery. the muslin, terrorist, illegal alien lied for 8 years which hilary sold military secrets to the enemy. ever wonder how many men and woman in the military died because of her greed.
the legacy of this illegal pres is a shit hole in Kenya