If you missed it, I wrote a review of Obama's memoir for @WCrowdsLive. Why did I read it, you ask? I had a duty and duty called. The passages on the Arab Spring are especially interesting but not in the way you might expect. 1/x wisdomofcrowds.live/oh-the-audacit…
The first thing I noticed was the self-regard masked as self-awareness, a clever trick that apparently went down well with most mainstream reviewers who, when they did offer gentle criticism, did so with sufficient reverence. 2/x
To Obama's credit (or discredit), he basically sounds like me sometimes. For example, he seems to understand that autocracy, by definition, isn't permanent. Yet despite this knowledge, he spends the next several years acting against his own counsel. 3/x
Now that I think about it, Obama would probably make a good think tank analyst. But Obama wasn't a think tank analyst. He was the president of the world's only superpower. 4/x
The way Obama talks about Samantha Power is a bit cringe-inducing. 5/x
Obama was famously thin-skinned when it came to criticism. It's not hard to understand why. If you see yourself as the the embodiment of what America might become, then you are likely to perceive attacks on yourself as attacks against the country. 6/x
Are some of my criticisms unfair? Probably, yes. At least Obama was a hypocrite. Trump was our first anti-hypocrite president. If I have to choose, I'll choose a hypocrite any day. After all "hypocrisy is the homage that virtue pays to vice." 7/x
Part of the problem, as I discuss in the essay, is that I was a believer. It is the believers who find themselves betrayed. 8/x
For fun, I looked back at my first ever @washingtonpost oped from 2008, when I was gushing over Obama from a café in Amman. It's depressing to read it now, after everything that happened. 9/x
Anyway, in all seriousness, it was difficult for me to read the parts of Obama's memoir on Egypt. But in some ways, those are very clarifying sections. They encapsulate the seemingly permanent dilemmas of US foreign policy. /fin
If you missed it, this is a brilliant essay from @dmarusic for @WCrowdsLive. As usual, Damir cuts through the noise on American exceptionalism, Biden's foreign policy, and the question of hypocrisy. 1/x
I haven't seen the argument made in quite this way before. @dmarusic argues that moral perfectionism has always been paralyzing, but that its benefits once may have outweighed the costs. Now, it is mostly a liability. 3/x
I have a new @WCrowdsLive essay on the idea of the "arc of history." Martin Luther King was discussing racism and civil rights at home. Obama repurposed it more broadly to include America's global role. But did the arc exist beyond our own borders? 1/x
As an aside, there is an interesting question of how the notion of progress is eschatologically problematic for Islam and to some extent Christianity. For many Muslims, progress exists, it just runs counter to historical time. 2/x
MLK spoke of the "arc of the moral universe." Obama adapted this and came up with the "arc of history." Meanwhile, "the right side of history" wasn't new. Clinton used it 20 times. What was new was Obama's emphasis on the *wrong side* of history. 3/x
Doing Foucault and critical theory in college was helpful. You realized power relations were vital to understanding policy outcomes; no institutional arrangements were "neutral"; everything was basically a social construction; and objectivity was an illusion
If you missed it, our two-part conversation with @DouthatNYT on @WCrowdsLive is out. A deep dive into decadence, wokeness, interplanetary colonialism, anti-supernaturalism, and the perils of meritocracy
In Part 2, I ask @douthatnyt whether Christianity, in contrast to Islam, struggles with "rationalist" elites because it doesn't present itself as an explicitly rationalistic faith.
The question of why educated elites don't seem to find Christianity compelling despite an obvious and often intense desire for meaning and structure is something of a puzzle. @douthatnyt has been excellent on this: nytimes.com/2021/04/10/opi…
This is brilliant essay from @dmarusic on how the arc of history doesn't necessarily bend toward justice, and to assume that it does creates major blindspots in foreign policy. It's a tour de force of argument. But I disagree on some key points. wisdomofcrowds.live/how-liberal-tr… 1/x
This is exactly right. There was a naiveté in Obama and Kerry's notion that historic's arc was bending. *Someone* needs to do the bending, and Obama wasn't willing to back his own premise with hard power. And without power, the moralism was both empty and presumptuous. 2/x
In pointing to this false premise of the "liberal world order," @dmarusic argues that questions of order must be separated from questions of morality, but it's not clear to me that this is the right conclusion to draw. And I think this is where we diverge. 3/x
Last week, my Friday Essay provided a counterpoint to @dmarusic's pessimism. In betraying our own ideals, we remind ourselves that we have them in the first place.