Book: The Audacity of Hope by Barrack Obama

[kosai]

As his nomination for the Democratic ticket becomes ever more assured, I've decided to pick up Barry's latest book The Audacity of Hope. So far (I'm up to chapter 4) I think it's excellent. I haven't heard a politican speak so plainly before.

I'm curious if anyone else here has read the book and wanted your opinion on it. I think the next chapter is when it could either get juicy or really boring as Chapter 5 is entitled "Faith." The book up to this point has been very favorable to those without belief and Barrack Obama seems to understand history quite well. He seems to idolize Abraham Lincoln throughout the first 4 chapters recognizing him as a man without faith but with great morals so I'm interested to see how he will incorporate this into his ideas.

Anyone read the book and not liked it? Did it sway you to vote for or against him in the primaries? What about now that he is almost sure to get the nod?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's well written. He doesn't seem to offer many answers though.

I like the ending to the first chapter though, with the story of the speaker nobody was listening to.

 

[David Wong]

If you're reading it as a specific statement of platforms and specific policy details on how he's going to solve the nation's problems, you'll hate the book and even be left a little angry.

If you just read it as a book, you'll probably love it. He's so self-effacing and so willing to joke about his mistakes, and speaks so plainly, it's impossible not to like him.

And whether or not he has the specific answers to the big policy questions, the man seems to have a very realistic grasp on the situation. The part where he talks about why the Reagan revolution happened is the most striking example. He doesn't talk about the evil Republican devils playing on the people's fears and prejudices and plunging the nation into darkness.

No, he talks about the excesses of the 60's revolution, how it turned so many in mainstream America off, how the Great Society programs went too far and didn't work hard enough to actually see if the programs were working. He paints the Reagan revolution as being both necessary and positive in some ways, but again it just went too far. You had politicians doing the opposite now, dogmatically shooting down government programs--even ones that would save money in the long run.

At no point does he come off as a raving idealogue, at no point does he talk about an encroaching Fascist America, or the apocalypse that will occur if we don't hand him the reigns. It's just a very friendly, smart, down-to-earth discussion of where we are.

 

[kosai]

I'm getting the same feelings as you got from it David, I have already read his "Blueprint for America" from here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

This is one of the reasons I got interested in reading more. I think the stances outlined there are a great set of ideas, however some of them seem to need a presidency longer than even 8 years to be enacted. Most importantly he seems to understand the importance of undoing disasterous policy set by the current administration. I think Audacity of Hope does a good job at setting up the why's for the Blueprint for America document. I guess I'm kind of going backwards though as I'll probably read Dreams from my Father next.

 

[Brainster]

I listened to a few chapters from the audiobook on a bike ride today. He has a good (but dry) sense of humor that helps a lot, and he is willing to poke fun at Democrats as well as Republicans.

On the other hand, he's guilty of the usual liberal trope of ascribing of bad motives to conservatives. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity cannot believe what they say, so they must be in it to make money. Laws were not made to increase trade, but to destroy labor. Tax cuts are giveaways to the most fortunate in our society. Note that I don't have cites here because of the nature of an audiobook, but all three of those appear somewhere in the first chapter.

This is a minor stylistic thing, but be does a lot of talking about "a and b, c and d, e and f", like "farmers and lawyers, doctors and teachers, Christians and skeptics," without apparently noticing the faulty parallelism. The last pairing is at odds with each other, while there is no inherent conflict between doctors and teachers or farmers and lawyers. This is something that came up twice in the course of the ride; as I recall, another oddball was when he talked about "fathers and husbands" in a listing like the above that implied they were different people. The sets are not identical, certainly, but there is a great deal of overlap.

 

[Cleon]

On the other hand, he's guilty of the usual liberal trope of ascribing of bad motives to conservatives. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity cannot believe what they say, so they must be in it to make money.

Well, given that the alternatives are that they're evil or insane, I would say claiming that they're in it to make money gives them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[kosai]

On the other hand, he's guilty of the usual liberal trope of ascribing of bad motives to conservatives. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity cannot believe what they say, so they must be in it to make money.

Gotta go with Cleon on this one, you have people like these conservative radio show hosts who are still running with a "His name is very close to Hussein and Osama!!! He may be a pseudo terrorist in disguise wating to take over the US Government... He didn't hold his heart during the pledge!!"

These have all been disproven but they don't stop using them. Saying they are doing it for money (these people are entertainers not journalists) is the nicer choice between they are lying or completely naive. It absolutely does have to be one of them. Even McCain has asked that this nonsense be stopped and was ridiculed by these people for it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

On the other hand, he's guilty of the usual liberal trope of ascribing of bad motives to conservatives. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity cannot believe what they say, so they must be in it to make money.

You call him "guilty", I'd call him perceptive.

Imagine a giant raccoon passed gas and perhaps the resulting gas might have created the vast variety of life we see on Earth. And if you don't accept the giant raccoon flatulence theory for the origin of life, you must be a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes the Earth is flat ... That's basically how the argument for evolution goes.

Am I "guilty" of thinking that she's a well-paid, attention-seeking clown? Would "innocence", in your eyes, involve thinking of her as the true standard-bearer of conservatism?

When liberals think that Coulter et al are just doing it for money, they are doing the right the favor of believing that trash like Coulter do not sincerely represent conservatism.

I feel no guilt whatsoever if I look at Coulter's gibble and say: "That does not truly represent the position of my opponents". On the contrary, I feel that any fair-minded man is bound to do so.

 

[Brainster]

Well, given that the alternatives are that they're evil or insane, I would say claiming that they're in it to make money gives them the benefit of the doubt.

False dilemma. The other option is that they believe what they are saying. Oh, sure they may exaggerate their case, and Coulter in particular likes to be outrageous as in the case Dr A cites. But liberal pundits can exaggerate their case and Molly Ivins also liked to be outrageous. That doesn't mean that they don't believe what they are saying.

 

[Cleon]

False dilemma. The other option is that they believe what they are saying.

No....What I'm saying is that if they really believe what they are saying, then they are either evil or insane. Ergo, the claim that they're only in it for the money gives them the benefit of the doubt, as it would not require them to be evil or insane, merely greedy.

 

[Brainster]

No....What I'm saying is that if they really believe what they are saying, then they are either evil or insane. Ergo, the claim that they're only in it for the money gives them the benefit of the doubt, as it would not require them to be evil or insane, merely greedy.

I understand that is your assertion, now stated twice. However, as this is a skeptics' forum, I expect assertions to be back by evidence. Do you have, say, three examples of things that Sean Hannity has said that indicate he's either evil or insane?

 

[Cleon]

I understand that is your assertion, now stated twice.

You clearly did not, as you incorrectly contrasted it with "believing what they say."

But I suggest you take up your haughty defense of Sean Hannity's idiocy in another thread, rather than derail this one.

 

[Brainster]

You clearly did not, as you incorrectly contrasted it with "believing what they say."

But I suggest you take up your haughty defense of Sean Hannity's idiocy in another thread, rather than derail this one.

As requested.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Talking of Obama, (And where are we not?) I noticed this new music video.



I had to stop all the cheese I had eaten in my life from pouring out of my ears. On the plus side, Jessica Alba looks fantastic.

 

[dudalb]

It's well written,but does not tall me much about what Obama will actually try to do as president.
It basically a campaign document meant to appeal to as wide a public as possible,like most campaign documents. It's better written then most documents of that type,but in the end is still thin on actual content.

 

[kosai]

It's well written,but does not tall me much about what Obama will actually try to do as president.
It basically a campaign document meant to appeal to as wide a public as possible,like most campaign documents. It's better written then most documents of that type,but in the end is still thin on actual content.

What about "Blueprint for America"? It outlines 64 pages of what he'd like to do as president.

 

[dudalb]

What about "Blueprint for America"? It outlines 64 pages of what he'd like to do as president.

A bunch of Glittering Generalaties,and it is thin on exactly how he will accomplish this.

 

[kosai]

A bunch of Glittering Generalaties,and it is thin on exactly how he will accomplish this.

Any other candidate doing this better in your opinion? A link to their plan please?