About book The Audacity Of Hope: Thoughts On Reclaiming The American Dream (2006)
In "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream," Senator Barack Obama offers a message of hope to the cynics that would claim that our country is hopelessly divided and politics has devolved into a power game of little interest to ordinary Americans. Senator Obama believes there are, in fact, ordinary Americans out there that do care about our country, are engaged in politics, and can manage to find common ground with neighbors and friends whose politics or values they may disagree with. I admit, I do not share Senator Obama’s optimism. I am one of those cynics who believes Americans are divided, politics is a game, and it is best to simply avoid people whose politics I don’t agree with. While I may not paint my face blue or red on Election Night, I do keep track of the score, and I don’t care if my side engages in cheap shots or late hits to win; I just hope they do win, even if I remain skeptical that they can actually make a difference. In his book, Senator Obama tries to convince readers like me that there is, in fact, a "new kind of politics" that we can engage in to build upon the "shared understandings that pull us together as Americans."While Senator Obama discusses a "new kind of politics," the most interesting part of his book discusses politics, as it exists today, from his perch in the Senate, specifically the pervasive roles of money and the media. As a candidate for Senator, one of Obama’s major tasks was fund-raising, making cold-calls to the few Americans who can afford to write a $2,000 check to a politician. As a result, his primary interactions were limited to the top one percent of Americans, placing him "outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population," or the people he actually entered public life to serve. In addition, Senator Obama laments his inability to directly reach his constituents. If he were to hold 39 town hall meetings a year (as he did his first year in the Senate), Senator Obama would be able to reach maybe 100,000 constituents in a six-year Senate term, whereas a three-minute story on the lowest rated news program in Chicago would reach 200,000 people, making him "entirely dependent on the media" to reach his constituents. Yet, as Senator Obama explains, instead of using its power to present politicians to the people they are supposed to serve, the media instead seems to use its power to disengage Americans from politics altogether. He presents the example of a story with the White House making debt projections. Because the media doesn’t have the time or interest to do its own research, it will typically present the opinion of a Republican analyst that the Republican projections are accurate, the countering opinion of a Democratic analyst that the projections are inaccurate, and no independent analyst to tell the true story or provide a conclusion. Instead of being about the debt projections, the story becomes about the same old tired plot of Republicans and Democrats fighting again, boring readers and prompting them to "turn to the sports page, where the story line is less predictable and the box score tells you who won."As Senator Obama presents it, the idea of a "new kind of politics" discourages this story line, instead focusing on narrowing differences and engaging in true dialogue and conversation with one another in order to find common ground. In an example of what is wrong with politics now, Senator Obama provides an interesting story of a breakfast meeting with President Bush, where he had noted Bush’s easy manner – that is, until Bush began his political speech, when "it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a speech," and Bush’s "easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty," as he spelled out his political agenda in an agitated, rapid tone discouraging any interruption or opposing viewpoint. In demonstrating his contrast to President Bush, Senator Obama structures his political discussions as conversations, where he always presents both sides of each issue – whether the topic be energy, race, or welfare – and inevitably concludes that each side has relevant points. In fact, Senator Obama seems to take pains to present a "Republican" point of view, virtually ignoring issues Democrats may consider important, such as education and health care, which get a total of seven pages between them, and focusing on traditionally Republican areas, such as family, values, and faith. This, Senator Obama states, is the "guidepost for his politics": his mother’s simple principle, "How would that make you feel?" While he believes this guidepost serves him well, allowing him to gain insight into the other side’s perspective, it is a philosophy he says everyone would benefit from, to note the suffering of others and put ourselves in their position. Ultimately, this is the core behind Senator Obama’s philosophy – that, if we fail to help others, we diminish ourselves. In meeting with his constituents, Obama has found power in the American spirit, of people who have suffered and yet continue to work hard to fulfill their dreams. In his experiences growing up in Indonesia and traveling to his father’s native land of Kenya, Senator Obama has seen first-hand the effect of countries where individuals do not control their own fate, but must instead rely on the self-restraint of the military or on corrupt bureaucrats. As a result, he has developed a deep appreciation for the freedom we are afforded as Americans and the hope that, through hard work, we can accomplish our dreams. It is this audacity to hope, he says, that binds us together as one people, as Americans. This shared sense of community is what drives his idea of a "new kind of politics," based on the premise that we have more similarities than differences, and that we can build on "those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans."However, Obama concedes that, just because he believes there can be a new kind of politics, doesn’t mean he knows how to do accomplish it, because he admits, he doesn’t. He acknowledges that his book is more of a discussion than a manifesto and that his treatment of the issues is "often partial and incomplete." In fact, his discussion of the actual issues often seems simplistic, contradictory, and sometimes uninformed. Admittedly, I had more hope for Senator Obama as a political candidate before I read this book than I do now, just because he didn’t focus on the issues I would have liked to hear about, didn't provide substantive arguments, or didn’t present ideas I totally agreed with. Even more than his ideas on specific issues, though, I would have liked to hear how he plans to re-engage the American people: for example, does he have ideas about how to rid government of special interests and get more Americans involved in the process through a public funding system or a national holiday on Election Day? If politics is meant to be a discussion between two empathetic parties, how does he plan to engage ordinary Americans in that discussion? In the end, though, while Obama doesn’t go as far as he could in spelling out how he will re-engage Americans in our democracy, he lays the foundation for readers to make some of these conclusions for themselves, particularly in his narrative on race. In describing the problem of poverty among African-Americans, which has become a "permanent fixture in American popular culture," one which we as Americans take for granted, and "not for which we are culpable," Senator Obama inadvertently points to the impact a minority president could have. If the audacity of hope means that we are all bound together as Americans, then the implication of electing a minority President is clear: we are finally allowing new voices into the political discussion. If, in fact, we as a country do elect Senator Obama as president, then maybe, just maybe, I will join him and have the audacity to hope for the future of this country again.
One reviewer said he'd read this whole book and was left not knowing what Barack Obama was for...in a way, I see his point--readers expecting a manifesto of voting positions will be sorely disappointed. For that, read the congressional record. Readers expecting a standard-bearer for the left will also be disappointed, as Obama's focus is not a solid 'Yes' check in all the predictable party line talking points. For instance, neither pro nor anti-war, he wholeheartedly supported the war in Afghanistan while wholeheartedly opposing the war in Iraq. He simultaneously opposes gay marriage while permitting states who so choose to grant equivalent civil rights regarding hospital visitation and health insurance coverage to gay partners, arguing that "in the absence of any meaningful consensus, the heightened focus on marriage [is:] a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians."Take note, then: this book is more of an exploration into what Barack Obama thinks the role of the American government should be than what his role as President of the country should be--it lays out his understanding of how our democracy should function, and what he thinks its specific challenges are in today's global economy and international political climate. He de-emphasizes the pre-eminence of the executive branch we've become so accustomed to in the last 8 years, and thus the weight the President's personal agenda should carry. In fact, the few pages discussing Obama's (superficially) mixed response to the issue of gay marriage contain a pretty good pointer towards "what he's for," not so easily described as an issue-by-issue Yes/No. Here's the quote you want to pay attention to: "...I was reminded that is is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights."Read The Audacity of Hope Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream through the lens of that quote, and you will understand what Barack Obama is for, namely: a functional government that is willing to put in the hard work of attacking complex issues where our population disagrees, and finding public policy in an achievable consensus. To his way of thinking, the federal government is not the be-all and end-all of American governance, and he is careful to point out that there are many issues Washington has no business imposing its views on when states say otherwise. In Obama's view, the enemy is not conservatism per se but the neocon king-making that has inflated the executive branch out of all proportion to the system of checks and balances planned by the writers of the Constitution. The enemy is government-crippling political polarization: ideology, zealotry, a willingness to ignore facts that don't support our predetermined worldview. The enemy is a broken executive branch at war with the judiciary. The enemy is the broken trust between government and its citizens. I suspect this book is unsatisfying to a number of readers: Obama is consistently careful to examine "both" sides of every issue (as if there are only two!) and to admit some validity in each POV, not just the one he is personally inclined towards. I guess it's scary to see a politician examine his opponents' reasoning before making up his mind on an issue or a piece of legislation, but grow a pair already, America, and recognize that anyone unwilling to examine the issue as critically as possible is a puppet of his party, his ideology, or his financial backers. Reading The Audacity of Hope will give you insights into how Barack Obama's mind works: what his understanding of proper government and the rule of law are, and how and why he makes his decisions. It's possible you will decide his judgment is careful; it's possible you'll realize you want no part of a low-key wild card. The book is well-titled: the hope of fixing our government, making it transparent, trusting and trustworthy, is a bold and almost shocking endeavor, to say the least. In his chapters on the Constitution, race, family, values, faith, and our place in the larger world, Obama's main point, over and over, is that America's current problem lies in how it does business on both sides of the aisle. A fundamental shift in approach to governance, he argues, is what's needed, not a party platform. That's pretty challenging, but also mundane. It's a kind of St Crispin's Day speech for national housekeeping, a banner cry for infrastructure..."Fix the furnace!" he shouts, even though it's so much sexier to buy a new car. The Audacity of Hope is not a road map for Obama's future actions as senator or, potentially, president; it's insight into his understanding of our country's problems and how our practice of government has created or affected those problems. Reading it shows us how he thinks, which makes it a good companion for understanding the current presidential race as well as the remainder of his political career.
Do You like book The Audacity Of Hope: Thoughts On Reclaiming The American Dream (2006)?
Wow, this man is really going to be our President? I imagine most politicians except Dubya and Sarah Palin could recite some of the political and economic and foreign history that Obama talks about in this book, but they could never frame it so well or so inspirationally. Not only does he know the history, he thinks about it and clarifies it. He thinks! This president-elect loves America and Americans, what we are and what we can be. Fascinating book, and I loved getting a little glimpses into his personal life; such as how he forgot to buy a shower curtain for his Washington apartment when he came without his family and had to scrunch up against the wall to shower; I did that once while I was travel nursing, and it is funny and real. He is brilliant, but this book makes me even more proud of American for electing him; he is unlike any other president in my time, and I am hopeful for change.
—Cheryl
I’m assuming Obama will be the next President of the USA. That will probably be a good thing. Recently I did an online quiz to pick which candidate I would be most likely to vote for – as an Australian this was purely an academic exercise – but it said I should support Obama. Naturally, my politics and his are quite different – I’m to his extreme left, but I thought I should find out more about him just the same.It is an odd thing how different Australians are from Americans. We are both ‘frontier’ societies with a history of appalling treatment of our native peoples – but I think we have made a better stab at multiculturalism than has been the case in the US. From reading this book it also seems clear that we do community better here than the US does.One of our biggest worries is that we might be becoming more like America. The US Health System (if that is not an oxymoron) rightly frightens the life out of us – we, at least, have some semblance of a national health system. Medicare may not be perfect, but God save us from the US system!There were parts of this book that gave me slight cause for hope – it did seem like he might try to do something about education, and might even help people retrain to get better jobs. His criticisms of corporate America’s disproportionate influence on politics due to the money it was able to pour in was reassuring, if only because he noticed it might be a problem.There were parts of the book that made me cringe – the stuff about his family and how much he loved his wife was all a bit saccharine for my tastes. Some of the writing was overly flowery. But I think possibly Australians are a bit more reserved with this stuff (a bit more British) than Americans and what makes us cringe might well seem quite endearing in the US.All the same, wouldn’t it be wonderful if a candidate for US President did not have to declare themselves Christian to have any hope of being elected? As a nation that has had at least one Agnostic Prime Minister (Bob Hawke – although, as the joke went, that was only because Bob wasn’t sure if he was God or not) it seems insane the obsession that religion is in American politics. For a country that likes a personal relationship with God the US certainly does like that personal relationship to be as public as possible. I was surprised at how much time was spent in this book talking about God – our politicians would never do this – not at such length. The other bit of the book that made me cringe was him talking to Senator Bird and proudly declaring himself a committed Christian. Bird saying to him that all he needed by his side were the American Constitution and the Bible was also very concerning.I was flicking though The Rights of Man recently and was interested when Paine said that it wasn’t for one generation to limit for all time the extent of the hopes and dreams of all following generations. This is the second book by a US politician I’ve read recently – the other being Gore’s The Assault on Reason – and I’ve been surprised in both at how much time is spent talking about the glories of the founding documents and the nearly god like reverence shown for the founding fathers. This is something else that is completely alien in Australian politics. It is not just that in the main we have no idea about our own Federation – but no one here has a clue about the Australian constitution, which is also a matter of some pride to most Aussies. Mostly, those who do know something about it see it as a deeply flawed document that it is impossible to fix and should be more or less ignored. I can’t imagine what it must be like to live in a country that has such a view of its own importance and historical infallibility – I’m quite sure I wouldn’t like it. But I’ve never been good at crowds – particularly not flag waving crowds.Obama recognises that money is a problem in American politics, but I think I would still go further than him. It isn’t so much money that is the problem, but a problem with the American psyche in which, it seems from afar, the only measure for success and worth of anyone is how much money they have made. The US government appears to be little more than a rich man’s club, something else Obama talks about in his book – it is hardly surprising that so few ordinary people seem to be bothered to vote in what appears to be a popularity contest between the obscenely wealthy.I have often wondered if societies have become too large to be properly governed as democracies. Plato put limits on the size of his ideal republic – I can’t remember what it is, but I think it might have been 30,000 people – something like that anyway. There are 300 million in the US – is it really a silly question to ask whether any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure? How ‘democratic’ it can be must surely be a question worth considering.There is a part of me that worries that America believes its own myths far too much.But Obama does look like he might try to help the poor, that he might seek to finally do something to address the shame that is racism, that he might do something to reduce the US deficit (which is increasingly a threat to world economic growth) and might even do something to improve health care, maternity leave, and other family friendly policies. Of course, my hope is a little more audacious – that one day there might just be a President of the US who doesn’t feel they have to denigrate their mother’s secular humanism as their only hope of being elected. That the US might one day consider someone’s worth not as being measured purely by the size of their bank account and that paying taxes will be seen as something proudly done because it is the price one pays to live in a civilisation. I can’t help but feel that while the US cuts taxes to the bone, prefers its citizens to beg in the humiliation that is charity rather than turn when in need to the dignity of social welfare, while the US gleefully punishes the poor and the working class with unliveable wages, while the US talks of placing the ten commandments in the courtrooms that sentence people to death in contradiction of the ‘thou shalt not kill’ they would hypocritically engrave into the walls, it will always be hard for me to understand the US. But if Obama does half what he says he will in this book, even as modest a proposal as it seems, then perhaps, just maybe, there is some cause for hope.
—Trevor
I bought this book in April during an unexpectedly long layover at the Houston airport, read half of it, then forced myself to put it down as I was becoming too emotionally invested in the prospect of an Obama presidency and felt that I needed to pace myself, since it was only April and I am frankly still recovering from the political PTSD of November 2004. I picked it up again during another transcontinental trip this past week and determined to finish it this time, hoping to educate myself about the specifics of Obama's political vision so I can volunteer for him more effectively in October. It was easy to polish off--very readable, but substantive enough to merit a cover-to-cover journey. It left me with an arsenal of arguments to deploy the next time anyone claims that Obama is all platitudes and no plan, and it provided some indications of what kind of compromises he would likely pursue if (insha'Allah) he gets elected.In short, the book confirmed a bunch of things that I already feel about Obama--first, that he has exceptional capacities for (self)-reflection and empathy, two qualities that are essential to just, humane, responsible leadership, and two qualities that have proven elusive at best to the platoon of d-bags who have been at America's helm for the past 7+ years. Second, that he has a measured, working knowledge of history that he draws on routinely to make sense of current dilemmas and debates and to posit logical solutions to supposedly intractable problems. And third, that he is genuinely invested in and skilled at carving out common ground on a whole range of contemporary issues--which I truly admire, since it is more than I can say for myself when faced with even the most benign political arguments at this point, despite my best efforts. The chapter on faith is particularly masterful--Obama's description of his own religious journey is moving and rational; I related to it as a non-believer, but I would imagine a believer could relate as well. Common ground at its best, on a topic that I usually find utterly alienating.Admittedly, _The Audacity of Hope_ is more _Profiles in Courage_ than _A Theory of Justice_, but whatever, the dude is running for office, and it's pretty heartening that a presidential candidate has taken the time to generate some intellectual capital about American's political system, both as it is and as it should be. Not that I needed convincing.
—Andrea
