I don’t think Obama won on the strength of that loftier message. He won because the fact of his being black represented a true Apollo-like growth opp for the nation to rally behind. “Let’s put a man on the moon/black man in the Oval Office.” GWB shitshow incumbency legacy helped.
-
-
-
Strongly disagree. If Obama had run with rhetoric mirroring other black political leaders (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or more contemporary like the BLM people, etc.) he would have been crushed at the polls. His lofty rhetoric was 100% necessary.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Compare and contrast with two losers: Romney "48% of the country is a bunch of worthless mooches asking for handouts" Clinton "48% of the country is deplorable"
-
I don’t think you can just make up alternatives to jingoistic nationalism narratives with a more noble turn of phrase. You need a unifying growth mission like Apollo in 1961 — something that allows a people to grow together in a way that’s not about war or external threat
-
this I do agree with. the big projects we thought we would work on together under Obama turned out badly though. We didn't get a good national health care system. We didn't get a good economic realignment. We didn't get justice for those injured in the 2008 crash.
-
Those don’t even qualify actually. They are deficiency motivation rather than growth motivation. Better than wars and hitlers but not as romantic as Apollo, Wild West, gold rush etc.
-
arguably the entire space program (Apollo included) was also deficiency motivated. super power weapons technology competition was driving most of it, and in 1961 America was noticeably lagging behind USSR. I don't see this as much different than Health Care, just better optics.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.