In the course of her efforts to comprehend the atrocities wrought by totalitarianism in the 20th century, epitomized in the horrors of Auschwitz, philosopher Hannah Arendt provided a brilliant analysis of the essence of political ideology. Such "isms," said Arendt, claim to explain all historical happenings by deducing them from a single self-evident idea or premise -- e.g., that history "progresses" through the elimination of inferior races (Nazism) or decadent classes (communism). Once established, these ironclad logical systems become, like paranoid delusions, immune to the impact of actual experience. Further, they readily devolve into systems of totalitarian terror, as they give warrant to the unbridled liquidation of anyone or anything believed to impede the historical process, including all human freedom, spontaneity, and individuality.
An ugly, dangerous "ism" took possession of the American psyche in the wake of the collective trauma of September 11, 2001. It was a vulgar form of the ancient ideology known as "Manichaeism" -- the idea that the movement of history is explained by an eternal struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil. Bush used Manichaean ideology to mobilize a traumatized America to embark upon a deadly and disastrous holy crusade against the forces of evil and to invade Iraq in particular.
We are always more vulnerable to the spell of destructive ideology in times, such as these, of collective trauma and crisis. It is therefore reassuring that President Obama is a leader who seems for the most part capable of resisting the coercive grip of ideology. Since his election campaign, he has shown himself to be able to transcend the false dichotomies and polarities (versions of Manichaeism) that have traditionally divided us, seeking instead the common ground that can unite us. And he makes decisions, not on the basis of allegiance to a self-evident idea or premise, but with an appreciation of context and complexity. He even demonstrates, to the chagrin of ideologues on both sides of the aisle, a refreshing capacity to change his mind (on the question of military tribunals, for example), if called for when new aspects of a particular context are brought to light. Awareness of context, particularity, and complexity is one of the best antidotes to the poisoning lure of ideology.
Some processes take time - call it evolution - and lasting change cannot occur through issuing and revising diktats; they can only occur when a majority of the people involved ultimately buy into a significant part of the proposed change.
You don't turn an aircraft carrier going full steam over the horizon in the wrong direction during a Force Ten gale in a couple of hours, guys.
Where are the Obama changes that Obama spoke of while campaigning?
Pres Obama is emulating W. Pres Obama is repeating W's mistakes.
At least with liberal and conservative ideology their is a consistent intellectual philosophy that governs the positions taken over a wide range of topics. With the president's and your choice of ideology, no such reasoning exist. To you guys, the correct answer all ways falls in the middle of whatever the loudest voices are saying. If someone says the sky is blue and another the sky is yellow, you will proclaim with a smile that the sky must surely be green, shake everyone's hands, and praise the spirit of bipartisan compromise. That is senseless, and anti-intellectual.
As for Obama's contextual thinking--- seems more like Neocontextual thinking to me.
When Obama gave his 'a more perfect union' speech, I knew that THIS page had been turned. Whatever causes 'chagrin to the ideologues' now, it is not ideological blindness on behalf of the administration.
There's no way to make dissent go away in a democracy, but there's certainly a way to be aware of the results and the effects of power. To use trauma as a means to increase power is not among them. When you think about it, this process is in itself traumatizing. Which is among the themes of the 'a more perfect union' speech.
Are we supposed to cheer because Obama was able to transcend the divide between civil rights advocates who believe that no man is above the law and torture apologists who believe that "when the President does it, it is not illegal"?
No thanks.
Except for the MAIN IDEOLOGY that has morally (and on the way to financially) bankrupted this nation:
American exceptionalism. He's said he believes in it over and over again.
American exceptionalism is the type of thinking that says: We can bomb everybody, but nobody else can have bombs (even if having them is the only thing keeping the US from invading your country). We are exempt from the rules of the Geneva convention, but everybody else has to follow them...I don't even have the time to get into how the roots of "American exceptionalism" can be found in "white supremacy"...
Only latter have some radical ideologues changed the original meaning of the term to encompass what you describe, i.e. an Empire.
In other words the original meaning was that the United States was unique, and it latter was corrupted to mean it was "better".
I can only hope he means he believes in the original meaning of the term.
Probably he said these words before Manifest Destiny , was proclaimed.
Yup... and if these boards on Huffing ton are an example... it seems likely that the absence of an "ism" becomes and "ism" unto itself.
This "contextualized thinking" is how do I help people (PEOPLE over profits) when the people who are in Washington and around Washington are nothing short of DEADLY about PROFITS over People?
Where do you people think you live? Do you think Nov. 22, 1963 was just a dream???