A Nation Arguing with Its Conscience (Harvard professor's worshipful book on Obama)

Warren professor of American history James T. Kloppenberg, a specialist in the intellectual history of the United States and Europe and now chair of the history department, observed the 2008 presidential election from afar: he was teaching at the University of Cambridge. As he lectured on the U.S. political tradition and studied Barack Obama’s writings, he began to see three strong, but unexamined, themes. The first is Obama’s sophisticated understanding of America’s history and its continuing democratic experiment. The second is the idea of pragmatism—America’s principal contribution to Western philosophy—which was first elaborated by William James and John Dewey, themselves advocates of deliberative democracy. The third is the shaping force on Obama’s writings of the intellectual currents that swept through academia during his years as a student and professor.

That realization prompted Kloppenberg, in his new book, Reading Obama: Dreams, Hope, and the American Political Tradition, to focus on the president’s ideas: “Locating Obama’s development in the frameworks of the history of American democracy, the ideas of philosophical pragmatism, and the intellectual turmoil of the 1980s and 1990s,” he writes, “reveals how Obama thinks and why he sees American culture and politics as he does.” Along the way, Kloppenberg explores Obama’s personal experiences across and among diverse cultures; the pluralistic worldviews arising from the work of scholars such as anthropologist Clifford Geertz and historian of science Thomas Kuhn; the monumental effects of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice, when published, critiqued, and refined, and of new interpretations of American history by Gordon Wood and others who stressed the idea of “civic republicanism”; the authors Obama read in college and law school, and the articles that appeared in the Harvard Law Review during his editorship; and more.

Obama the law professor concedes that such a conception of the founding appeals to him because it encourages us to emphasize the contingency of the original document and to appreciate the contingencies that lie beneath our own invocations of high principle.

This sort of masturbatory gobbledygook passes for erudition at Harvard. The plain truth is the author likes Obama because they both seize upon any rationalization which will distort the Constitution to their purpose.

Obama is not brilliant, rather he is someone who has mastered the vocabulary of the left and he has been exalted to high positions ever since Occidental College because of his skin color and facility with leftist language.

and the articles that appeared in the Harvard Law Review during his editorship..

Ah, Mr.Kloppenberg, He didn't write any of them. Do you think the books in a library reflect the talent of the clerk at the checkout desk?

Obama declared, “The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead.”
Actually, Mr. Kloppenberg,that's a platitude you could hear at any high school commencement ceremony.
Come on, open your eyes.

Obama's support is holding up best with voters holding graduate degrees, and I believe it.

Moi? I believe it, too. Masters Degrees in Education, Social Work, Organizational Design, Childhood Development, Human Resources, Drug Counseling, African-American Studies, Gay Studies, Minority Studies, Latino Studies, Sociology, Public Policy, Leadership Skills, etc.

I wish I had continued my studies at Yale. There was a course I wanted to take and then go on for a Masters in the field: "Francophone Lesbian Poets of West Africa." I could have had a high post in the Obama Administration. James T. Kloppenberg is to be congratulated for his work!

I will read it thoroughly, as I am trying to figure out how a light-in-the-loafers nincompoop from Mombasa rose to the highest position in the land.

" I support de-funding them by removing their tax-exempt status for contributions and endowment investments."

Does it occur to you that the institutions you agree with will also suffer?

Aren't you also a bit hasty? These are centuries old institutions, which have become problematic (from your standpoint) only recently. It is not the insitutions, therefore, but some aspects of our culture that are problematic. Your suggestion amounts to throwing away an apple because it is unwashed.

" I support de-funding them by removing their tax-exempt status for contributions and endowment investments."

Does it occur to you that the institutions you agree with will also suffer?

Harvard has an endowment in the tens of billions of dolalrs, but it still has been raising tuition faster than inflation for decades. Why does should this rich instititution pay zero capital gains and income taxes from its investments? If it paid taxes on investments, maybe it would less active in advocating higher investment and income taxes for others.

To avoid hitting small institutions, you could say that the first $1 billion of an endowment can be invested tax-free.

"Harvard has an endowment in the tens of billions of dollars, but it still has been raising tuition faster than inflation for decades. "

Because the main objective of endowments is not to subsidize tuition but expand and maintain the school, especially infrastructure.

It is true that tuition has been rising faster than the overall inflation. I don't see why you have a problem with that? Gold too is rising now faster than the overall inflation. Harvard sells a service to the public, just as people sell other goods and services; it is priced to a large extent by the market, which is quite competitive. The nation thinks that the service sold is not only a private but also a public good, and confers a tax-exempt status. The premise is completely unrelated to price: whether education costs $100,000 or $200,000, its social value is the same.

"Why does should this rich institution pay zero capital gains and income taxes from its investments?"

Because those gains are part of their operating income/expenses just like any other. The problem here is again with the very criterion you apply.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that Harvard cannot write-off the losses from investments (famously in the billions over the last couple of years), whereas you and I can do so. " If it paid taxes on investments, maybe it would less active in advocating higher investment and income taxes for others."

This is utterly false. Harvard has never took a stand on the tax issues. "To avoid hitting small institutions, you could say that the first $1 billion of an endowment can be invested tax-free."

Here you think like a typical socialist (no offense intended): not a thought about unintended consequences. What is small? Who is going to determine that? It's like "rich." Whe our income tax was first instituted, it was at the rate 5% and the first $20,000 of income were exempted. This is at a time when you could buy a suit for $3 and a car for $250. In essence, the burden fell on the Mellon and Rockefeller. Now you are rich if you make $250,000 (which is also stupid: you could be a penniless doctor starting practice at 30, with $250,000 in student loans; but G-d forbid if your salary is #$250,000 per year --- you are rich! "Tax that bastard," the crowds demand.) Is there any discussion of this "creep?" How many people even know what income tax was when it was first introduced. So be careful with your social-engineering thoughts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.