‘The World as It Is’ Review: A Witness to Hope and Change As Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes was a White House myth shaper. His memoirs codify the myths for posterity. Martin Peretz reviews “The World as It Is” by Ben Rhodes.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-as-it-is-review-a-witness-to-hope-and-change-1528755811
EXCERPTS:…..
“……… On the Palestinian question, Mr. Rhodes complains that the Israelis, who are “stronger” than the Palestinians, demanded unreasonable assurances of support when Mr. Obama pressed for a two-state solution. He ignores the special qualities of a conflict in which a democratic state must confront hostile militants who don’t hesitate to hide behind civilians to feed their David-and-Goliath narrative. When the subject is the Iran deal, Mr. Rhodes reduces Israel to Netanyahu, and Jews who opposed Mr. Obama’s policies toward Iran to pathological actors: They had “internalized the vision of Israel constantly under attack.” At no point does Mr. Rhodes engage with the real objections of people concerned with these conflicts—chiefly that Mr. Obama was trying to impose broad, sweeping change on a region whose historical particularities make change incremental at best. But to engage with this reality, Mr. Rhodes would have to defend the premises of the universalism he’s promoting.
Another area where Messrs. Rhodes and Obama refuse to engage their critics’ concerns involves Trump voters, whom Mr. Obama, in Mr. Rhodes’s telling, sees as irrational: “Five percent unemployment. Twenty million covered [by healthcare]. Gas at two bucks a gallon. We had it all teed up! . . . Maybe we pushed too far. Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe.”
But choosing Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton was not a falling-back; it was a genuine choice between opposing sets of values. When Americans chose Mr. Trump, they were accepting less economic certainty for more cultural cohesion, fewer benefits of internationalism for more national determination. This isn’t a new phenomenon, and it isn’t an exclusively rightist one.
The Democratic Party is currently tribalizing itself into identity groups, a tribalism that explains itself as a response to oppression but that also reflects a normal human need: to collect into categories that confer belonging and agency. But it’s hard to imagine Mr. Obama or Mr. Rhodes being interested in this: It’s a different conception of human beings and politics, one that calls into question premises of their own.”
Mr. Peretz was from 1974 to 2011 the editor of the New Republic.
Comments are closed.
