Barack Obama delivered a speech about the importance of pluralism at his foundation’s Democracy Forum in Chicago on Thursday. There’s a decent chance you missed it — and he knows why that’s likely the case.
The former president said he received “groans and eye rolls” from friends when he told them he’d be speaking about democracy and pluralism, adding:
And it’s understandable, after all; here in the United States we have just been through a fierce, hard-fought election, and it’s fair to say it did not turn out as they hoped. And for them, talk of bridging our differences when the country and the world seem so bitterly divided felt like an academic exercise.
The crux of Obama’s speech was that democracy in a diverse nation is difficult and requires compromise — but is ultimately worth the effort. In that sense, it was a quintessential Obama speech, and like others he’s given on similar themes, this one was heavy on the “can’t we all just get along” ethos that has made the former president both an incomparably successful politician and, for some, a deeply frustrating ally in activism.
And he admitted that belief in this principle is hard to sell at a time when it seems many voters don’t care about democracy at all.
His tone here was a bit more realistic than the optimistic Obama many tend to think of. Obama was still hopeful, for example, when speaking about organizers who’ve devised innovative ways to unite people around important issues. But he also talked about how, historically, it’s been easier for white people to embrace democratic values when they don’t have to worry about how those values will also benefit nonwhite people — and I’d argue that is a key conflict in our increasingly diverse nation now. And Obama was pretty straightforward about the obstacles to liberalism’s survival in the U.S., including a social media–obsessed society that encourages ideological silos and blatant efforts to undermine democracy.
For example, he said:
What happens when the other side has repeatedly and abundantly made clear they’re not interested in playing by the rules? It’s a problem. And when that happens, we fight for what we believe in. There are going to be times, potentially, when one side tries to stack the deck and lock in a permanent grip on power, either by actively suppressing votes, or politicizing the armed forces, or using the judiciary or criminal justice system to go after their opponents. And in those circumstances, pluralism does not call for us to just stand back and say, ‘Well, I’m not sure that’s OK.’ In those circumstances, a line has been crossed, and we have to stand firm and speak out and organize and mobilize as forcefully as we can.
At one point, Obama said the political reforms he’d like to see — like nonpartisan redistricting, which he said would weaken polarization — are probably not going to happen “anytime soon,” given the current political environment. But he warned about the need to build coalitions to prevent the rise of politicians who exploit divisions and direct violence against their political enemies and suppress free speech.
I can see how a liberal might hear these things and feel despondent, like their hero has lost all hope. But I heard a Barack Obama who seems to be smoldering with a bit of political rage. The old Obama motivated people with optimism for what the country could be if they come together. This current version seems ready to motivate them with a warning about what can happen if they don’t.