Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: Re: Sanders Castro and Cuba [View all]Gothmog
(145,046 posts)13. No, Bernie Sanders' Discussion of Cuba's Castro is Nothing Like Obama's
Link to tweet
Eric Levitz in New York Magazine on Monday makes the case that Bernie Sanders 1985 interview admiring some aspects of Fidel Castros regime in Cuba was roughly the same as Barack Obamas 2016 discussion of Castro. This is in large part just an amplification of ideas flying around Twitter this week, as in the tweet pictured above. A quick look at Sanders and Obamas statements shows why this analysis is entirely incorrect.
In 2016, Obama was addressing hundreds of young business and social entrepreneurs from across Latin America in Buenos Aires, Argentina. If you read the transcript of his talk, you see immediately that Obama, in his signature style, was reinforcing the message of pragmatism and evidence-based decision making as he puts it be[ing] practical and just choos[ing] from what works. He was in fact arguing against ideology, at a time when he must have been watching the destabilizing effects the surge in ideological politics was causing not just in the United States but in other countries long considered staid and practical.
In discussing Cuba, Obama relayed direct conversations he had with the Castros, insight into the diplomacy of highlighting policy areas where there might be more agreement in order to create common ground with space to push for change in other areas. I doubt many would think it rational to approach a nascent foreign relationship with a guns blazing, take no prisoners attitude, especially when any agreement depended on the other countrys support. Obama was relaying one relatively high stakes conversation with foreign leaders to another unaligned audience in a foreign venue. I expect it does not take an expert in international relations to see the U.S. interest in pitching this information a certain way for both of these audiences.
In contrast, Bernie Sanders 1985 interview was not conducted for foreign consumption or to support U.S. national interests, and it did not come at a time of opening up in the U.S.-Cuba relationship. Instead, it was given for a local public access TV show. It was effectively a vanity project giving Sanders a platform to expound his views of politics and the world. Because of this, the messaging here is all Sanders. Further contrasting Obama, it was rooted in ideology, with Sanders opening, As a socialist, the word socialism doesnt frighten me, before launching into his discussion of self-described socialist regimes. While you could argue the interview might not be a perfect snapshot of todays presidential candidates innermost thoughts, it was a clear statement of what Sanders believed at the time and unfiltered by the degree of drafting and review Obamas messaging on this topic would have undergone....
From this brief look, we can see that Obamas talk involved a little flattery, a little spin, and a good deal of appealing to an audience that he saw as future leaders. In contrast, Sanders words were simply praise without an intentional objective towards a defined audience. Conflating these two discussions is flimsy, misleading, and indicative of the pro-regime propaganda captured in Sanders own sentiment.
In 2016, Obama was addressing hundreds of young business and social entrepreneurs from across Latin America in Buenos Aires, Argentina. If you read the transcript of his talk, you see immediately that Obama, in his signature style, was reinforcing the message of pragmatism and evidence-based decision making as he puts it be[ing] practical and just choos[ing] from what works. He was in fact arguing against ideology, at a time when he must have been watching the destabilizing effects the surge in ideological politics was causing not just in the United States but in other countries long considered staid and practical.
In discussing Cuba, Obama relayed direct conversations he had with the Castros, insight into the diplomacy of highlighting policy areas where there might be more agreement in order to create common ground with space to push for change in other areas. I doubt many would think it rational to approach a nascent foreign relationship with a guns blazing, take no prisoners attitude, especially when any agreement depended on the other countrys support. Obama was relaying one relatively high stakes conversation with foreign leaders to another unaligned audience in a foreign venue. I expect it does not take an expert in international relations to see the U.S. interest in pitching this information a certain way for both of these audiences.
In contrast, Bernie Sanders 1985 interview was not conducted for foreign consumption or to support U.S. national interests, and it did not come at a time of opening up in the U.S.-Cuba relationship. Instead, it was given for a local public access TV show. It was effectively a vanity project giving Sanders a platform to expound his views of politics and the world. Because of this, the messaging here is all Sanders. Further contrasting Obama, it was rooted in ideology, with Sanders opening, As a socialist, the word socialism doesnt frighten me, before launching into his discussion of self-described socialist regimes. While you could argue the interview might not be a perfect snapshot of todays presidential candidates innermost thoughts, it was a clear statement of what Sanders believed at the time and unfiltered by the degree of drafting and review Obamas messaging on this topic would have undergone....
From this brief look, we can see that Obamas talk involved a little flattery, a little spin, and a good deal of appealing to an audience that he saw as future leaders. In contrast, Sanders words were simply praise without an intentional objective towards a defined audience. Conflating these two discussions is flimsy, misleading, and indicative of the pro-regime propaganda captured in Sanders own sentiment.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
14 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations