Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by chris_chester
We Were Eight Years in Power by Ta-Nehisi Coates
4.0
This is a strong read, even for folks who have absorbed most of Ta-Nehisi's work over the last several years.
It's essentially an anthology of Coates' biggest work during the Obama years, framed by short explanations of what he was reading and thinking about at the time he constructed the pieces that would make a name for him in The Atlantic.
What emerges from it is a fairly cohesive narrative that takes us from the unlikely rise of Obama in the wake of the financial crisis, through his well-meaning and often-derailed term as President, and to the conclusion with the election of Donald Trump — an event that, far from being unlikely, Coates casts as an almost historically inevitable reassertion of white identity in the wake of the nation's first black president.
To wit: "Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that in working twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump’s counter is persuasive—work half as hard as black people and even more is possible."
But I think the idea that Donald Trump was elected as a white president in perhaps the same way Obama was elected as a black president is fraught, at least as we all pivot to imagine what comes next.
Don't get me wrong, there is no doubting that Donald Trump was able to mobilize the most explicitly racist coalition to assemble behind a presidential candidate since Woodrow Wilson. One of the singular achievements of the book is how effectively it charts opposition to the candidacy and then presidency of Obama as the genesis of this recent surge in white supremacy — not as a moment singular to 2016.
Trump voters are actually every bit as wealthy as their blue state counterparts on the whole, Coates argues, and the factor that comes closest to defining them as a group is the monotone natural of the communities in which they live. This gives the lie to the narrative that the rise of President Trump was entirely due to effete coastal elites alienating the white working class with their safe spaces and other cultural sensitivities.
But in terms of either diagnosing what turned the tide of the 2016 election or thinking about how the Democrats will go about assembling a coalition for the 2020 race (groan), I'm not sure how focusing on whiteness and how to abolish it is going to be a plank that carries an electoral majority.
From a practical political standpoint, it's hard to argue with the logic of President Obama's savvy calculation that the best way to help poor black folks is to create policies and programs that the boats of all working class people — and in so doing help more black folks than not. That is a strategy that casts a wide net that could undergird a broad and effective political coalition.
Coates makes an excellent moral argument in The Case For Reparations, but he seems unwilling to compromise that vision as a politician would by assessing honestly what kind of political program is practically possible. With African-American voters a captured demographic of the Democratic party, the political benefits of explicitly racial programs would be felt, in the best of scenarios, in terms of turnout and messaging. I don't know that it wins you any swing voters. More likely, it gives enemies of the Left ammo to use against them — whether it's done in a racist way or not.
But maybe playing politics is cowardice. In the same way that our founders were cowards for tolerating slavery for the sake of the union or figures like Jefferson were cowards for failing to do what they knew was right for the sake of appearances. Maybe there is a vision of a political program out there that somehow incorporates the hard realities involved with confronting whiteness while offering enough of a positive program to carry a majority.
Coates seems to think so: "And there can be no conflict between the naming of whiteness and the naming of the degradation brought about by an unrestrained capitalism, by the privileging of greed and the legal encouragement to hoarding and more elegant plunder. I have never seen a contradiction between calling for reparations and calling for a living wage, on calling for legitimate law enforcement and single-payer health care. They are related—but cannot stand in for one another. I see the fight against sexism, racism, poverty, and even war finding their union not in synonymity but in their ultimate goal—a world more humane."
We'll see! As always with Coates though, I found a lot worth thinking about in this book, even if I didn't agree with it. I also always appreciate the way he cites the work of people who influenced his argument, which has helped me identify some follow-up reads.
It's essentially an anthology of Coates' biggest work during the Obama years, framed by short explanations of what he was reading and thinking about at the time he constructed the pieces that would make a name for him in The Atlantic.
What emerges from it is a fairly cohesive narrative that takes us from the unlikely rise of Obama in the wake of the financial crisis, through his well-meaning and often-derailed term as President, and to the conclusion with the election of Donald Trump — an event that, far from being unlikely, Coates casts as an almost historically inevitable reassertion of white identity in the wake of the nation's first black president.
To wit: "Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that in working twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump’s counter is persuasive—work half as hard as black people and even more is possible."
But I think the idea that Donald Trump was elected as a white president in perhaps the same way Obama was elected as a black president is fraught, at least as we all pivot to imagine what comes next.
Don't get me wrong, there is no doubting that Donald Trump was able to mobilize the most explicitly racist coalition to assemble behind a presidential candidate since Woodrow Wilson. One of the singular achievements of the book is how effectively it charts opposition to the candidacy and then presidency of Obama as the genesis of this recent surge in white supremacy — not as a moment singular to 2016.
Trump voters are actually every bit as wealthy as their blue state counterparts on the whole, Coates argues, and the factor that comes closest to defining them as a group is the monotone natural of the communities in which they live. This gives the lie to the narrative that the rise of President Trump was entirely due to effete coastal elites alienating the white working class with their safe spaces and other cultural sensitivities.
But in terms of either diagnosing what turned the tide of the 2016 election or thinking about how the Democrats will go about assembling a coalition for the 2020 race (groan), I'm not sure how focusing on whiteness and how to abolish it is going to be a plank that carries an electoral majority.
From a practical political standpoint, it's hard to argue with the logic of President Obama's savvy calculation that the best way to help poor black folks is to create policies and programs that the boats of all working class people — and in so doing help more black folks than not. That is a strategy that casts a wide net that could undergird a broad and effective political coalition.
Coates makes an excellent moral argument in The Case For Reparations, but he seems unwilling to compromise that vision as a politician would by assessing honestly what kind of political program is practically possible. With African-American voters a captured demographic of the Democratic party, the political benefits of explicitly racial programs would be felt, in the best of scenarios, in terms of turnout and messaging. I don't know that it wins you any swing voters. More likely, it gives enemies of the Left ammo to use against them — whether it's done in a racist way or not.
But maybe playing politics is cowardice. In the same way that our founders were cowards for tolerating slavery for the sake of the union or figures like Jefferson were cowards for failing to do what they knew was right for the sake of appearances. Maybe there is a vision of a political program out there that somehow incorporates the hard realities involved with confronting whiteness while offering enough of a positive program to carry a majority.
Coates seems to think so: "And there can be no conflict between the naming of whiteness and the naming of the degradation brought about by an unrestrained capitalism, by the privileging of greed and the legal encouragement to hoarding and more elegant plunder. I have never seen a contradiction between calling for reparations and calling for a living wage, on calling for legitimate law enforcement and single-payer health care. They are related—but cannot stand in for one another. I see the fight against sexism, racism, poverty, and even war finding their union not in synonymity but in their ultimate goal—a world more humane."
We'll see! As always with Coates though, I found a lot worth thinking about in this book, even if I didn't agree with it. I also always appreciate the way he cites the work of people who influenced his argument, which has helped me identify some follow-up reads.