Comments on: Barack Obama: A Post-Imperial Presidency?

By: JDP

JDP — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:37:40 +0000

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/war.spending/index.html

By: Fleming Rutledge

Fleming Rutledge — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:52:16 +0000

Thanks, Brian, for the hope and for the critique. The evangelical left in America is small and has too few telegenic personalities to be heard much above the din, but many of us share your hopes and your worries.

Vive la resistance–

By: Reflections on an Obama Presidency | jordoncooper.com

Reflections on an Obama Presidency | jordoncooper.com — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:51:12 +0000

[...] David Fitch and Brian Walsh offer up some thoughts on what a Barack Obama presidency will mean for the nation and what it means [...]

By: NextReformation » Fitch, Walsh on Obama

NextReformation » Fitch, Walsh on Obama — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:10:00 +0000

[...] Walsh writes HERE. “… It is no overstatement to describe the presidency of George W. Bush as imperial in [...]

By: News for November 7 - Xenia Institute

News for November 7 - Xenia Institute — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:59:08 +0000

[...] Barack Obama: A Post-Imperial Presidency? | Empire Remixed How will an Obama presidency break with the imperial pretense of not just the Bush/Reagan dynasty, but with the imperial pretense of America herself. Can you be a President of the United States of America and not be imperial? Or to put the question in terms of this website, can Obama remix the American empire? [...]

By: (post-election) links « signs of life

(post-election) links « signs of life — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:15:23 +0000

[...] Brian Walsh wonders if President Obama signals an end of American imperialism (a question with interesting assumptions and implications). But there’s a problem here. It is the problem of empire. Obama stands in the tradition of King by appealing to the founding vision of America and calling America to fulfill that vision. And he is right to believe that there can only be a vision for the future if that vision is rooted in memories that can engender and sustain such a vision. And he was politically wise to argue that we must reject the Bush legacy because it departs from the best of American traditions, the best of American promise. But what is that promise? What, beyond those three foundational words, is the heart of that tradition? If vision is rooted in memory, are some memories better than others? Might there be some memories that need to be re-evaluated if we are to proceed with hope and an alternative vision? [...]

By: Obama and Cyrus, A Meditation in the Garden « Empire Remixed

Obama and Cyrus, A Meditation in the Garden « Empire Remixed — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:10:21 +0000

[...] Philosophy, Institute for Christian Studies) in response to Brian Walsh’s musings in “Barack Obama: A Post-Imperial Presidency?” We liked them so much that we asked Professor Hart if he would allow us to reprint them [...]

By: Lance D

Lance D — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:36:36 +0000

Hi Brian,

helpful article thanks for taking the time to capture many of our thoughts. I too missed your subtle point regarding the true subject of change – ‘He’ vs. ‘he’. I read it in the same way Chris Haw did and, despite our ‘misreading’, still tend to agree with him on the importance of emphasizing the responsibility of every Christ follower to see our walk as significantly prophetic, however unlikely influential in the eyes of the world. If Obama fails in remixing the empire, most likely it will be because the body of Christ did not seize this moment to re-shape the imagination of ordinary believers to what is truly possible as redeemed signs and instruments of Jesus’ kingdom. Obama is the catalyst, but we are the change, and in the final analysis that is where the focus of every movement toward justice must remain.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:21:39 +0000

Hmm, I think, Chris, that maybe you misread my last paragraph. When I wrote, “Yes, He can” the upper case was intentional. “He” ain’t Obama, and Obama ain’t Jesus! My point is that only Jesus ultimately remixes (or transforms, or converts, or turns on its head, etc, etc) the empire. And I’m not arguing that all of this depends in any final way on governmental change, though we agree on the importance of legislation. And yes the ball is in everybody’s court. But what I’m addressing in this blog is the ball that is presently in President-elect Obama’s court. Is it possible to be a post-imperial President of the United States? Generally speaking, I got to admit that I don’t have much faith that it is possible. But then again, there is this recurring rhetorical question in Scripture: “is anything impossible for God?”

By: chris haw

chris haw — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:35:02 +0000

i appreciate the nuance and concerns here. but i’m not sure i understand where you end: that obama (being on the “inside”) is the only one here who can “remix empire.”

i suppose we might need to talk about what we mean when we say “remix empire.” there are surely different accounts and i think we generally mean, “in the way jesus did.”

but if this is so, there seems to be no reason to think that it is up to someone on the inside to mix it up. its not that, categorically speaking, he can’t change something. but empire is no longer (only) about governmental legislation but also about trans-national patterns of economy (which is surely coupled with legislation). and this puts the ball in everybody’s court.