INTERVIEW JANUARY 27, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Barack Obama's pre-presidential manifesto, The Audacity of Hope, has only one extended riff on gun control—not a homily on behalf of the cause or even a meditation on the deep divisions opened by the debate, but a story of crummy luck. While State Senator Barack Obama was vacationing in Hawaii, visiting his grandmother and hoping to "reacquaint myself with Michelle," the Illinois legislature abruptly returned to consider bills making the possession of illegal firearms a felony offense. Joining this special session would have required him to backtrack thousands of miles with a sick 18-month old in tow. So Obama stayed put on the islands, while back in Springfield, the package failed by a slim margin. His campaign manager warned him that a political opponent would likely pillory his absence in an attack ad featuring a beach chair and a Mai Tai.
That Obama didn't include the substantive case for gun control in his treatise was characteristic. A strain of wisdom ruled a generation of Democratic Party politics: You might pay a price for reticence on the issue in a big city like Chicago, but in the rest of the country, it was a noble loser, bait for backlash in electorally crucial Rust Belt states with not even the remotest hope for legislative victory. In 2010, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence judged Obama's efforts on behalf of its issue worthy of an "F."
So when the president learned of the massacre in Newtown, how could he not have felt at least a pang of guilt about the failure of his party and administration to keep gun control on even a low simmer? Indeed, his aides described the massacre as having knocked his tightly held interior life into full view like no other event. "I had never seen him like that as long as I've known him," his speechwriter Jon Favreau later told The New York Times, recalling the day of the killings, when Obama sat gob-smacked behind his desk.
On the day we visited the White House, about a month later, the president had just finished presenting his robust slate of gun control proposals—so robust, in fact, that the next morning's newspaper would declare it almost certainly doomed to failure in Congress. But that was the point. On gun control, the president never expected John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to join him on a surveying expedition in search of the mythic land of Common Ground. Compromise was a conversation for the distant future, one he would entertain only after making a muscular argument and creating the political space for his ideas. It was an approach emblematic of a new pugnacity, which also revealed itself in our interview.
That morning's event included parents of the Sandy Hook dead. And as Obama walked with us along the colonnade to the Oval Office, he initially seemed a bit drained. But he perked up as he asked us in granular detail about the health of the media business.1 He bemoaned his own difficulty accessing newspapers and magazines on his ultra-secure presidential iPad, which doesn't allow him to enter required subscriber information. (Chris Hughes worked on his 2008 presidential campaign and has donated money to him since.)
As he sunk into his leather chair and began to answer our questions, he spoke in his characteristic languid pace, often allowing seconds to elapse between words.2 Although he hardly sounded angry, he voiced an impatience with Republicans and the media (and college football) that he once carefully reserved for private conversations. What follows is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation.
Chris Hughes: Can you tell us a little bit about how you've gone about intellectually preparing for your second term as president?
Barack Obama: I'm not sure it's an intellectual exercise as much as it is reminding myself of why I ran for president and tapping into what I consider to be the innate common sense of the American people.
The truth is that most of the big issues that are going to make a difference in the life of this country for the next thirty or forty years are complicated and require tough decisions, but are not rocket science. We know that to fix our economy, we've got to make sure: that we have the most competitive workforce in the world, that we have a better education system, that we are investing in research and development, that we've got world-class infrastructure, that we're reducing our health care costs, and that we're expanding our exports. On issues like immigration, we have a pretty good sense of what's broken in the system and how to fix it. On climate change, it's a daunting task. But we know what releases carbon into the atmosphere, and we have tools right now that would start scaling that back, although we'd still need some big technological breakthrough.
So the question is not, Do we have policies that might work? It is, Can we mobilize the political will to act? And so, I've been spending a lot of time just thinking about how do I communicate more effectively with the American people? How do I try to bridge some of the divides that are longstanding in our culture? How do I project a sense of confidence in our future at a time when people are feeling anxious? They are more questions of values and emotions and tapping into people's spirit.
Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.
CH: Have you looked back in history, particularly at the second terms of other presidents, for inspiration?
There are all sorts of lessons to be learned both from past presidents and my own first term. I've said this before, but one of the things that happened in the first term was that we had so many fires going on at the same time that we were focusing on policy and getting it right, which means that we were spending less time communicating with the American people about why we were doing what we were doing and how it tied together with our overarching desire of strengthening our middle class and making the economy work.
I always read a lot of Lincoln, and I'm reminded of his adage that, with public opinion, there's nothing you can't accomplish; without it, you're not going to get very far. And spending a lot more time in terms of being in a conversation with the American people as opposed to just playing an insider game here in Washington is an example of the kinds of change in orientation that I think we've undergone, not just me personally, but the entire White House.
Chris Buck
President Barack Obama
The White House Map Room, January 16, 2013
Franklin Foer: Let's talk about that in terms of guns. How do you speak to gun owners in a way that doesn't make them feel as if you're impinging upon their liberty?
Well, in our comments today, I was very explicit about believing that the Second Amendment was important, that we respect the rights of responsible gun owners. In formulating our plans, Joe Biden met with a wide range of constituencies, including sportsmen and hunters.
So much of the challenge that we have in our politics right now is that people feel as if the game here in Washington is completely detached from their day-to-day realities. And that's not an unjustifiable view. So everything we do combines both a legislative strategy with a broad-based communications and outreach strategy to get people engaged and involved, so that it's not Washington over here and the rest of America over there.
That does not mean that you don't have some real big differences. The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies.
There are going to be a whole bunch of initiatives where I can get more than fifty percent support of the country, but I can't get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed.
CH: You spoke last summer about your election potentially breaking the fever of the Republicans. The hope being that, once you were reelected, they would seek to do more than just block your presidency. Do you feel that you've made headway on that?
Not yet, obviously.
CH: How do you imagine it happening?
I never expected that it would happen overnight. I think it will be a process. And the Republican Party is undergoing a still-early effort at reexamining what their agenda is and what they care about. I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won reelection. There's been a little bit of self-examination among some in the party, but that hasn't gone to the party as a whole yet.
And I think part of the reason that it's going to take a little bit of time is that, almost immediately after the election, we went straight to core issues around taxes and spending and size of government, which are central to how today's Republicans think about their party. Those issues are harder to find common ground on.
But if we can get through this first period and arrive at a sensible package that reduces our deficits, stabilizes our debts, and involves smart reforms to Medicare and judicious spending cuts with some increased revenues and maybe tax reform, and you can get a package together that doesn't satisfy either Democrats or Republicans entirely, but puts us on a growth trajectory because it leaves enough spending on education, research and development, and infrastructure to boost growth now, but also deals with our long-term challenges on health care costs, then you can imagine the Republicans saying to themselves, "OK, we need to get on the side of the American majority on issues like immigration. We need to make progress on rebuilding our roads and bridges."
There are going to be some areas where that change is going to be very hard for Republicans. I suspect, for example, that already there are some Republicans who embrace the changing attitudes in the country as a whole around LGBT issues and same-sex marriage. But there's a big chunk of their constituency that is going to be deeply opposed to that, and they're going to have to figure out how they navigate what could end up being divisions in their own party. And that will play itself out over years.
FF: Are there any forces for reform within the Republican Party, people you've been able to establish some sort of working relationship with?
Well, look, I've always believed that there are a bunch of Republicans of goodwill who would rather get something done than suffer through the sort of nasty atmosphere that prevails in Washington right now. It's not a fun time to be a member of Congress.
And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don't think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground.
One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it.
It's not a fun time to be a member of Congress.
I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.
The same dynamic happens on the Democratic side. I think the difference is just that the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word. And I think at least leaders like myself—and I include Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in this—are willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.
CH: You inspired a lot of people in your first presidential campaign, and with your books, by talking about a new kind of politics. And now, four years later, it's a time in Washington that's characterized by nastiness more often that not. How do you reconcile those two things four years in?
I believe that what I talked about in 2008 is still where the country is. And it describes my real-world view of how politics should work. I've always been suspicious of absolutism. I've always been suspicious of ideological litmus tests. I'm not somebody—when I look back on American history—who believes that one party has got a monopoly on wisdom.
So I guess the issue is not that the concept in 2008 was wrong. I think the issue is that we have these institutional barriers that prevent what the American people want from happening. Some of them are internal to Congress, like the filibuster in the Senate. Some of them have to do with our media and what gets attention. Nobody gets on TV saying, "I agree with my colleague from the other party." People get on TV for calling each other names and saying the most outlandish things.
Even on issues like the response to Hurricane Sandy, Chris Christie was getting hammered by certain members of his own party and media outlets for cooperating with me to respond to his constituents. That gives you an indication of how difficult I think the political environment has become for a lot of these folks. And I think what will change that is politicians seeing more upside to cooperation than downside, and right now that isn't the case. Public opinion is going to be what changes that.
FF: When you talk about Washington, oftentimes you use it as a way to describe this type of dysfunction. But it's a very broad brush. It can seem as if you're apportioning blame not just to one party, but to both parties—
Well, no, let me be clear. There's not a—there's no equivalence there. In fact, that's one of the biggest problems we've got in how folks report about Washington right now, because I think journalists rightly value the appearance of impartiality and objectivity. And so the default position for reporting is to say, "A plague on both their houses." On almost every issue, it's, "Well, Democrats and Republicans can't agree"—as opposed to looking at why is it that they can't agree. Who exactly is preventing us from agreeing?
And I want to be very clear here that Democrats, we've got a lot of warts, and some of the bad habits here in Washington when it comes to lobbyists and money and access really goes to the political system generally. It's not unique to one party. But when it comes to certain positions on issues, when it comes to trying to do what's best for the country, when it comes to really trying to make decisions based on fact as opposed to ideology, when it comes to being willing to compromise, the Democrats, not just here in this White House, but I would say in Congress also, have shown themselves consistently to be willing to do tough things even when it's not convenient, because it's the right thing to do. And we haven't seen that same kind of attitude on the other side.
Until Republicans feel that there's a real price to pay for them just saying no and being obstructionist, you'll probably see at least a number of them arguing that we should keep on doing it. It worked for them in the 2010 election cycle, and I think there are those who believe that it can work again. I disagree with them, and I think the cost to the country has been enormous.
But if you look at the most recent fiscal deal, I presented to Speaker Boehner a package that would have called for $1.2 trillion in new revenue—less than I actually think we need, but in the spirit of compromise—and over nine hundred billion dollars in spending cuts, some of which are very difficult. And yet, I'm confident we could have gotten Democratic votes for that package, despite the fact that we were going after some Democratic sacred cows. And had we gotten that done, it would have been good for the economy, and I think it would have changed the political environment in this town.
Democrats, as painful as it was, as much as we got attacked by some of our core constituencies, were willing to step up because it was the right thing to do. And the other side could not do that.
CH: It seems as if you're relying more on executive orders to get around these problems. You've done it for gun control, for immigration. Has your view on executive authority changed now that you've been president for four years?
I don't think it's changed. I continue to believe that whenever we can codify something through legislation, it is on firmer ground. It's not going to be reversed by a future president. It is something that will be long lasting and sturdier and more stable.
So a great example of that is the work we did on "don't ask, don't tell." There were advocates in the LGBT community who were furious at me, saying, "Why don't you just sign with a pen ordering the Pentagon to do this?" And my argument was that we could build a coalition to get this done, that having the Pentagon on our side and having them work through that process so that they felt confident they could continue to carry out their missions effectively would make it last and make it work for the brave men and women, gays and lesbians, who were serving not just now but in the future.
And the proof of the pudding here is that not only did we get the law passed, but it's caused almost no controversy. It's been almost thoroughly embraced, whereas had I just moved ahead with an executive order, there would have been a huge blowback that might have set back the cause for a long time.
But what I do see is that there are certain issues where a judicious use of executive power can move the argument forward or solve problems that are of immediate-enough import that we can't afford not to do it. And today, just to take an example, the notion that we wouldn't be collecting information on gun violence just to understand how it happens, why it happens, what might reduce it—that makes no sense. We shouldn't require legislation for the CDC to be able to gather information about one of the leading causes of death in the United States of America.
FF: Have you ever fired a gun?
Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.
FF: The whole family?
Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.
Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.
So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.
FF: Sticking with the culture of violence, but on a much less dramatic scale: I'm wondering if you, as a fan, take less pleasure in watching football, knowing the impact that the game takes on its players.
I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football. And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence. In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much.
How do I weigh tens of thousands who've been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?
I tend to be more worried about college players than NFL players in the sense that the NFL players have a union, they're grown men, they can make some of these decisions on their own, and most of them are well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies. You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on. That's something that I'd like to see the NCAA think about.3
CH: The last question is about Syria. I wonder if you can speak about how you personally, morally, wrestle with the ongoing violence there.
Every morning, I have what's called the PDB—presidential daily briefing—and our intelligence and national security teams come in here and they essentially brief me on the events of the previous day. And very rarely is there good news. And a big chunk of my day is occupied by news of war, terrorism, ethnic clashes, violence done to innocents. And what I have to constantly wrestle with is where and when can the United States intervene or act in ways that advance our national interest, advance our security, and speak to our highest ideals and sense of common humanity.
And as I wrestle with those decisions, I am more mindful probably than most of not only our incredible strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations. In a situation like Syria, I have to ask, can we make a difference in that situation? Would a military intervention have an impact? How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in Afghanistan? What would be the aftermath of our involvement on the ground? Could it trigger even worse violence or the use of chemical weapons? What offers the best prospect of a stable post-Assad regime? And how do I weigh tens of thousands who've been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?
Those are not simple questions. And you process them as best you can. You make the decisions you think balance all these equities, and you hope that, at the end of your presidency, you can look back and say, I made more right calls than not and that I saved lives where I could, and that America, as best it could in a difficult, dangerous world, was, net, a force for good.
81 comments
I like the redesign. I don't like Obama's theory of politics. As if the current Republican Party is just in a fever that can be outlasted. It's been getting this way for nigh on three decades. It's intensified crazily over the past five years, but it's going to take a while for Republicans to get out of it and it's going to have to be painful for them to change. Not just their polls being bad. Actual electoral wipeouts. The Republican Party has essentially nothing to contribute to government or governance. It's asking to be routed. If Obama isn't looking to rout the Party, then he's neither working in his best interest, his party's best interest, or Republicans' long-term best interest.
- chaitless
January 27, 2013 at 5:47am
I like the redesign. I don't like Obama's theory of politics. As if the current Republican Party is just in a fever that can be outlasted. It's been getting this way for nigh on three decades. It's intensified crazily over the past five years, but it's going to take a while for Republicans to get out of it and it's going to have to be painful for them to change. Not just their polls being bad. Actual electoral wipeouts. The Republican Party has essentially nothing to contribute to government or governance. It's asking to be routed. If Obama isn't looking to rout the Party, then he's neither working in his best interest, his party's best interest, or Republicans' long-term best interest.
- chaitless
January 27, 2013 at 5:47am
Also: This place needs work on comment doubling and text formatting, especially with regard to unicode.
- chaitless
January 27, 2013 at 5:50am
Hi Chaitless, thanks for the feedback here (and your comments - please keep them coming!). As you can see, we've been having some technical issues with the comments today and we are in the process of fixing them. Comments have long been a subscriber-only feature and a crucial way for our readers to further the dialogue by sharing their thoughts and ideas. I'm confident we'll have the technical components up and running soon to make this a better experience for everyone. Thanks for your patience -- Sloan, New Republic COO
- Chasrmack@aol.com
January 27, 2013 at 7:19pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
"But if we can get through this first period and arrive at a sensible package that reduces our deficits, stabilizes our debts, and involves smart reforms to Medicare and judicious spending cuts with some increased revenues and maybe tax reform, and you can get a package together that doesn't satisfy either Democrats or Republicans entirely, but puts us on a growth trajectory because it leaves enough spending on education, research and development, and infrastructure to boost growth now, but also deals with our long-term challenges on health care costs . . ." Maybe Obama is on to something: win the election and then adopt the opposition's policies and the opposition will be so grateful the opposition will let Obama have whatever Obama wants. It's a counter-intuitive strategy and one that hasn't worked all that well, but it's the strategy Obama believes in so we must get used to it. Good luck, Mr. President.
- rayward
January 27, 2013 at 8:01am
This website needs more work. I can barely see the typing area. Anyway a very good interview. I
- arnon1
January 27, 2013 at 9:54am
this redesign sucks. I read TNR for readers' comments and now the comments are marginalized by the new pagination
- Idefix
January 27, 2013 at 10:43am
Everything about the comment section sucks. The login isn't working correctly, need to login anew every time. I have had to change my password twice. The comments box seems to be a virtual box which I can see only when I step back. I hope this website isn't completed yet and you will improve the comments area.
- arnon1
January 27, 2013 at 12:19pm
Hi Arnon1, thanks for the feedback here – and please keep the comments coming. As you can see, we've been having some technical issues with the comments today and we are in the process of fixing them. Comments have long been a subscriber-only feature and a crucial way for our readers to further the dialogue by sharing their thoughts and ideas. I'm confident we'll have the technical components up and running soon to make this a better experience for everyone. Thanks for your patience -- Sloan, New Republic COO
- Chasrmack@aol.com
January 27, 2013 at 7:21pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
Congrats on the redesign!
- dcarpenter
January 27, 2013 at 1:12pm
One little thing that I thought was especially clever: the "footnotes" are actually side notes. Great idea. I would love to see more of these in articles to retain their readability but allow the reader to go to a more in-depth study or whatever about what the author is talking about. This feature could really be put to amazing work by an author discussing complicated topics.
- dcarpenter
January 27, 2013 at 1:15pm
Hi DCarpenter, we love the footnotes too. You’ll see us doing a lot more with them soon – stay tuned and thanks for the feedback. -- Sloan, New Republic COO
- Chasrmack@aol.com
January 27, 2013 at 7:21pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
I don't mean to crowd this comments section with questions about the redesign, but I'm not sure where else to put them. 1) When I go to the Current Issue section of the website, even as a logged-in subscriber, I cannot read the articles in the new issue. Is this purposeful or will I soon be able to read those articles? 2) In my subscriber details neither my shipping nor billing address was filled in and the box marked "Send me a print copy" was not selected. Was that purposeful as well?
- dcarpenter
January 27, 2013 at 1:46pm
Hi DCarpenter, to your questions: 1) yes, that is purposeful. We release the articles over the course of days, so the TOC is a guide of what’s yet to come 2) This should be fixed by now, but if not, please let me know
- Chasrmack@aol.com
January 27, 2013 at 7:21pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
Malahat, just read Wieseltier's piece in the current issue on my i-Pad and I think you'll appreciate it as much as I did.
- arnon1
January 27, 2013 at 1:58pm
Nothing about this website is easy. The complication are due to ineptitude and not for any digital reason. Malahat, were you able to access the article? If not let me know and I'll let you know how I was able to do it, though luck and not conscious knowledge was the main reason.
- arnon1
January 27, 2013 at 3:36pm
Hm. I was briefly concerned that my subscription was effectively over, as it asked for my email, though email has never been the basis of TNR account username. So I put my username in, and it took that as an email, and here I am, able to at least comment. At least once. This redesign is nightmarishly horrific. What style consultant thought it was a good idea to change a political magazine's front page to an obnoxious link to a single article, with only three teensy links to other articles and no indications whatsoever as to how one could see more? And what mind-boggling embrace of idiocy led to my being able to click "Current Issue" to find only a plain-text listing of articles with no way to navigate to them? (No way to get to all but one, that is-the cover article that the front page is driving hits to.) Congrats, Mr. Hughes and whoever else. You've taken a website and a community with a history of very bad revamps and managed to finally tank it in one final blow. I'll miss roid, irony, blackton and quite a few others here, as well as the authors themselves, but this new design is clearly intended to channel readers in the direction of the article our overlords have decided we should read today, with not a moment's effort spent considering that a community of discussion is what kept this site alive for the past many years. Fix that, Mr. Hughes, and perhaps I might become a subscriber again someday. 'til then, good luck to all, and goodbye.
- janus
January 27, 2013 at 3:46pm
And line breaks in comments have been removed, as well. A nice final insult, web designers. Touche.
- janus
January 27, 2013 at 3:47pm
Hi Janus, thanks for the feedback. All I can say is that we’re working on it. As you can see, we've been having some technical issues across the site and we are in the process of fixing them. As for comments: they have long been a subscriber-only feature and a crucial way for our readers to further the dialogue by sharing their thoughts and ideas. I'm confident we'll have the technical components up and running soon to make this a better experience for everyone. Thanks for your patience -- Sloan, New Republic COO
- Chasrmack@aol.com
January 27, 2013 at 7:22pm
SHOW ALL 2 RESPONSES
I'm sorry to be beating a dead horse, but I hadn't anticipated the FINAL final insult: any PAY website which, when you access your account information and find a convenient link marked "Cancel My Account," should not lead you to a page that reads, "ACCESS DENIED: We're sorry, but you do not have access the page requested." Good christ. The new crew can't even manage sadistic website error messages in complete sentences.
- janus
January 27, 2013 at 3:54pm
Hi Janus, sounds like today isn’t going very well! Sorry about that. We’ll have that link up and running very soon – our apologies. -- Sloan, New Republic COO
- Chasrmack@aol.com
January 27, 2013 at 7:22pm
How do I get to my paid account, user name tommyduke? My old account, from three years ago, with the user name eastcane, is connected to my email address, but that's not my paid account. Have no explanation why I have two accounts, can't even remember why.
- eastcane
January 28, 2013 at 1:46pm
SHOW ALL 2 RESPONSES
If readers haven't noticed, there is now a link to read TNR in Facebook. I haven't tried the link, but I suspect that's where TNR intends for most on-line readers to read TNR. They have relegated comments to the ghetto, but I was spending too much time on comments anyway. For those who did access the Ipad app version, or the the latest issue in the new format, what's there and not here, among other items, is the review of ZDT by Hanna Rosin. I'm not sure if she is simply defending the sisterhood, but her review totally ignores the promotion of the film as history; indeed, her review conflates art (i.e., film making) and actual events (including torture) as if they are one and the same. I suspect negative reaction to the review will far exceed the negative reaction to the new format. My question is why the review isn't posted on-line yet?
- rayward
January 27, 2013 at 4:04pm
Hi Rayward, thanks for the feedback here (and your comments - please keep them coming!). As you can see, we've been having some technical issues with the comments today and we are in the process of fixing them. Quite the contrary, comments are hugely important to us onsite. They’ve long been a subscriber-only feature and a crucial way for our readers to further the dialogue by sharing their thoughts and ideas. I'm confident we'll have the technical components up and running soon to make this a better experience for everyone. Thanks for your patience -- Sloan, New Republic COO
- Chasrmack@aol.com
January 27, 2013 at 7:23pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
I recommend readers (subscribers) give TNR a little slack. Those who watched Hughes moderate the discussion with Huffington and Thiel know that Hughes is both very good and totally committed to a discussion of ideas, especially political ideas. Give him and the magazine some slack.
- rayward
January 27, 2013 at 4:22pm
Thanks, Rayward. We’re moving as fast as we can to serve the people we care most about – our readers (and especially our subscribers!) More soon. -- Sloan, New Republic COO
- Chasrmack@aol.com
January 27, 2013 at 7:23pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
Ok Malahat here it goes: I assume you installed the New Republic app which should appear in Newstand. Open tnr by tapping once or twice if necessary. Than go to any article or even from the cover with Obama's picture on it and if your magazine is poster vertically go down to bottom edge (if its poster horizontally also go to the bottom edge). Once at the edge and you will see two icons one for library the other for store. Now right above the icons you should see a virtual bar that runs from left to right: put your finger on it and slide all the way near the end. That's where the article is. If you slide it slowly you'll see the names of most articles with small pictures displayed. When you ran into "footprints" stop. You have reached your destination. If you can't do it the first keep trying you stop prematurely and land on a different article. Just keep going. If by chance you get to a Pfizer advertizement than you will be on the last page or back cover. Slowly slide it back about a tenth of an inch. Voila, that's it. Good luck.
- arnon1
January 27, 2013 at 5:03pm
Is it really necessary to define Obama's adversaries as "enemies"?
- Noga
January 27, 2013 at 5:44pm
BTW, I think the new format for the comments is meant to discourage an extended discussion and a relatively free give and take. I don't have the patience to place a comment, click submit, and then click again on Comments to see if it joined the queue and read the subsequent comments. The response to a posters comment makes it hard to create one flowing conversation. It opens a few mini-discussions and is clearly intended for comments only, not an on going discussion. It's the same logic that followed the Charlie Rose message boards. They were closed down and then the website enables comments only. And that was the end of a very dynamic and engaged community of eager interlocutors. I think I'm going to interrupt my subscription even though I still have 8 months on it. If they don't refund me the balance then you will have the pleasure of encountering my comments from time to time, as I'm not going to let my money go to waste. As a Canadian I paid a pretty sum for the privilege of subscription and the ability to post comments. The new format is a damn shame. It's as if they really don't wish to allocate a space for discussions to develop as they should.
- Noga
January 27, 2013 at 5:54pm
Also note how you cannot have paragraphs in the comments or post links that work. They really don't want any prolonged discussions here.
- Noga
January 27, 2013 at 5:57pm
Hi Noga, thanks for the feedback here. As you can see, we've been having some technical issues with the comments today and we are in the process of fixing them. Comments have long been a subscriber-only feature and a crucial way for our readers to further the dialogue by sharing their thoughts and ideas. I'm confident we'll have the technical components up and running soon to make this a better experience for everyone. Thanks for your patience -- Sloan, New Republic COO
- Chasrmack@aol.com
January 27, 2013 at 7:23pm
SHOW ALL 2 RESPONSES
I agree with all the complaints and am having the same problems. I don't want the app. I'm a subscriber and just want to get TNR via the web on my Ipad. Ever try disengaging an app? It's murder. Plus I wasn't knocked out by this interview. Lots of high sounding talk that shed light on very little and not even a smidgeon of challenge or taking Obama up on anything specific. All too comfy and cozy for my money. And I hope the awkwardness of the commenting isn't its death. Have a bad feeling about a possible funeral.
- basman
January 27, 2013 at 6:16pm
P.S. Where's the search box?
- basman
January 27, 2013 at 6:41pm
For example, I can't figure out how to read Wieseltier's piece, even on my desk top, which I have been forced to resort to, after wiping off the dust and cob webs.
- basman
January 27, 2013 at 6:43pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
The new design is not a "horse designed by a committee." It's a "Web designer trampled to death by a herd of wild horses." Oh, yes, Obama. The wild horses got him, too. BTW, when do we get a President who doesn't prate about "God?" We're on our own, human beings. Deal with it.
- skahn
January 27, 2013 at 6:44pm
There are still a lot of bugs in the system. I assume they'll work on it. If the owner wanted us gone he would not have set up a response area. I don't care for the response style since it doesn't allow for easy identification of posts, it doesn't even show the date and time they were posted.
- arnon1
January 27, 2013 at 6:56pm
Spot on – we care! We’re working on it and we want to hear from you. Thanks for your patience -- Sloan, New Republic COO
- Chasrmack@aol.com
January 27, 2013 at 7:25pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
Malahat, yes give it a few weeks. In the meantime remember that Leon Wieselties is still here that Franklin Foer is still editor, that Foer's name appears before Hughes' name. (Hughes doesn't seem to be a megalomaniac), that they hired Michael Kinsley. I could go on listing signs that the magazine is making an effort to maintain quality.
- arnon1
January 27, 2013 at 7:24pm
Try this, Malahat: click forgot my password, wait for the email, click on the link and as you reset your password try loging in. That's what I had to do. After a number of tries I got. But, big but here, the tnr app isn't running smoothly yet, even after you log in. I expect they will fix this also soon. For a new or revamped website they are not doing too badly. I have seen lots worse. Good luck.
- arnon1
January 27, 2013 at 9:10pm
That's what I had to do, too. I used the same password.
- ReganaD
January 28, 2013 at 3:10pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
I like the redesign, very cool and I know any bugs will be more than detailed to death by this crew anyway. I don't have a problem with any of it. I can't top Chaitless on this interview so I won't try - but I will complement the interviewers for the tightly worded and blessedly unique questions and then staying out of the way. I'll also complement the President his concise demolition of our silly mainstream media and how toxic their acute distractibility has become to our political culture. I wish he'd take out that shiv much more often - daily, hourly.
- WandreyCer
January 28, 2013 at 9:48am
Hello all! I just wanted to say I'm still around too -- bet you're all pleased (not) -- just in another part of the maze. And trying to figure out what the intention is with these changes (not merely the comments input). Beyond the comment area problems, I have to say that, for me, the big headscratcher is the site navigation - there is something visually frustrating about the new "super-cover" setup, which lacks an overall sense of what the various writers have been dealing with throughout, say, the last week or so, and also removes what had become an important borderline between stories (with the feel of a longer perspective) and blog posts (often at the best quick responses to very recent events). Incidentally, I don't think the interview with Obama is so bad at all. It has a groundedness that I find somewhat of a relief.
- ironyroad
January 28, 2013 at 11:49am
Well I am quite pleased you're here sir!
- WandreyCer
January 28, 2013 at 1:19pm
...Incidentally, I don't think the interview with Obama is so bad at all... Is so! ..It has a groundedness that I find somewhat of a relief. ... Has not!
- basman
January 28, 2013 at 2:11pm
Of course I misplaced my response and posted it under malahat when it was obviously meant for ironyroad who is familiar with my devotion to Seinfeld: “ George and Elaine watch ``Rochelle Rochelle'' in different parts of the theater. Also there are Jerry and Buckles. George and Buckles seem to be enjoying the movie; Jerry and Elaine can't deal with it. ELAINE: Oh, gimme a break! George turns, as does Jerry. JERRY: Elaine? Elaine's face lights up. ELAINE: Jerry! JERRY: Elaine! VOICE: [whispered] Shut up. GEORGE: Jerry? JERRY: George? GEORGE: Elaine? ELAINE: George! [waves hi] JERRY: Hey, where's Kramer? VOICE: [whispered] Will you shut up? ELAINE: I don't know. Does this movie stink or what! JERRY: Let's get outta here. [to Buckles] I'll see ya. BUCKLES: You're leaving? JERRY: Yeah
- Noga
January 28, 2013 at 2:34pm
But not as wonderful as the episode in which they are watching The English Patient and Elaine can't contain her total fury and dislike of the movie.
- ironyroad
January 28, 2013 at 3:05pm
Yes but this segment represents better how we hail each other in what you called the new TNR labyrinth. Another metaphor: imagine we were all on the Titanic finding ourselves in the same lifeboat. even if we thoroughly dislike each other on board, we would still be happy to see the old faces alive and kicking, no?
- Noga
January 28, 2013 at 3:45pm
Let's hope we get picked up quickly! But the labyrinth idea got me thinking of another way of imagining this new TNR experience -- the titles sequence at the beginning of Homeland (season 1 anyway, I haven't seen 2). The voices, the fragments of presidential statements, the characters adjacent to each other but not really seeing each other . . .
- ironyroad
January 28, 2013 at 5:23pm
SHOW ALL 6 RESPONSES
What I miss is the distinct arts and letters section which was separated by the movie review section. What I see here so far is the reduction of every subject matter to essays. Thomson has a long review of a TV program based on Ford Maddox Ford's WW1 trilogy. Thomson spends most of his time relating the plot of the novel in relation to the movie. ("This seen is absent in the movie, this one is not") This is sophomoric stuff. I miss Kaufmann and I hope he wasn't retired. My fear is that everything will turn into \"politics" which is to say gossip. The political is the new gossip.
- arnon1
January 28, 2013 at 12:55pm
What I miss is the distinct arts and letters section which was separated by the movie review section. What I see here so far is the reduction of every subject matter to essays. Thomson has a long review of a TV program based on Ford Maddox Ford's WW1 trilogy. Thomson spends most of his time relating the plot of the novel in relation to the movie. ("This seen is absent in the movie, this one is not") This is sophomoric stuff. I miss Kaufmann and I hope he wasn't retired. My fear is that everything will turn into \"politics" which is to say gossip. The political is the new gossip.
- arnon1
January 28, 2013 at 12:55pm
Still can't get the Wieseltier piece on my desktop. Still can't get on with IPad wo app, which I don't want/ Impossible nearly to quit an app.
- basman
January 28, 2013 at 2:13pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
Two schools of thought here: good interview; mediocre interview. I'm a student of the latter school, so naturally objectively it's a ( ..., guess) interview. For those enrolled in the first school, gimme an insight you gleaned from it you didn't know before, besides what a good skeet shot the guy is, please. And, what's a skeet?
- basman
January 28, 2013 at 2:17pm
No I won't -- I don't have to justify my feelings to anyone, not even you basman. I just finished teaching The Portrait of a Lady and I think I'm entitled to my Isabel Archer moment!
- ironyroad
January 28, 2013 at 3:02pm
Which moment is that Irony? The moment she arrives at her Aunts estate or the moment she married Osmond?
- arnon1
January 28, 2013 at 9:23pm
One of those fluid moments when she is pushing back at the decisive rhetoric of her male interloctors, be it Ralph, Goodwood, Warburton, or even Harriet Stackpole (sort of an honorary guy in the novel).
- ironyroad
January 28, 2013 at 10:15pm
SHOW ALL 3 RESPONSES
The log in set up is a nightmare. I keep having to login each time. The system doesn't remember passwords. Now, each time I log in they tell me that my password is incorrect, even though I used the same password which was sent to me by TNR and used it at that time. I just had to ask for a new password because the system is too stupid to remember me.
- arnon1
January 28, 2013 at 2:28pm
The log in set up is a nightmare. I keep having to login each time. The system doesn't remember passwords. Now, each time I log in they tell me that my password is incorrect, even though I used the same password which was sent to me by TNR and used it at that time. I just had to ask for a new password because the system is too stupid to remember my password.
- arnon1
January 28, 2013 at 2:29pm
The log in set up is a nightmare. I keep having to login each time. The system doesn't remember passwords. Now, each time I log in they tell me that my password is incorrect, even though I used the same password which was sent to me by TNR and used it at that time. I just had to ask for a new password because the system is too stupid to remember my password.
- arnon1
January 28, 2013 at 2:29pm
The interview was ok. Didn't probe much but questions they asked were intelligent. I just heard an interview with Chris on the NY Times Web site where he is asked about the New New Republic. Kept referring to the TNR as a BRAND name and the magazine as a product. Not very encouraging especially when he said he didn't want the magazine to read like a "homework lesson." Maybe I am wrong and this is just the way he expresses himself. I wish now TNR had joined the Partisan Review rather than being turned into another light reading magazine.
- arnon1
January 28, 2013 at 2:36pm
Perhaps they should have taken Katie Couric along for the interview, to inject one or two real hardball questions among the marshmallows. These questions treat Obama as if he were made of some fragile stuff, not to be handled with any show of contentiousness, contrarianness, etc, attributes I always expect from journalists worth their salt. Maybe they want to turn TNR into the Obama magazine, the same way MSNBC is the Obama News channel (except from the Morning Joe, that is).
- Noga
January 28, 2013 at 2:50pm
Format disaster. Doltish. Where are the pics? How to navigate? Really, do better quickly.
- Robert Powell
January 28, 2013 at 4:28pm
I am curious that there is no longer any "Print" button for any article.
- gbuseck
January 28, 2013 at 6:06pm
I’ll try to stay circumspect: On the interview, I agree with basman. I don’t like the Q&A format generally, there are no revelations, and, yes, even I, a die-hard Obama supporter, found it awfully soft. I would have liked to hear Obama’s responses to criticisms from the left – that he gives away too much, doesn’t go for the jugular, etc. – with reference to specific issues. On the redesign, I feel like the home page doesn’t have enough on it, and I feel a little disoriented. It seems to me that the home page should give you an easy-to-digest overview of everything recent that’s on tap. (See, e.g., The New Yorker’s website.) I don’t care for the comments format with their hard-to-read italics, superfluous quotation marks, text box at the top, and “respond” option. Why are we messing with what worked fine before? Some like the respond option, but I find it confusing. If you want to carry on a conversation with others, you don’t know where to look or where to carry it on – in response to a specific comment or just on the thread as a whole. I find that the most interesting conversations take place on websites that don’t force you to make this decision, and, at the same time, it’s always perfectly easy to keep track of who is responding to what. (Although, it was easier before, when comments had a time/date stamp, and yet easier *before* the *last* redesign, when comments were numbered. We keep making things worse for no reason.) I find the look a bit difficult to take in. Everything seems too big and/or spaced out, and the body text font isn’t very congenial to my eye (either in medium or small). It seems a little like an “app”-ish website, more friendly for a device than for your computer. I’ve already encountered issues with viewing the website at work. Explorer (version whatever) has trouble resolving items on the page and so, I finally figured out, was automatically switching to “compatibility mode,” which screws up the page. I had to find and turn off that “advanced” option in Explorer to be able to comment or view the website properly for any length of time, and changing that option may mess up other websites. Anyway, I’m going to stick with it for the time being, and see how things progress.
- JakeH
January 28, 2013 at 6:12pm
p.s. I think part of the problem I'm having with the body text is that it's justified on the right without being hyphenated. This doesn't make for very happy reading -- all those awkward and differently-sized spaces between words.
- JakeH
January 28, 2013 at 6:27pm
There is also a disconnect between what is in the magazine and the feel good stuff online. I assume that Wieseltier has more to do with the magazine than with the website.
- arnon1
January 28, 2013 at 9:18pm
And why am I typing on top when I wish to address people at the bottom of the 100 and some posts?
- arnon1
January 28, 2013 at 9:20pm
Barack Obama is pleased: " President Obama: Well, Muammar Qaddafi probably does not agree with that assessment, or at least if he was around, he wouldn’t agree with that assessment. Obviously, you know, we helped to put together and lay the groundwork for liberating Libya. You know, when it comes to Egypt, I think, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there." .... This is not merely an administration that doesn’t have a steady hand on the rudder, as its clueless approach to Syria demonstrates, but one that thinks having a hatemonger like Morsi and his Islamist crew achieving hegemony in Cairo is something they can brag about as a triumph for American foreign policy. It’s little wonder that Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are so confident that they need not fear the impact of American “leadership” in the next four years." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/01/28/why-is-obama-bragging-about-egypt-muslim-brotherhood-mubarak/
- noga1
January 29, 2013 at 7:35am
Why am I NOGA1 again? I corrected my moniker months ago and it appeared as "Noga" even in the new TNR format. It's as if the technical stuff don't really know how to handle the beast.
- noga1
January 29, 2013 at 7:38am
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
More reasons to be pleased about: "Just as I'm finally ready to depart for Libya, travel warnings go from bad to catastrophic. The United States government is now saying “the potential for violence and kidnappings targeting Westerners in Benghazi is significant.” The British Foreign Office says, “We are aware of a specific, imminent threat to Westerners in Benghazi. We advise against all travel to Benghazi and urge any British nationals who are there against our advice to leave immediately.” http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blogs/michael-j-totten
- noga1
January 29, 2013 at 7:46am
It may be that the new concept ultimately doesn't envisage subscribers in the traditional sense. The 'Disunion' series on the Civil War in the NYT has a model that essentially moves all discussion of the articles to the Disunion facebook page, which of course forces one to have an FB account -- and FB is imo not good for more extended discussions of complex issue. I think it would be better if they came out and just told us what the plan is -- this current environment is grotesque.
- ironyroad
January 29, 2013 at 1:33pm
Irony, I read you to be beginning to harbor malign motives too, or at least sinister ones--"it would be better if they came out and just told us what the plan is"--as these matters go.
- basman
January 29, 2013 at 3:19pm
Not harboring, I hope -- more intuiting. You're right in essence, though: I'm beginning to be more open to the unpleasant thought that some folks are harboring them against us. Why? is the question. What did we do to them, that they exact such cruel vengeance?
- ironyroad
January 29, 2013 at 3:36pm
If I may intuit as well, I don't see any major breakthroughs in the new format. It is a comments only formats, as you can find on any garden variety blog. Only they placed a few obstacles on the way to commenting, making it just trying enough for posters to place comments, thus discouraging any real and expanded discussion. You can find this format on other newspapers, such as the Guardian. What you get there is not discussion or conversation but just a series of soap box fulminations, which you tire of reading after 2 minutes. I think I'll ask for my money back. Two thirds of $120 is $80. I can get a nice pair of silver earrings at Winners for this sum. Two pairs, if I'm lucky.
- noga1
January 29, 2013 at 4:41pm
SHOW ALL 3 RESPONSES
Just got my hard copy -- looks good. Nice and big and glossy and pretty. Of course, the last redesign started out that way too. Not sure why TRB is buried in The Mall, but whatever. The website looks better on my home computer than at work, but I continue to quibble with the "cover page" as home page (rather than a a more comprehensive overview) and with the new comments non-improvements, and I'm still not wild about the body text font (also used in the print magazine). Maybe I'll get used to it. Tip: The "Latest" banner on the home page often cuts off the headline of the first story before it gets to the point -- hardly enticing. Question: Is there an Android app? When I went to the website on my Android browser, it looked lousy. The black area for the headline completely covered up the picture it was supposed to only be artfully overlaying (i.e., all you saw was the top of Obama's head). As long as we're getting all multi-platform and whatnot, it pays to remember that not everyone worships at the altar of Jobs and his pads and pods and other i-crap.
- JakeH
January 29, 2013 at 7:46pm
Another comment problem: You can't do paragraphs. There was a time when the old TNR had that problem. You were forced to type a lot of asterisks in order to break up the text, like so: ************************* Very irritating. Then, they allowed you to make paragraphs, and things were better. Now, we're back to no paragraph land. The whole format suggests that comments are to be pithy -- thrown off with an italics attitude -- no dissertations, please. But we here at TNR sometimes take longer to make our point and are glad for the ability to do so. The old website hid the balance of a long comment behind a link, so as not to disrupt flow, and that worked fine. Once again, why are we making things worse? Who thinks these changes are good ideas, and why? Seriously!
- JakeH
January 29, 2013 at 7:50pm
Strange serendipity: Just received a notification today that my last annual TNR subscription payment didn't go through because they don't have an updated credit card number. It wasn't intentional, but that's what I call good timing. Hmm . . . I wonder how long I've got. OK, if I get tossed out of here suddenly, feel free to contact me at wmg@utk.edu or marting_1@comcast.net.
- ironyroad
January 29, 2013 at 10:14pm
Just to say that today I accessed partially TNR on my IPad without an app in that I could for the first time sign in but then when in couldn't, though signed in, access all the comments or make a comment. Still, too, even on my desktop there's no retention of my password and I have to "reset" it each time, though it's the same password. And the promised email to me never came from a technical person. But I get daily a zillion glossy emails asking me to subscribe, even though I already do. What a cluster fuck.
- basman
January 30, 2013 at 9:35pm
I do notice, however, that in my new print issue the big rollout statement by Chris Hughes has been cleansed of all the odd syntax and clumsy formulations that we zeroed in on at its first online appearance a couple of weeks ago.
- ironyroad
January 31, 2013 at 12:05am
Password problem seems solved. IPad problems persist. Can sign in but can't get comments or comment. Got an email from "The Tech Team." It didn't answer my question gave me information incidental to what I asked and then exhorted me to subscribe even as I do. Replied. We'll see. Also who like Henri Cole's poem The Constant Leaf. I didn't. Finally, here's a good interview of Wieseltier, http://conversations.berkeley.edu/content/leon-wieseltier
- basman
January 31, 2013 at 6:09pm
SHOW ALL 2 RESPONSES
It's very annoying not knowing when the last post was deposited here. I wish the digital deaf gods at TNR would come up with a method for clocking and dating posts. I don't know what to make of the changes some I like many not. The aim to be hip is petty and the comment that the new owner didn't want articles to be read as if they were homework assignments was pretty stupid. People how subscribed to TNR are not going to be bothered by intellectual rigor. The recent New Republic magazine was quite impressive: the letter by Isaiah Berlin was worth the price of the issue. The poetry especially "Sex" was awesome. Still, for some reason the I have a sense that the magazine will become a sort of hip magazine for the digitally minded politically correct reader. I hope they prove me wrong.
- arnon1
January 31, 2013 at 8:24pm
I forgot to stamp the date and time on my previous post: 31st day of January 2013 at 8:25 PM. (Where has the 20th century gone?)
- arnon1
January 31, 2013 at 8:26pm