(…)

There’s a school of thought that sees the Founding Fathers only as hypocrites and the Constitution only as a betrayal of the grand ideals set forth by the Declaration of Independence; that agrees with early abolitionists that the Great Compromise between North and South was a pact with the Devil. Others, representing the safer, more conventional wisdom, will insist that all the constitutional compromise on slavery – the omission of abolitionist sentiments from the original draft of the Declaration, the Three-fifths clause, the self-imposed gag rule that the Twenty-fourth Congress would place on all debate regarding the issue of slavery, the very structure of federalism and the Senate – was necessary, if unfortunate, requirement for the formation of the Union; that in their silence, the Founders only sought to postpone what they were certain would be slavery’s ultimate demise; that this single lapse cannot detract from the genius of the Constitution, which permitted the space for abolitionists to rally and the debate to proceed, and provided the framework by which, after the Civil Was had been fought the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments[17] could be passed, and the Union finally perfected.

How can I, an American with the blood of Africa coursing though my veins, choose sides in such dispute? I can’t. I love America too much, am too invested in what this country has become, too committed to its institutions, its beauty and even its ugliness, to focus entirely on the circumstances of its birth. But neither can I brush aside the magnitude of the injustice done, or erase the ghosts of generations past, or ignore the open wound, the aching spirit that ails this country still.” (P.95-97)

In short, his position on the matter of the relationship between present and past is similar to the one of Russian historian V.O. Klutchevski: “We need to know the past not because it has happened, but because on its way out it could not hide its consequences”, which means that unacceptable consequences of the past must be eliminated.

Further on B. Obama concentrates on history of fight against slavery and names those – slaves, free, simple people, and state officials – who sacrificed their lives to the noble task of slavery elimination, and concludes:

“The blood of slaves reminds us that our pragmatism can sometimes be moral cowardice. Lincoln, and those buried at Gettysburg, reminds us that we should pursue our own absolute truths only if we acknowledge that there may be a terrible price to pay” (p. 98).

He also pays attention to the crimes of USA statehood towards both its own people and population of other countries, which throughout American history were a great many. And he clearly expresses his opinion getting to the heart of the matter.

——————

In relation to the whole problematic mentioned in Obama’s book, he expresses a right – from managerial education point of view – position:

It does not matter how the managed object (managed system) has come to one or the other situation

It only matters to what extent this situation is adequately identified and its problematic is being diagnosed, what future goals are set, and what ways towards achieving those goals are suggested.

The goals themselves are unchangeable – bringing to life ideals, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, which includes the totality of: 1) objective ideals, 2) real goal-setting in politics, which is provided by objective and subjective factors of historical specifics, and 3) means to achieve the goals. The second and third, as history shows, can be deceiving, and keeping in mind possibility of mistakes, it is necessary to act in the direction of revealing and bringing those ideals about. To illustrate such example Obama brings up A. Lincoln:

“ I like to believe that for Lincoln, (…) it was a matter of maintaining within himself the balance between two contradictory ides – that we must talk and reach for common understandings, precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side; and yet at times we must act nonetheless, as if we are certain, protected from error only by providence.” (p. 98).

That last phrase would have been a more precise expression of the reality of life is it sounded like that: “we must act in the way for the providence to protect us from error”. But independently from the way you put it in words, this morally-ethical principle is in itself very well grounded in reality, provided that the subject will follow it sincerely, because God is not indifferent to what is happening on Earth, and religion – dialog with God through one’s inner world and flow of life circumstances.

From the systematic position of such sort of principles B. Obama concentrates not only on problematic of life of American society: possibility of personal growth and self-realization in given historical and cultural circumstances, real and desired policy of American statehood in relation to these circumstances; internal and external policies and other questions. He looks at those issues in in their mutual correlation, in specifics, not avoiding the facts, that are unpleasant for nice myths about USA, and thus confirming the principle mentioned in the beginning of his book:

“I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect…” (p. 10)

2.2.2. Fairness in the life of society:

political ethics — mercenary or work

And another un-politically correct subjects in Russionia – theme of justice in the life of society, “elite’s” approach to “simple people” and of people’s approach to “elite”.

But before showing how the subject of social justice is given in “The Audacity of Truth” and in the public speeches of Russian political “elite”, we’ll focus on some specificities of socio-political life of the USA and Russia, that characterize each of the countries.

——————

In general, comparing US life with ideals mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, than undoubtedly, the USA are progressing in the task of turning their cult ideals to life; racial inequality they have already overcome de jure, and are working on overcoming it de facto; many other problems were solved as well.

And the source of this progress is – public discussion of the real divergence between declared ideals and real life, which, although it is often clouded by lengthy speeches of the participants and although the truth often gets lost in those speeches, still is a notable part of socio-political life of the United States, and Obama’s book is very clear example of that. Of course in the US, as in any other country, there is also a non-public discussions of the issue, which in many ways form country’s politics and business actions, but this part is forced to react on the public part of the process.

But along with such progress the USA created many problems both locally and globally, and in the historically defined shape, they became a problem to the rest of the world, that need a solution. One of the main reasons for this is that in the public and non-public politics even as free speech is a cult – free thinking in the US is still limited by their specific culture, which is why US in their demands on the role of the global leader and a wheel of progress are constantly faced with objections, which can be responded to only by force, following wisdom of the unrighteous: “Out force will be the true law, because powerlessness proves to be useless” (The wisdom of Solomon 2:11) – but not many people in the States know these words, because “The wisdom of Solomon” is excluded from the Canon and is not in the standard Bible.

Russia is indeed not America. For the centuries of it’s historical past (starting at least from the “Words of Law and Prosperity” of Kiev’s metropolitan bishop Illarion, dated 1037-1050) its socio-political life is characterized by: