In These Times

I agree, but the audacious potential of "radical" or semi-radical rhetoric to influence political actors or to shape dominant discourses exists only temporarily. I.e. Obama's (earlier offer of) Change - talking to Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - was radically attractive in its imagined contrast to Bush's unpopularity; or, his Change represent(ed) real progressivism in our Modern American Political Climate -- yet once broached these ideas were incorporated or incorporated themselves into dominant systems (Bush talking to Iran), immediately stripping Obama's appeals of their very radical nature. Now, talking to Iran is not radical because it has been done - regardless of how. …

Posted to The Audacity of Rhetoric