A Reflection on Obama’s Remarks
Welcome to the dystopian sitcom we’re all trapped in, where the government is run by the least qualified people in the room and the rest of us are the studio audience trying not to scream during the laugh track. This is kakistocracy—the art of elevating the absolute worst to positions of power—and in case you haven’t noticed, we’re living in a masterclass.
Recently, at Hamilton College, President Obama delivered a well-meaning lecture on the importance of keeping dialogue open with those who disagree with us. It’s classic Obama—hopeful, pragmatic, and so optimistic you almost forget the hellscape we’re currently wading through. Sure, dialogue is great. But what do you do when the other side isn’t disagreeing in good faith? What if they’re just using the conversation to sharpen their knives?
Obama’s call for inclusivity hinges on the idea that conversation can bridge divides. But that only works when both sides are speaking the same language—like, say, the language of basic human decency. Unfortunately, we’re in a world where red hats and their political demigods treat hate speech like a valid debate point and compassion like a sucker’s game. So yeah, let’s talk about inclusivity—but let’s also talk about when engaging becomes complicit.
Reality Check: When Engagement Equals Complicity
Why does the word kakistocracy suddenly feel like the most relevant term in the political dictionary? Because we’re not just talking about incompetence here—we’re talking about weaponized ignorance. We’re talking about people who aren’t just unqualified; they’re maliciously, gleefully unqualified.
Here’s a roll call of our current clown car cabinet, featuring a lineup so absurd it reads like a fever dream scripted by the world’s laziest satirist:
- Pete Hegseth – Secretary of Defense: A Fox News blabbermouth with about as much military strategy expertise as a guy who spends his weekends reenacting Civil War battles.
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Secretary of Health and Human Services: An anti-vax conspiracy theorist in charge of public health. That’s like appointing a flat-earther to NASA.
- Linda McMahon – Secretary of Education: Former WWE executive whose main experience with education involves body-slamming people through folding tables.
- Tulsi Gabbard – Director of National Intelligence: A former congresswoman who couldn’t find nuance with a GPS and a flashlight.
- Mike Huckabee – U.S. Ambassador to Israel: A televangelist without a single diplomatic credential to his name but plenty of catchy one-liners about Jesus and guns.
- Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy – Heads of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): A billionaire meme lord and a self-obsessed tech bro, tasked with making the government “efficient,” which, given their track records, likely means burning it to the ground for profit.
- Jeanine Pirro – Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia: A shrieking talking head who thinks due process is a liberal conspiracy.
- Scott Turner – Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Former NFL player with as much housing policy experience as your average Airbnb host.
- Chris Wright – Secretary of Energy: An oil baron in charge of energy policy, because apparently, the fox wasn’t doing enough damage to the henhouse already.
- Stephen Miller – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Adviser: That guy who spent four years perfecting the art of staring blankly into the abyss while crafting policies designed to make the Statue of Liberty weep.
- Dr. Casey Means – Surgeon General: A wellness influencer whose main qualifications include Instagram captions about gut health and a complete lack of public health experience.
This isn’t a government; it’s a Mad Libs of authoritarian nepotism, each appointment a deliberate middle finger to the concept of competency. It’s not just that they’re unqualified—it’s that they’re aggressively, contemptuously unqualified, like they’re daring us to point out the obvious so they can call us “triggered.”
Navigating the Paradox: Inclusivity vs. Capitulation
Now, let’s get real. In The Cult of Brighter Days, we live by a simple, brutal hierarchy: Be Kind. If you can’t be kind, be nice. If you can’t be nice, be funny (without punching down). If you can’t be funny, shut up. If you can’t shut up, go away.
These aren’t just guidelines—they’re survival tactics in a world where engaging with bad actors is like trying to have a rational conversation with a crocodile. You can try to convince it to stop biting your leg off, but at a certain point, the only sensible response is to stop bleeding on its teeth.
So yes, inclusivity is noble. But there’s a vast, yawning chasm between having a healthy debate with someone who disagrees and “hearing out” people whose entire worldview is a rejection of basic humanity. If the conversation is “Do trans people deserve rights?” or “Should we let the poor die to own the libs?” then we’re not in a dialogue—we’re in a hostage negotiation.
That’s where the Five Tenets come in. They’re not just behavioral guidelines; they’re a method of triage for the soul. When someone’s idea of a “debate” is “Wouldn’t it be funny if we brought back child labor?”, the answer isn’t more dialogue. It’s go away.
A Call for Practical Idealism
Obama’s plea for dialogue is a call for hope—the hope that people can still be reasoned with. And that’s sweet. Really, it is. But hope without discernment is just naïveté in a nicer suit. And in the era of weaponized ignorance, we need more than good intentions. We need boundaries.
Dialogue is a tool. It’s not a virtue in and of itself. If the other side is just looking for a stage to air their violent ideologies, then continuing to engage isn’t noble—it’s enabling. There’s a difference between seeking common ground and handing the mic to a guy with a megaphone screaming “kill them all.”
So yeah, talk to people. Engage. But remember: democracy isn’t just about conversation—it’s about protecting the vulnerable from those who think “freedom of speech” means “freedom to oppress.” Let’s stop pretending that every bad-faith argument deserves a dignified response. Sometimes the most democratic thing you can do is refuse to participate in your own dehumanization.
