Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLet's All Pretend
Barack Obama did it again!
He told the truth. Jesus Christ, when is somebody gonna get to this guy and teach him the rules of American politics?
Dude, it goes like this: We're bringing democracy to the Middle East. Tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy are to stimulate the economy. George Bush is more patriotic than Al Gore. Our government is there to serve the people. America is always a force for good in the world. There is a god; he is a nice fatherly-looking Caucasian fellow with a big snowy beard (if the resemblance to the god of American children -- Santa Claus -- doesn't by itself tell you everything you need to know about religion, you're still not paying attention!). And he's quite angry at Muslims and other people who didn't get the memo on who to worship.
You have to say these things -- and a whole lot more sheer nonsense -- in American politics if you want to have any hope of winning. When a Milquetoast punk like John Kerry defines the port-side limit to what American voters are willing to hear, while any lunatic freak gone way to starboard -- like Coulter or Falwell -- can blurt out the most outrageous defamations, and any two-bit thief named Bush can actually be handed the nuclear trigger, you know how ridiculously deluded we are. By the time you get done thinking about what can't be said in this country, you have to wonder what the fuss concerning the First Amendment is all about. Who cares about freedom of speech if you're not going to actually use it?
Mind you, Barack Obama could be a lot more honest in his discussions of our many national maladies. And he could be a lot more vociferous in expressing the outrage which they all deserve. But he's running for president, and it ain't some quixotic Nader campaign, either. He aims to win -- and let's be honest -- you can't be honest and do that. I cut the guy some slack there, because I'm more interested in him winning than I am in him making me feel good and finally vindicated. That guy -- the feel-good guy -- was on the ballot. His name is Kucinich. Bless him, indeed, for what he does, but take note of where it got him.
Moreover, Obama pretty much does get it right when he talks about Iraq. Or when he calls out the special interest vampires who are draining the life-blood from the commonwealth. I've heard him preach sometimes, such as in the following example, where I'm not sure I would change two words of what he said, even if it weren't a speech from the campaign trail:
We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and somehow expect a different result, because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing. We are going to put this game to an end.
It's a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump and our planet is put at risk. That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am president of the United States of America.
It's a game where trade deals, like NAFTA, ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wages at the local fast-food joint or at Wal-Mart.
...
It's a game where Democrats and Republicans fail to come together year after year after year, while another mother goes without health care for her sick child. That's why we have to put an end to the divisions and distractions in Washington so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose, around a higher purpose.
It's a game where the only way for Democrats to look tough on national security is by talking, and acting, and voting like Bush-McCain Republicans, while our troops are sent to fight tour after tour of duty in a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged.
That's what happens when we use 9/11 to scare up votes instead of bringing together the people around a common purpose. And that's why we need to do more than end the war; we need to end the mindset that got us into war.
Seriously, where does one go to the left of this without sounding like Lenin? Seriously, even if we weren't living in the Age of Bush, do we progressives really feel the need to demand more from a candidate than this before we will support him?
And then, of course, there was his speech on race, perhaps the highpoint of American politics in a full generation's time. Admittedly, that's not necessarily saying much in this era of Clintons, Bushes, Reagans, Daschles and Reids. I don't mean to damn the speech with faint praise. It was an astonishing piece of work-- because of its content, because of its honesty, and yes, because most everything else on the landscape pales by comparison. But mostly, because of the sophistication which it demanded from its listeners. For once, there was a politician not talking down to us, not portraying the world as some two-dimensional cartoon.
Of course, that turned the right absolutely apoplectic. You can argue with them about tax cuts (which were really tax transfers) and they'll just call you stupid. You can dispute with them about the faux war on terror, and they'll merely label you naive. You can point out the breathtaking stupidity of Iraq, and they'll only question your patriotism. But undermine the whole stupidity-industrial-complex upon which they're fully dependent, and watch them shake with fear and storm in desperation. They know full well that -- were Americans ever to elevate their political discourse above a level that wouldn't embarrass your fifth-grader's civics class -- the entire premise of the regressive agenda would unravel faster than a yarn store staffed by cats. You'd be able to count the entire national vote for the GOP presidential nominee on two hands and maybe a couple toes. You could fill Guantánamo sixteen times over with all the criminals in and around the Republican Party. And you'd be happy to do it, too.
The idea of an honest discourse in American politics means the unraveling of the entire premise of the regressive movement, and it must be fought with a ferocity that makes Stalingrad look like a dispute over seating arrangements at a dinner party. That is why Obama must be muzzled, and hammered, and especially mocked. Once we breach the wall and start taking an honest political analysis seriously, the tellers of the Big Lies are finished, hated and destroyed.
Obama's big crime was to tell the truth. Here's what he said:
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
So, silly me, I'm reading that, and reading that, and waiting to come to the controversial part! Still waiting, as a matter of fact. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the right hasn't been using race and immigrants (actually, race again) and foreigner workers (actually... well, you know) and religion and guns and gays (who somehow fell off Obama's list) to win elections, hasn't been paying attention. For decades. More likely though, since even the intentionally deaf, dumb and blind could hardly miss this crap, it would require a willful denial, just like the cavemen (and a certain cavewoman) now falling all over themselves to trash Obama as an elitist snob. The irony of this is as profound as it is disgusting. The stink of plutocratic Republican/Clintonist contempt for American voters could overwhelm an abattoir. These multi-millionaire elitists and their Madison Avenue image-crafting machines have been successfully manufacturing an absurd 'Ah-shucks-we're-just-one-of-the-people' image for their candidates for decades now. "Oh look, he eats pork rinds!" "Wow, she bowls!" "Hey, he'd be more fun to have a beer with!" That turned out real well, didn't it?
Anyhow, is this some sort of a bad joke to suggest that race and the rest haven't consistently been used as conservative cudgels in American politics? Anyone remember George Wallace? Believe it or not, he was actually once a bit of a progressive in his early years, and toward the end of his life he also apologized for the damage he had wrought as governor of Alabama and, subsequently, as a presidential candidate. In between, though, this bombastic foe of civil rights was among the ugliest of American politicians. He had learned quickly what sells in America. Having lost his first race for governor in 1958 to a candidate who outflanked him to the racist right, he explained to his friend Seymore Trammell what happened, and what he intended to do about it. "Seymore," he said, "you know why I lost that governor's race? I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again." Nor was he.
Republicans figured that one out about a decade later, if not even earlier, as Nixon's 1968 Southern Strategy successfully peeled disaffected conservative whites away from the Democratic Party. Then, in 1980, you had Ronald Reagan signaling his racist sympathies to white voters by opening his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- a town whose one claim to historical fame is that it hosted the murder of three civil rights workers. And there he was, the soon-to-be president of the United States, talking about "states' rights". Subtle, eh? Not to be outdone, ol' Poppy Bush won in 1988 on the back of the truly noxious Willie Horton ad showing footage of a black rapist-murderer going through the parole turnstile over and over. Even Billbo got into the act in '92 with his Sister Souljah routine, and he's not even a Republican. He isn't, is he?
So no one ever used race in this country to win elections, eh? Shame on Barack Obama for promulgating such a transparent lie.
Among the things you're not ever supposed to admit in American politics is that the inherent appeal of racism for the overclass is to soothe the shame of inferiority and domination felt by economically struggling and socio-politically lorded-over working-class whites -- without, of course, actually having to share any power or wealth with them. You don't need a PhD in psychology to figure out that giving them someone else to dominate and feel superior toward is a cheap remedy readily available to economic elites and their political minions, most of whom -- like Wallace -- were probably always pretty indifferent to the race question, if truth be told, except where their fortunes are concerned. If they could have gotten rich and powerful by fomenting anti-Semitism instead, well then, they would have just foment... Okay, well, if they could have done it by drumming up some foreign bogeyman like Noriega or Saddam, then they would have just drummed, er... Okay, okay - uh, if they could have gained wealth and won elections by gay-bashing instead, then they, um... Hey!
This is why Obama's breach of the political firewall keeping the ugly truth out, and the stinking bullshit in, had to be vilified, and he who uttered it annihilated. Here's George Will, among many rich examples, demonstrating the regressive right's standard issue desperate mocking and muzzling routine when anybody in politics even approaches reality. He argues that, for modern liberalism,
The tactic is to dismiss rather than refute those with whom you disagree. Obama's dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program. Today that program is to elect Obama, thereby making his wife at long last proud of America.
Cute, huh? Hah-hah. And so goes the rest of the right-wing chattering classes, all wound up in outrage, undies all twisted into a tight bundle.
We've been here before, most recently and notably with the attempt to swiftboat Obama into The Black Candidate with a threatening agenda of racial preference. (We certainly can't have that, can we, given what a sweet deal African Americans have gotten these last several centuries.) If anything, that ploy boomeranged on the right with Obama's killer speech, so today it's the elitist snob card they're playing.
Americans are being tested now. They know they're dissatisfied with the crappy cards they've been dealt these last three decades. They know that Bush is a disaster. They know that he's such a loser that even his parents told him so when he was growing up. (Nowadays Poppy and Bar just try to pretend the kid doesn't exist at all. Who can blame them? On top of your own weak and forgotten presidency, how'd you like to know that you fathered the worst president in the entire history of the republic? Ouch.) Unfortunately, because they've been rigorously dumbed down and subjected to relentless conservative propaganda and highly successful reframing efforts, Americans haven't yet put together that the source of their malady is itself the regressive right, who of course always claim to be the greatest of patriots.
Look, Obama's not the greatest candidate from the perspective of the few remaining progressives in America who haven't blown town or given up entirely. I seriously fear that, even if he manages to win, he could be another centrist, do-nothing, corporate shill, punching-bag for the right, just like the last Democrat in the White House. Alternatively, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that he's a very, very smart candidate with a real progressive agenda. And a smart candidate understands that the first order of business is to win the election. Have you noticed how many bills Howard Dean signed into law these last four years? Have you seen how many wars John Kerry managed to keep this country from fighting? Can you count the major pieces of environmental legislation Al Gore was able to push through Congress before having the pleasure of signing them into law? Maybe Barack Obama took one look at the last presidential election and decided that as things now stand this hopeless electorate is a better candidate for anaesthesia and anti-depressants than for straight talk about socialized medicine or global warming solutions. All that can come after you get the gavel in your hand. None of it comes if you don't.
And what the faux uproars about the good Reverend Wright and the "bitter" speech have in common is making sure he never gets that gavel. Yet again, like a perpetual golden-oldies jukebox stuck in a time-warp with no off switch, Americans are being treated to the stifling distractions and shameful distortions designed to keep us frightened and stupid. All that's missing so far is a nice little national security emergency in October to slam home the point, even to those occasional remaining Winston Smiths out there who inadvertently continue to make the unpardonable mistake of thinking for themselves.
Will it work? Now we'll find out if angry Americans can see through the clutter sufficiently to avoid four more years of self-inflicted disaster.
I'm not making any bets.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
62 Comments so far
Show AllJesus H. Christ-- it was bad enough when the moderates (reactionaries) began clutching their pearls on cue over all of the ginned-up controversy directed at Obama.
But now they're positively clinging to those pearls!
Daniel David: "Either talk him up or talk him down"
Such emotive demagogy, cultivated by pundits and tolerated by voters, is the world's biggest and most unnecessary problem.
Kudos to DMG for touching on this theoretically, and for Obama for touching on it practically.
Jacob Freeze: "This is the Obama campaign in a nutshell: Elect a con man because nobody else can get elected."
If you can't be a con man, you at least have to seem to be one to Rupert Murdoch at the start of the campaign. The Amercian public can handle the truth, but most of them don't know how where to find it.
...this hopeless electorate is a better candidate for anaesthesia and anti-depressants than for straight talk about socialized medicine or global warming solutions.
Mr. Green thinks it's okay for Obama to lie about everything, because the American public is too stupid to handle the truth.
This is the Obama campaign in a nutshell: Elect a con man because nobody else can get elected.
".....we need to do more than end the war; we need to end the mindset that got us into war.....Among the things you're not ever supposed to admit in American politics is that the inherent appeal of racism for the overclass is to soothe the shame of inferiority and domination felt by economically struggling and socio-politically lorded-over working-class whites — without, of course, actually having to share any power or wealth with them."
Hell No! Why would we want to share anything with the lorded-over working-class whites after spending decades developing a terminology that would convince them that they were superior to ALL others in this nation and on the planet? Are you kidding? All we ever needed to do was to brain-wash these idiots into believing they were superior. It doesn't matter that we see them as tax slaves and regard their opinions as worthless; our goal is to get their votes!
David: After working in Colleges and Universtities for over ten years, I have only one thing to say: Good luck in your effort to change the mindset of these people.
OLD GOAT -- You do great justice to Lao Tse, and bring his truths to an accessible place of understanding, and heartfelt connection for all that is ALIVE and conscious.
Thank you for being a BEACON of HOPE, when so few can see an unprecedented and positive future, as they fearfully choose to peer back into history - as contrasted with your courageous and joyous allowance of the miracles expressed - that we all hold within ourselves
Namaste
… … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … & … ML King … … Inspiration … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — MLK
chessgames - wiliam street - I concede your points. I was referring more to Obama's dilemma rather than to my own willingness to vote for him. I do think he is the least demented of the viable candidates, and I appreciate that he must court a wide spectrum of Americans to have any hope of winning. It is hard not to get frustrated with the democratic process however, or to have any hope that some common denominator of public opinion is going to result in leadership capable of dealing with the complex and formidable problems up ahead. I think we have been wandering in the political wilderness for some time. and I don't see how the flag lapel pin litmus test is going to get our compass working again.
Well Mr. Green, let me help you out. The offensive andf arrogant part is right there.
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they ****cling**** to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'
Its "cling" that's the problem. And Senator Obama thinks so too, you'll notice its disappeared from his explanations about this.
And if you can't see what "cling" means, what kind of connotation it is and if you believe a man that is so very good with words meant anything but what he said, you'd make a great neocon. They lie all the time.
I'm not exactly sure what Daniel David wants (other than for people to avoid using the interjection "Jesus Christ!").
Does he want David Michael Green to support Barack Obama only if he can do so without reluctance (doubtful: as this would diminish the number of those pledging to vote for Mr. David's candidate), or does he want DMG to keep his reluctance to himself, since to give voice to it might potentially erode support for Mr. Obama? Or is his complaint about something else altogether?
I confess that I don't have much sympathy with the idea (if indeed this is Mr. David's view) that people who intend to vote for Mr. Obama--should he win the nomination--need to keep quiet about their reluctance. Obama is no more an ideal candidate than the party of which he is a member.
I will almost certainly vote for that party and its candidate come November--I'd certainly never vote for the other major party--but I see this as merely a necessary emergency measure, a kind of reduced version of the Hippocratic oath "to do no harm": in this case an effort to try to do less harm.
So I share DMG's reluctance as well as his determination to vote for Obama. In fact, part of that reluctance surrounds the very thing DMG views as noncontroversial: Obama's comments about working-class voters clinging to guns and voting for other social issues rather than for the things that are in their economic interest.
Unlike the pundits or like Senator Clinton, I don't view these as evidence of Obama's elitism. They are simply simplistic efforts at real sociological insight.
Admittedly, they might sound highly persuasive on first hearing, but they are subject to a range of criticisms (both theoretical and empirical). What's more, Obama's observations about working-class people are as a liable to the charge that they are the unreal products of a certain kind of political discourse as the media-manufactured "issues" he complained of in the "debate."
I'll still wind up voting for him, but I wish he'd drop the amateurish sociology professor shtick.
David M. Green's support for Obama isn't good enough for Daniel David. He also has to be just as thin-skinned as DD regarding holy reverence for the name Jesus Christ. Using it as a common everyday interjection is unacceptable! It might "insult" some church-goer, and my goodness we can't have that! Therefore, Green's a "hack" and pseudo-intellectual. Again, if we have to depend on the modes of reasoning of DD to bring about real change, we'll be thus depending for another thousand years, and we still won't see any change.
Everyone who knows the name "Daniel David" on this site knows that I have been passionately arguing FOR Democrats in general and FOR Barack Obama in particular---for all the agenda points (over Republicans) that liberals and progressives recommend.
My criticism of David Michael Green's article here is that his support of Obama is "reluctant" and that he can only offer it after insulting religious people with Jesus Christ! as a put-down exclamation and only after raking Obama over the "corporate shill" coals. He thinks he has to excuse and validate his Obama endorsement in those ways in order to keep up appearances as an "intellectual".
He could have simply been straightforward and told you that Obama is the most promising phenomenon seen in politics since Robert Kennedy. That is, after all, what he thinks. But he was a little too ashamed to just say so, and that waffling around is what's offensive about DMG's writing.
Jesus Christ. David Daniel seems like a real great guy. I love people that take themselves so seriously.
"I'm more interested in him winning than I am in him making me feel good and finally vindicated." Are you kidding me?
When you say "Obama pretty much does get it right when he talks about Iraq" and quotes his now famous intention to "end the mindset that got us into war", I need to ask you how anyone paying attention can possibly believe Obama "pretty much gets it right" when he does not to call on Congress right now to take steps to make sure another unnecessary, lies-based war of choice doesn't happen again? Addressing Congress's continued abdication on this issue – continuing to fund the war while refusing to hold impeachment hearings – would be an obvious step in ending that mindset that got us into war. That would show a real understanding and commitment to both creating peace and restoring our Constitutional order. It would also show respect for the American people.
If Obama wins, I'm sure he will bring a large number of soldiers home if he can, which would of course be a good thing. But by hiding that big ugly if as the easy certainty he makes it out to be on the campaign trail, Obama relegates the sacrifice of our soldiers to campaign fodder. If elected, Obama will make troop level decisions based on the "facts on the ground" which are highly subject to change in that most volatile hellhole. No matter how many soldiers may indeed come home, or be redeployed elsewhere in the Middle East, "residual" forces in the tens of thousands are going to remain in Iraq guarding our obscene embassy and other "vital interests" (read permanent bases) for decades. President Obama (or Clinton, or McCain) will also significantly build up the military in the next few years after what BushCo has done to it.
If Obama spoke honestly about Iraq, instead of giving us the feel good crap you seem to both disdain and not recognize at the same time, he would tell the American people that due to the folly of our elected officials (and as bidden by our mass media and their corporate overlords), we are in a situation in Iraq that can't be easily fixed, and that will require real sacrifice and a collective coming to terms on the part of the American people. This is what Congress did to us by not checking Bush, by abdicating its Constitutional role in determining when we go to war and when, or if, we are finally going to stop paying for it.
You can tell yourself he's trying to win an election so he can't really speak straight if that helps you sleep, but I'm not buying it and I can't see how any thinking person can. Our soldiers, their families, the doomed citizens of Iraq and ultimately the American people deserve better. Do I sound like Lenin now? Come on now.
Maybe Obama gets it, maybe he doesn't, but to me his "ending the mindset" is no more than a talking point cynically used to manipulate his supporters, not educate them as to what their ongoing post-campaign roles must be as well informed, active citizens. Otherwise, he'd be calling for a restoration of our Constitutional order. He'd publicly pledge that if elected he'd never to abuse signing statements as Bush so outrageously has done. He would renounce torture and pledge to abide by the Geneva Conventions and, by the way, our own law that forbids torture, and he would make sure that we all knew that under an Obama Administration, no one is above the law, and to prove it isn't just a talking point, he would call on the House Judiciary Committee to hold impeachment hearings now, as several but not enough HJC members such as Robert Wexler have done.
When Obama really wants to end the mindset that led to war, he'll sound a lot different than he does now.
You know, there is something that ofen gets lost in all our discussions. The fact that all we have is now. Just make it the best now it can be and let tomorrow take care of itself. We often forget that there is an underlying intelligence in the universe far beyond our own.
orwellWasOptimist said, "vox: In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king." But anyone who knows the real world knows that in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is a freak.
jjpeter said, " 'Nothing is true unless it is true in your own experience. This is your protection against being duped or misled.'" Barry Long 1926 - 2003
If we have to wait for our own experience to know if something is true, then, given the complexity of the world and the incalculable number of interactions that occur every second of every day, we are going to have to ignore most of what is actually going on in the real world. And as for what's in all those books? Well, sounds like you should just ignore anything you've ever found in a book that you didn't happen to see yourself, especially if you don't agree with it.
I think this is a good description of the way many Americans already feel and is an excellent depiction of ignorance.
Thanks Dogface.
GKL: I advocated that years ago - and it went nowhere. Ever been to a GOP meeting? It's like a shark feeding-frenzy. We'd all be eaten alive before we could take over. Besides, Lefties don't speak the language - or dress right - they'd spot you in an instant as a plant.
Daniel David:
JESUS CHRIST, get a life!
Why don't you defeatist idiots join the repugs? Maybe you could change them. Turn off your computers and do some real work. Stop your pity party and get involved with the parties that exist. If you don't like the Dems, join the repugs and take over. Stop being whiners.
Good piece, Mr. Green; but it is too late for the USA. This political system is finished.
It is time to get the intellectual elite together to start formulating a new one.
Save yourself and not the world, and that will save the world. Do not look to a savior to save you. Obama is not one. It's really as complex or simple at that.
OLD GOAT: I enjoyed your inspiring post.
Yes, many of us do SOMETHING - but obviously it's not enough. We have to do more, no matter how much it hurts, because our country, our future, and maybe the fate of the world depends on it. Just because 90% of the population is ignoring our plight doesn't make them right - the Germans tolerated the Nazis until it was too late to stop them. That's where we stand today - on the brink of an unthinkable doom.
PS - DD's constant cheering for the DFL is nauseating. I do wish he'd tone it down - then I might read more of his posts. (I'm sure others think the same.) Also, his logic is often faulty - or his premises. I think his behavior is a shame because often he does have good points - but you wouldn't know if you don't read him.
Daniel David is not in need of further education.
He, I believe, has a scholarship from MIC.
I've been waiting to use that line (y'all got it, right?). Thanks, elmysterio, for the straight line.
What galls me is that after Hillary is anointed at the convention, and the Democratic party shatters as waves of bitter and disappointed Obama backers ebb away, and McCain wins, -take a breath- we'll have 4 more years of being blamed by DD for the Democrats' own failures.
That's what we have to look forward to.
"Stop your incessant miserable complaints and DO something."
If you've read this site often and paid attention, you would know that lots of posters DO something. Cindy Sheehan posts often, and she's running for Congress.
If Obama is really as smart as they say he is, he will use the bully-pulpit to educate the masses and go down in history as one of the greatest leaders in the world. If he follows the corporate dictum, he will be just another has-been nobody. I can't understand why nobody has yet taken advantage of the opportunity to set the US on the right track to peace and prosperity - the rich cannot profit if everyone else is too poor to live. Just take a good look at most of Africa and you'll see what I mean.
Ford didn't pay his workers decent wages out of the goodness of his heart - he did it so he could make more money - that's what traditional conservatives do - good business, instead of fascists (yes, Ford was also a fascist supporter) who only know how to plunder and destroy until there is nothing left. Traditional conservatism works - and it's about time to try it again. There are good models in Europe and Scandinavia, where productivity, profits, and social well-being are sustainable.
Or we can just keep being blind, stupid, angry about our circumstances, and miserable.
One question for Rich Griffin: What specifically will Ralph Nader DO if he is elected president? Why is he silent? Don't blame the media here. He has done NOTHING since he declared himself a candidate except select a running mate whose only qualification seems to be as a city council member in San Francisco and an unsucessful candidate for mayor of San Francisco. What new ideas is Nader proposing? He seems like another tired white liberal to me, about as inspiring and compelling as old white neocon McCain. If McCain wins by a slim majority because Nader was the spoiler again, I will be an extremely bitter old liberal white lady with religion,a gun, and a Corvette!
The environment is changing rapidly. Since the last major voting block shifts, we have seen south American nations decline WB economics and increasingly consolidate in Mercosul. The Columbia FT has been defeated and saber rattling quieted. We are seeing a financing bubble that has practically daily reports of substantial fraudulent players.
We have globalization having fired a biofuels virtual revolution now being called to the mat for its shortsightedness virtually overnight! The EU is backing off its biofuels agenda. Canadian editorial on backing off ethanol. We have NCLB and recruiter presence being more and more broadly addressed. We have military speaking out against abrogations. We have seen memos released incl. Yoo, and the president and his cabinet. Add to and complete the list as it grows.
There is a major ecumenical movement against torture as a moral issue. The science critiquing GM and industrial agriculture and avian flu beginning to make a public connection between monoculture and 'monocide' from soil dynamics to markets. Bicycle use in Paris with a lending system. Union of Concerned Scientists and department scientists speaking out about politicization and silencing of findings. The science regarding CC and GW are speaking with fast evolving models leapfrogging decades of old models. There is a university ecology movement with teachins - NATIONWIDE. KBR rape cases are being brought to the fore by deeply caring and courageous victims. Keep in mind that that courage replicates.
We have a Supreme Court that is part and parcel of our times - and those times are changing fast. Even an economy as the ultimate decider of politics is connected to the natural world. The natural world in its elegant finite nature has begun to heave from the abuse. The science that is making a difference is the science that is in conversation with what the stunning creature called earth has been talking about all along.
People are relearning the meaning of mystery by means of the consequences of attempts to control what can only appropriately be aligned with - the natural life of the planet. We are learning this alignment from the ground up. Survival of the fittest is fast becomming the fittest to align with a fast changing reality. The poor of the world are our teachers. There is no need to dumb down, there is a need for some humility. It is an inexhausable resource and sustainability exceeds commodification - it will be served by it rather than being controlled by it and it will come as a swelling embracing sea change.
Belligerance is seeing its 'peak' within a finite realm never before situated in quite the way we see today. I am reminded of MLK speaking of going to the mountaintop and seeing the promised land. The path he traveled was inclusive - reciprocal, including seeing a mountain of peak belligerance as unsustainable and its other side of humility and he kept right on so that thousands and millions of people grasp the kernal of the vision. He traveled on the shoulders of giants so that we would see also that our progress also calls for us to stand on the shoulders of giants - moal, loving and resilient.
I would submit that we should be prepared for a lot of very powerful red faces recanting the power paradigm as the supressed science and realities of the consequences enter an accelerating positive feedback loop. Among them - the media. We are destined to backpedal from the edge - and smile while we do it. The human spirit loves a challenge and it is forming in ways that are growing from bottom up - as someone once said - you ain't seen nothin' yet.
American 'sheeple'? - who names who here? Bitterness is not something sane people act on. They hunker down to the familiar and I'd wager the vision is becomming elegantly simple and keen. The top heavy killing machine will thump to earth with tens of thousands of disillusioned shadow warriors. They will need to have PTSD aid and counseling in their faces 24/7. The revolution will not be televised - or violent - the revolution will be live as in life!!
There is an emergence of a new model of the universe. It doesn't have a name - it can't be named - it is not fitting into any of the old boxes.
Is this perhaps one reason Obama is hesitant - like an old wise man, like a visitor, like someone who understands "primus inter paris" - First among equals? In a democracy the true leader is the one who configures the means for the people to say "we have done it ourselves" - and we do.
Also, I have to say this: I take exception to pretty much everything Daniel David posts here. I think he's someone in dire need of further education.
Daniel David Said: "A published author such as David Michael Green, who thinks he has to exclaim "Jesus Christ" in the second sentence to get readers' attention isn't worth reading."
That's a typical debating strategy where you pick one "hot-button" comment in the whole, and use it to discredit the whole. In this case, Daniel takes exception to using the Lord's name in vain... And while some could find that offensive, it really doesn't moot any of DMG's other points.
Also the whole quote: "I seriously fear that, even if he manages to win, he could be another centrist, do-nothing, corporate shill, punching-bag for the right, just like the last Democrat in the White House."
Well, if that is the case, then you're no worse off than you are now. Cuz really, McCain is just a crazy war-monger... Hillary we already know is a centrist, do-nothing corporate shill... So who does that leave? Obama... He's the unknown. While initially, I was quite skeptical about Obama... but the more I listen to what he has to say and how he handles himself while being attacked, I've come to have a certain degree of respect for the man. Others will say "The best hope is Nader/Paul/McKinney", and that may be true... but unfortunately, they have no chance in hell of winning... even if EVERY progressive voted for them, the public just won't do it. Obama is the next best thing you have.
To all,
"Nothing is true unless it is true in your own experience. This is your protection against being duped or misled."
Barry Long 1926 - 2003
The angry Americans are poised to vent their anger and bitterness by voting in another Republican in the mold of Bush and, trust me, they will because there is no viable opposition and probably never will be. The time for change has come and gone. The media has seen to that.
Hey Rich, the only way we are going to get a positive change is by electing Obama. Why? Because he is supported by young and enthusiastic millions who will continue their efforts for change when he is in the White House. No more abdicating our responsibilty to another Clinton or the Bushalike war monger.
The cult of Obama continues as strong as ever! I want Obama supporters to apologize to me personally when he doesn't deliver any of the things they say he will deliver! Didn't we go through all of this with the shining white knight, Bill Clinton??
btw, Obama didn't VOTE against the "Iraq war" (occupation) - he gave speeches against it, but he wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote.
Read his policy positions, as poorly written as it is, on his own website. "Hope" is useless if it isn't tied to reality!
Vote for Ralph Nader, or vote for Cynthia McKinney - then run for other offices ourselves and take back our country. The revolution is NOW. I choose for it to be a non-violent one, but we can't do it if people stay stuck in their fantasies of the cult of Obama.
I am one of those bitter middle Americans Obama was talking about and to. The entrenched Democrats may very well be as corrupt as the Republicans. If any of you want change go join your county party and do the grunt work and pay your dues. You money is as good as anyone else's. The national party will not change unless the local party sets a fire under it. And who is the local party? Go to a meeting and find out, you might even meet a few of your neighbors. Stop your incessant miserable complaints and DO something.
Once we breach the wall and start taking an honest political analysis seriously, the tellers of the Big Lies are finished, hated and destroyed.
And their whole capitalist shithouse goes up in flames as it deserves. It really is a very simple question: Are you going to support the elites or the people? It is a simple dichotomy because the elites have assinged themselves the role of predator and the people th role of prey. Very simple - your cat can do the arithmetic.
The majority of Americans support the Nader/Gonzalez agenda, but in our upside down, broken and corrupt Monarchy you do what you're told, and fantasize that you actually have some kind of choice.
The Democrats in 2009 will investigate Bush crimes with the same dogged persistence that they've pursued impeachment for the last two years. Why on earth would anyone imagine anything differently? Have you heard one leading Democrat say one word about prosecuting Bush\Cheney crimes once they leave office? Nope, of course not. So, why make up the belief that they'll do something that they've shown no indication of doing or that they've said they'll do.
If you want a new government that will seriously investigate and prosecute the crimes of this administration, you'd better vote Green. The Democrats have a proven track record of making it clear that they won't do this.
I'm still dumbfounded by this notion that we are supposed to elect Obama not on the basis of any platform or serious proposals that he's putting forward, but just simply on the slim hope that maybe he might turn out to be a secret revolutionary once he gets into office.
These days I view the Democrats as a giant con anyways. They serve the money that backs them, but they have to con us ordinary folk into voting for them. But this really takes the cake. Are people so really gullible and stupid as to fall for this.
The role of the citizen in American politics has been reduced greatly over the years. Nowadays, in our great land of freedom and democracy, the voters get a slight role in the process once every four years. That's it. That's your one shot.
After they are elected, they don't give a damn about you. Once they've got your vote, they don't need anything from you. Its over. This is your one shot. And the Democrats want you to throw it away on the strange myth that Obama isn't who he says he is and we are going to get the super-double-secret revolution if we elect him? That has got to be the stupidest thing I think I've ever heard from a political campaign.
Now, take a look at reality.
-- One the Democratic side, there's going to be very little change in Congress. There are almost no primary contest that I'm hearing about on the Democratic side. That means all the Senators and Congresspeople who've been backing Bush on all this stuff, who've refused to end the war, who've refused to even investigate impeachment, on the Dem side they are all coming back.
-- The Dems might pick up a few seats from Republicans. But, just like in 2006 Emanual and Schumer are picking pro-war, pro-corporate wealthy individuals to run for these seats. So, just like in 2006, these new members are going to come into Congress looking a lot like what used to be called 'moderate republicans'.
-- In modern politics, the next election starts right after this one. So, the Democrats will immediately begin gearing up for the next mid-terms. This especially means fund-raising. President Obama is going to be deep into the fundraising for that next election immediately after this one.
So, once Obama is elected backed by Wall St's money this year, why in the world would anyone think that this is going to lead to some secret lefty revolution in politics? He's got no movement at all like that running for any seats in Congress. If there was a whole slate full of candidates in Democratic primaries challenging the pro-war, pro-corporate bunch sitting in Congress, then maybe you could see a wave of change coming. But it ain't there. Obama ain't doing one damn thing to promote change in the Democratic Party. In fact he's constantly on the side of trying to prevent change by supporting Lieberman in 2006 and Pelosi against Sheehan this time.
And, if Obama is immediately involved in fundraising for the next election, do you really think he's going to alienate those same contributors by announcing to them that this campaign was all a fraud and that he's a secret lefty that's going to revolutionize American life? HA! You've got to be kidding. Nope, he's going to be on his knees begging them for more money for the next election. And when they say, 'hey, before we give you more money, why don't you pay us off for the last election by sending us Wall St robber barons more bailout money', Obama is only going to ask how high does Wall St want him to jump.
Gawd, at the very least make the candidates lie to us with campaign promises they won't keep anyways. This notion that they can complete avoid saying anything specific about what they'll do for us if elected, but we make up lots of stuff in our own minds and then convince ourselves that our fantasies are reality and go vote for Wall St's man anyways is just absolutely amazing.
Of course, to make any impact, Obama must first be smart enough and careful enough to do whatever it takes to get elected. Too much truth telling will destroy him before he has any chance to show his true colors (if he really is the real deal, as I fervently hope). Given the threat he poses to the status quo, he has a very hard road ahead.
My hope against hope is that he does make it, and then goes directly to the people with his call for change. I hope that he begins a concerted campaign to educate us all on what we must do to face our future with intelligent seriousness. Perhaps he could institute a weekly speech to the whole country, outlining the depth of the problems we face, and his vision for the role of our country, and why we must go in a new direction. This could be his 'fireside chat' dynamic, so to speak, to enlist the understanding and support of the broad public. He could move from topic to topic, and gradually build a coherent picture of what must be done that could get a large part of the public behind him. Without some such dynamic to build popular support and engagement from the public for his agenda, he will be blocked at every turn by our entrenched interests, and the bought and paid for politicians of both parties in Congress. If that happens, the progressive agenda will be set back badly, and another regressive will be elected in 2012.
Along with this positive redirection of our thinking, it would be important to have many honest investigations going on that would reveal, in glaring detail, the lies and crimes of those who have just been removed from office. There is an ocean of revulsion to be released there, if only we have the clear evidence to give to a public who have ignored or turned away from the shame of what this gang has brought upon us. Between the calm and intelligent exposition of the way forward Obama could paint for us, and our beginning to come to terms with the disgusting criminal past, there may just be a chance that we distracted and dumbed-down citizens will come to our senses, and begin to actively support efforts to make the real changes our country is so much needing, while also exposing and repudiating those who have been about destroying our country for so long. I, for one, see him as the only one who might possibly allow us to achieve such a transformation in our political landscape, and will do all I can to give him the chance to try his best to awaken us. We can be pretty sure that will not happen if either of the other two choices we are being given are at the controls come January.
Obama is an intelligent man running for mayor of Stupidville. He knows that for him to win he must have the support of the vast, torpid, racist, xenophobic, belligerent, flagsucking, dumbed down, gunhugging, bible thumping, defiantly ignorant herd of middle Americans.
--If he has to pretend to be something he's not to get elected, then what does this say about him? Just another self-serving, ambitious politician? Other than voting against the war, Obama has really done nothing except to show he's one of the ruling Herd (campaigning for Lieberman is especially telling).
Unfortunately, those who do not sell out get marginalized and virtually no coverage from MSM. However, does this really mean we have no choice? Regardless of the results, we should vote for vote our conscience, even if it is for a candidate who we are sure will not win.
Let's not forget that a small blaze can quickly turn into a conflagration. Rather than condemn others, vox, stand up for what you know is true. You are not responsible for another's stubborn ignorance, they are. Save yourself a lot of grief.
You get to the left of this BS by actually proposing to do something to change it. Go back and re-read the Obama quotes above. He never says a damn word about what he'll do to change it.
Clinton did this "I feel your pain" crap in the 90's. This is just more of the same. Yes, maybe Obama knows what the problems are. But, what absolutely completely missing is any proposals of how to change it.
That's no accident. His campaign is funded by the same Wall St robber barons that have gotten rich causing these problems in the first place. You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that Wall St is funding Obama's campaign so Obama can overturn all that.
If we have to depend on the Sunday School manners of the likes of Daniel David, who dismisses David Green for harmlessly exclaiming "Jesus Christ," to define for us what is and isn't acceptable journalism in this madhouse political circus, then the Democrats will continue being the feckless enablers of Republican policy they've been for 30 years. How anyone can seriously believe Green lacks conviction, not to mention passion, about his views on the Obama phenomenon, reveals his own stunning lack of perception and awareness about the very subject he himself is obsessed with--electing a Democrat to the White House. Green's understanding of what's happening out there is light years beyond yours, DD. Pay attention and lose the childish prickliness over a masterful political analyst's use of the ordinary, everyday, and perfectly harmless "Jesus Christ." Grow up.
Daniel David,
You wrote:
"don't tell us you fear he might be a "corporate shill" and then claim you're onboard with him anyway. It's poor logic poured on top of over-dramatic writing."
It may have been "over-dramatic writing," but that was not poor logic. That is the logic applied in risk management or any of a number of fields. The optimal choice can be determined (if one wants the maximum expectation of outcome) by probability of outcome times the value of the outcome, summed up over all possible outcomes, for a particular choice. And since the result of such calculations for Hillary and McCain would undoubtedly be negative by any progressive's evaluation, the possible positive high value associated with Obama being a true progressive makes him the preferable choice even if it carries with it a low probability.
With reference to the NASCAR masses of Archie Bunkerville, Voxclamantis declares "If he gets their vote, he can't get mine. If he gets mine, he can't get theirs." This mindset is a sure fire recipe to wander forever in the political wilderness.
FDR cobbled together (and held together) an incredibly broad based national coalition of absolutely rabid Deep South southern segregationists, middle and working class whites, left wing progressive intellectuals, and ethnic minorities. He won initially because a wide majority of Americans held the corporate-controlled GOP responsible for the depression. He then governed unabashedly from the left center, weathering savage, incessant partisan personal attacks from the Republican-dominated media of that era by skewering his critics for being apologists for private greed (which is what most actually were).
JFK with Johnson on the ticket reinvigorated that old New Deal coalition by relabeling it a New Frontier. Had Robert Kennedy not been assassinated, his nomination and election in 1968 actually might have managed to pull American troops out of Vietnam with honor by falling back on that broad, largely non-ideological coalition left over from Roosevelt's day. Instead, we got Nixon and the southern strategy.
I agree with DMG that Barack Obama has such a bigger potential upside than any other realistically electable Democrat on the horizon that I'll cut the man from Kenya and Kansas appropriate slack for making some stump speech compromises with the ritual corn pone of electioneering. His remark about folks being bitter, and seeking scapegoats as a way to explain their frustrations, speaks an essential truth. This context had nothing whatsoever to do with the joys of hunting or the roots of personal religiosity in American society.
The key will be if Obama follows FDR's model of governing from the left center if he does win the Presidency, or whether he lets himself get suckered into triangulating big issues like war, peace, human rights, basic socioeconomic justice, and restoring the rule of law. If he makes that mistake, he quickly won't have any trustworthy friends, and a legion of well-heeled enemies circling in for the kill.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill from Saginaw
vox:
In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Vote for the one-eyed man.
<:)
DMG made a pun here that may have eluded many readers. He was talking about racism in American politics, and wrote, "Even Billbo got into the act in '92 with his Sister Souljah routine, and he's not even a Republican. He isn't, is he?"
- He's talking about President Bill, but also slyly referring to the late Sen. Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, a 1940's era Mississippi white supremacist Democrat who served both as senator and governor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_G._Bilbo
mwildfire,
You have just done a far better job of supporting Obama than DMG, with fewer words and yet more conviction. That's the point.
Green sez: " ... stupidity-industrial-complex ..." to describe the Assimilated Press's relationship with truth and the American people.
Beautiful.
I plan to steal that term like a purple-state election and use it at every opportunity.
I don't think it's poor logic at all--DMG explained it in the piece. That is, there is evidence that Obama is just a corporate shill--but also some hints that he's biding his chances and might give this country what it needs if elected. Realistically, if he were to come out now and endorse socialized medicine, a slashing of the Pentagon budget, a sharp tax rise for the rich, an immediate end to the Iraq war and the threats to Iran, and a crash program to replace all the destructive methods of generating energy--oil, coal, ethanol, and nukes--with true renewables, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, that would be great but he would be quickly destroyed. Likely they'd kill him--he's die in a plane crash or of a hereditary heart condition not previously known, or a James Earl Ray would shoot him. Or, possibly the media could manage to marginalize him as they did Kucinich. But as President, he'd have considerably more power to speak freely and to make change happen. And this is the only real hope we have--Cynthia McKinney is not going to become President, nor is Nader. McCain would be a nightmare this country absolutely can't afford, and Clinton would be little different. So yes, you can note that your hope is based on thin threads, while still supporting the best remaining chance of this country moving in the right direction before our charge in the wrong direction brings about the collapse of civilization.
The "good point" David has is one that nobody should ever criticize the Democratic Party in any way.
Obama is an intelligent man running for mayor of Stupidville. He knows that for him to win he must have the support of the vast, torpid, racist, xenophobic, belligerent, flagsucking, dumbed down, gunhugging, bible thumping, defiantly ignorant herd of middle Americans. If he gets their vote, he can't get mine. If he gets mine he can't get theirs. It's a dilemma embedded in the architecture of American politics, a sad but perfect justice. The mayor of Stupidville is always going to be stupid.
thank you, once again, mr. green, for telling it like it is. truth is much too painful for some.
Perhaps the Dems should have gone with Edwards after all. Was he TOO populist or progressive?
Nevertheless, I think disillusionment with St. Obama is a good thing. The next step is to realize that meaningful change will not come from the usual suspects.
The writing's on the wall, and still many do not want to accept this.
"but don't tell us you fear he might be a "corporate shill" and then claim you're onboard with him anyway. It's poor logic"
for once DD has a good point!!
*************************************************************************
Poor logic? What does logic have to do with politics?? It is about fear , fear and more fear. He expresses his fear in print. Big effin' deal!
Better dismiss me. I wrote "effin'".
Politics, entertainment at its best. Hullabaloo, words just drifting by on the wind. When campaigning begins to focus on personal qualifications instead of degrading whoever happens to be in opposition the words might begin to make some sense, but trashing your opponent rather than defending your own position on your own merits spells out a lot of self loathing. Listening to the mainstream media is disgusting and my government teacher would roll over in his grave at the degrading state of our election process, the top dog playoffs called debates monitored by idiots.
"but don't tell us you fear he might be a "corporate shill" and then claim you're onboard with him anyway. It's poor logic"
for once DD has a good point!!
A published author such as David Michael Green, who thinks he has to exclaim "Jesus Christ" in the second sentence to get readers' attention isn't worth reading. Common Dreams ought to think about not publishing hacks here unless their articles are already published somewhere else---might slow DMG down a tad. (We're hearing from him too often.)
As for supporting Obama in some apologetic halfway talk, we could do without that too. Either talk him up or talk him down, but don't tell us you fear he might be a "corporate shill" and then claim you're onboard with him anyway. It's poor logic poured on top of over-dramatic writing.
liverbirdman: you posted exactly what i was preparing to post!! dylan, and those of us who listened, looked, felt, and were there, understood the game forty-five years ago. it hasn't changed. the politicians/leaders who tried to bring change met early deaths, which is my fear for Obama.
for i do believe that Obama offers change. indeed, he may be "...another centrist, do-nothing, corporate shill, punching-bag for the right, just like the last Democrat in the White House...", but he is re-igniting the smouldering fire of idealism in the young (and some not-so-young).
One great attribute that Obama uses is the ability to turn a lie inside out and use it to expose the liar for what they are.
Another great thing? He isn't afraid to do so.
I pray to God that he isn't silenced.
Professor Green, another great article. You hit the nail on the head.
From Amy Goodmans Posts:
banjoman wrote: April 18th, 2008 9:25 am
Can't say much against this article, Amy, but Obama WILL lose PA and in Nov. because of his relationship to that racist Rev. Wright.
Cut and dry.
The writings on the wall. You saw it here 1st. folks.
He lost my support due to THAT, and only that. Like it or not, there's many here who believe the same. We'll see you next Tuesday.
Hillary 54% Obama 46%
your friend banjoman
Real time: I'd have to say that most of here in the Keystone commonwealth are color blind, but were not "tone deaf". Shame on Rev? "Wrong"
Dylan said it well back in 1963:
A South politician preaches to the poor white man,
"You got more than the blacks, don't complain.
You're better than them, you been born with white skin," they explain.
And the Negro's name
Is used it is plain
For the politician's gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.
The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid,
And the marshals and cops get the same,
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool.
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.
Wow! What an article which just about says it all.
I'm not making any bets that Obama will survive to be elected...