Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Waiting for the Barbarians
In case you haven't heard, there's a guy running for president named Barack Hussein Osama Nobama. This Nobama was born outside America and secretly schooled in Islamic terrorism at a Wahhabi madrassa. He then moved to the United States to take up the radical '60s teachings of the Weather Underground's Bill Ayers, while also organizing for ACORN, a subprime-lending, voter fraud-committing collective of affirmative-action welfare queens. All this happened before he became an elitist celebrity advocate of socialism, infanticide, the sexual abuse of children and treason.
Suffice it to say, this caricature stretches even the limits of comic imagination. The real Obama's Christianity, his patriotism, moderation and commitment to capitalism, law and order, and national security are matters of abundant public record--some of which displeases the left wing of his party. But this is of little import to the Republican rank and file. For them, the fallaciousness of the whole counts for less than the suggestive appeal of the parts. All John McCain, Sarah Palin and their surrogates need to do is raise the insidious question--"Who is the real Barack Obama?"--and the zealots conjure the rest, along with cries of "Treason!" "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" The virulence of such rhetoric makes even Palin seem thoughtful; she at least inserts whole verb phrases like "palling around with" in between nouns like "Barack Obama" and "terrorists."
Such scenes are alarming not only because of the McCain campaign's willingness to stoke such murderous mania but also because of its apparent inability to control the madness once it has been unleashed. At more than one rally, McCain has been booed by the audience for attempting to interrupt panicked rants about the impending socialist or terrorist takeover of America. The crowd's immediate anger is directed not at Obama and the Democrats but at their own party's standard-bearers, who should be "representing us" but have so far refused to "take the gloves off" and "take it to Obama" and "hit him" in "a soft spot." If the GOP leaders don't give these folks what they want, they had best watch their own soft spots, for there is no shortage of backbenchers ready to seize the helm. Take Jeffrey Frederick, the 33-year-old chair of the Virginia Republican Party, who said that Obama and Osama bin Laden "both have friends that bombed the Pentagon." Denounced by the McCain campaign, Frederick has defiantly refused to apologize for his remark.
Perhaps he knows which way the wind blows: the Republican Party's electoral strategy of sowing resentment and fear--sprung from Nixon and nurtured by admen like Lee Atwater, Floyd Brown and the Swiftboaters--has finally taken on a life of its own. It thrives as a postmodern pastiche of conservative hate speech that no longer requires a master--a Frankenstein monster freed from his creator. What holds this beast together is not the fear and loathing of any particular despised identity so much as the idea that America is under siege, disordered, on the cusp of imminent and total collapse, threatened by terrorists abroad and undermined by enemies at home.
Of course, certain pariahs are useful in certain times. In the old lexicon it was Communists, feminists and gays who peopled the right wing's paranoid imagination, and if the sheer breadth of the slander by association against Obama is any indication, these bugaboos are still of value. But this time around the terror has been most sharply drawn along the lines of xenophobia and racism, a potent combination of hostile drives of which trolls like Andy Martin, the anti-Semite behind the "Obama is a Muslim" e-mails, are but minor instigators. The real enablers are demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck, who have made careers out of inciting frenzied aggression at anyone to the left of Joe McCarthy. Only now it seems that even these right-wing pundits have been outdone by their formerly loyal listeners. Coulter, whose contempt for Muslims ("invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity") is surpassed only by her scorn for liberals ("even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do"), has yet to call for the assassination of Barack Obama. But if she genuinely believes that liberals are more dangerous than Islamic terrorists, she should follow the courage of her convictions and do so.
To pre-empt such embarrassing displays of weakness, softer propagandists like Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens--who once brayed on and on about the left's "hatred of the United States" and its role as a "fifth column" "in favor of surrender and defeat"--have declared their support for Obama. But as Hitchens's recent endorsement in Slate amply demonstrates, he is not quite ready to give up the poisoned sword. Obama, he writes, is not a "capitulationist," even if he does "accept the support of the surrender faction."
If the polls are any indication, Obama will endure this smear campaign just fine, with or without the backhanded compliments of apologetic neocons. And if his election is not quite the ringing victory for civil rights and liberties, diplomacy and cosmopolitanism that we might like, it will at least beat back for a while the idea that defaming these values as traitorous constitutes sound electoral strategy. If Obama wins, and the barbarians do not show up to rattle the gates, what will the conservatives do next? For them, the barbarians were a solution, of sorts.
- Posted in



44 Comments so far
Show All"And if his election is not quite the ringing victory for civil rights and liberties, diplomacy and cosmopolitanism that we might like, it will at least beat back for a while the idea that defaming these values as traitorous constitutes sound electoral strategy."
The sheer arrogance of this pronouncement is mind boggling. The radical left are the only ones capable of these civic virtues? Or that any but a small minority share their "cosmopolitanism"?
To be fair, the rest of the article in my opinon was very good.
Obama or Mccain, the neocons are "safe" and "happy" as can be for the next decade !
Hopefully, my post will appear before the usual slew of anti-Democrats who think that this article is one more **fill in the expletive laden blank** example of how CD is obviously conspiring with right wing forces. Etc. etc.
What this article does well, is discuss what right wing forces really are. We need to remember the genuinely leftist cry/lyric (W. Guthrie), "Which side are you on?" In increasingly violently polarized times, supporting Obama is not a way of caving in or making some horrid compromise, it is a way of saying, I am on the side of civilization and peace.
The right wing has been doing this forever. As a child, I used to collect pennies for UNICEF on Halloween (when pennies were worth something, as my screenname indicates, I'm getting just a little up there, actually not quite 56). At the age of 10 I got to have doors slammed on my face by neighbors, a few of whom were kind enough to explain their reaction to my naive 10 year old self, that this money was going to "communists".
Now it's terrrorists. And it's getting crazier. I voted for Nader in 2000, but the country is 8 years crazier than that now. If you are the type of person who thinks buying baby formula and immunizations for the undeveloped world is a good thing to do; or if you are a person who favors diplomacy before "Shock and Awe"; or if you don't believe in torturing cab drivers for driving the wrong people to the wrong places; if etc. etc. etc. 8 years of this stuff; if you are on the side of decency, please vote for Obama.
One last word: I use an anonymity protecting screen name. I admire those who post sentiments such as mine with their real names attached. I'm way too thin skinned. For several weeks, after CD started hiding comments, I stopped even reading them, because there are so many righteous leftwing puritans here. But I keep trying to fight what I see as the good fight. Please, vote for Obama, and if not, please stay sane in your response; and if not, f**k you right back.
Jump on in here. Most people are civil and courteous. The more opinions we get the better. Heck I changed my view on something this morning because of something a lady posted.
Please say what you think. Truly its invaluable. If everyone here thought the same way it would just be a smoothfest.
"I stopped even reading them, because there are so many righteous leftwing puritans here."
agingpacifist, I understand you feeling the way you do. You are scared. You are demoralized. Your ideas and convictions have been trampled, over and over again. Mine, too.
Obama is a bright and articulate person. Its easy to want him to succeed. Very easy. I don't blame you for wanting to vote for him. I've struggled and struggled over it. But I can't do it. To vote for him is to vote for more carnage. More warmongering. More thievery.
I just can't do it anymore under the banner of the "lesser of two evils". I won't give them the false cover of the "better of the two". They are what they are: Thugs in suits. Thieves. Murderers.
Give you vote to Obama. Fine, understandable. But, you'll need to change your screen name. Pacifism is quite synonymous with war--yet.
My screenname was carefully chosen. I am a pacifist, just an aging one. I often avoid the term pacifist, because I dread the hypothetical discussion of what might conceivably justify war. Frankly, I don't even buy the rationales for the Civil War or World War II. Operating in real time, you have to assume your government is lying; if the government had honestly told people about the extermination of Jews, which wasn't their actual rationale for fighting anyway, the safest bet actually would have been that they were lying. Here's where I get thin-skinned; I did NOT say they were lying; I am not giving aid and comfort to holocaust deniers; I am merely saying what would the most likely interpretation **in real time** be if the government had reported those crimes **during** the war. Like the vast majority of such reports, the likely truth would have been that the government was lying. They wouldn't have been; and as I said, that wasn't the rationale for fighting; and after all the US also killed quite a few Japanese civilians, to say nothing of Dresden. My point is I get tired of trying to explain why even World War II should not have been fought by a pacifist. But, yes, I am one. I am one, who lives in a real world which has lots of people who fight wars for evil purposes, and a few people who fight wars for noble purposes; most of those people are misguided, but from time to time someone frees slaves or liberates concentration camps. I don't want to fight, I don't want anyone to fight, but I can't judge those who in their own light, see justification for fighting; and that includes Obama.
Great post. Quite a different view from anti-military types and even a bit different than all us anti-war types.
"but from time to time someone frees slaves or liberates concentration camps"
Good points. You wouldn't approve of people fighting, but you can see the need for sending Marines into the Sudan and stopping the slave trade there. Stopping the genocide. Am I reading your philosophy right?
"My point is I get tired of trying to explain why even World War II should not have been fought by a pacifist"
That confused me a little. Why should any pacifist or CO fight in any war?
You won me at "great post".
Yes, I can see the rationale for sending the Marines into the Sudan. But I don't favor it. Your last question is what I need to clarify. CO's and pacifists should not fight in any war. In fact, no one should. I still love the 60s line, "What if they called a war and nobody showed up?" So, that's what my conscience would dictate: don't show up. For any of it, no matter the purpose. A few thought experiments: Hitler would be dead by now anyway; would not fighting WW II have changed that? Without the dynamics of that war, would we be worried today about such things as "dirty bombs" and terrorists getting nukes? Or would the pacifist Oppenheimer have kept out of such a morally bankrupt enterprise? You argue for a good war, and you get decades of "unintended consequences." Similarly, some historians argue that slavery would have ended without the Civil War. We can't know, can we? We can only operate in real time. The best bet is to not fight, to not be the one to kill innocent civilians or to invent weaponry that will haunt us forever and may yet end the human race. The equivocation in my pacifism is not for me; it is for those others who honestly, by their own conscience, and often for powerful reasons, believe it is justified, or even essential, to use military force. I **respectfully** disagree. And so, on many many issues, I disagree with Obama, but he strikes me as a thoughtful, conscientious man. Compromised? How else could he even be there?
Ah-Ha! Here I got you.
"You argue for a good war, and you get decades of "unintended consequences."
There is no such thing as a "good war", there are just wars that are unavoidable (WW2) and bad wars like between now and then. So no one can argue for a good war!
"Hitler would be dead by now anyway; would not fighting WW II have changed that?"
It wouldn't. But if we hadn't, it would have changed the world. We would be speaking German and we'd be under the heel of a Master Race.
"Similarly, some historians argue that slavery would have ended without the Civil War. We can't know, can we? We can only operate in real time."
True, but the best records I've seen show importation of slavery was slowing, freeing of slaves was increasing and machines were already replacing a lot of their labor. So I do believe slavery would have ended anyway. But I also never thought the Civil War was about slavery.
I certainly respect your views. I believe every man has to look into himself when he faces that call to serve and decide what his duty is. What he is and what he believes. I made a different decision than you, but the only difference I see between us, is that we made different decisions. If that makes sense to you.
Remember a lot of guys didn't show up for Viet Nam, around 25,000 men and women. Very few serving Marines or soldiers blamed them. We had a CO as a medic in the mountains for a while (he had more guts than I do) but none of us would have wanted him carrying a rifle, depending on him to kill to protect us, he couldn't.
I guess I'd say that till everyone agrees to disarm, we will need the military and that there will be times we should morally intervene (with others) or defend ourselve's if attacked. So we will **respectfully** disagree on that need.
I'm proud to have you on our side.
And if you see me posting something that makes you think I'm stuffed plumb full of wild strawberries. Jump in there and try to straighten me out. Or anyone else for that matter. If someone is rude and discourteous rather that civil...they aren't worth the time anyway. Plus all of us get off the mark sometimes or say someting thats misconstrued....but the good folks will come back and say Oops or sorry about that.
So please don't hesitate to say what you think. You might say something that will help someone else.
I'm a wordy son of a gun sometimes, sorry.
Yes, all of us get off the mark sometimes............
I've been feeling a bit unduly self righteous about that one aspect of my original post anyway. I can certainly get out of line myself, I have quite a temper for a pacifist. It's what I call my Angry Quaker mode; though I'm not a practicing anything. It's just that in the face of consumerism, I find myself thinking, "tis a gift to be simple you goddam a******s". I have hot buttons that throw me into all kinds of rages; and I have calm days and not so calm days. It's Friday; I feel good........
I'm glad you are going to keep posting. I believe we are about to be a bit less of a consumer society. Its going to be a rough ride.
Have a great weekend.
Unavoidable war? Maybe. Using guns, bombs and poisons to kill people? Always avoidable. Evil is unavoidable, (although we have neglected strategies for drastically reducing it). But DOING evil IS avoidable.
The only way we would be speaking German now is if the Germans hadn’t recovered the way we are now, from the temporary madness that has made us commit similar acts. Or if we had surrendered. (Yes, yes, it’s not the same—no death camps, no invasions, no Gestapo, no torture of innocent dissenters—well, OK, no death camps.)
Yet.
Listen to the Palin crowds and see how far we are from that. For that matter, listen to Palin. And wonder why someone like that has more support than the US Nazi party. Why aren’t McCain-Palin polling in the low single digits, with the colossal failures, scandals, exposures, crimes of their party and the astoundingly hate-filled rhetoric of their campaign?
Hitler and the German public were caught up in the political and military manifestation of personal, childhood traumas, deprivations, and disconnections from life and feeling. Because the traumas were personal and the means used to deal with them were political and violent, they would not have healed. The first rule of addiction is: You can never get enough of the wrong thing. Hitler and Co. could not get enough death and suffering to feel connected to humans, so every act of aggression, control, punishment and murder only led to the next. There would never have been enough, just as there will never be enough for our own Neoconservatives. Every time people here have thought they wouldn’t go further they have; every time people thought they couldn’t get more outrageous, blatant, illegal, violent, controlling, they have. What makes anyone think they will stop now, when they have all the pseudo-legal means they need to justify anything, and the army in place to carry it out? Death camps? Maybe just around the corner.
Want to keep a democracy? Want to stop destruction? Want to rescue hostages? Don’t send in the Marines. Don’t pick up guns. Send in naked people without weapons, hands in the air. The US usually insists on outnumbering the armies it faces by about 10 to 1. Imagine outnumbering hostage takers or invading armies by a thousand to one, ten thousand to one. Imagine advancing toward them, making absolutely certain they knew that although they would never get their violent desires met, they would not be harmed, either. Casualties on our side? Likely. But virtually no chance of defeat, unless we simply surrendered. WW I and II killed nearly 100 million people, and accomplished what that non-violent action couldn’t have, while infecting us with an even more virulent strain of the disease “we” thought we were fighting? The Civil War stopped secession of a territory that has skewed our politics to the right for generations, made “us” a more powerful, angrier country much more able to cause the immense suffering in the world that we have, than two separate countries would have. Worldwide African slavery did virtually end without a war—except ours.
People talk about fight or flight, but they forget the third choice used by people and other species—freeze. People suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder—and by this I mean virtually every human in civilization who has not consciously faced and healed from it—are, in a way, stuck in the freeze mode of the FF or F choice. We’re not aware of it because the freezing, in preparation for the nasty pain of being eaten, freezes awareness, including awareness of the freezing. All 3 can be chosen by someone who has very little consciousness, is unaware of much except the threat. Those who are unaware of the depths of themselves, who think what they are on the surface is all they are, the people who are starting to scoff and ridicule this post just about now, can choose them.
But there’s another way. Choice 3A: conscious recovery, slow moving out of the social disease version of PTSD. 3A is thoughtful and compassionate, infinitely healing. When we can get there we find we have other choices besides war and surrender. The people who made Gandhi, King, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Aung San Suu Kyi familiar names know that choice, the women of Nigeria, and hundreds of thousands in Latin America today know that choice. Imagine a National Peace Guard, nonviolently rescuing hostages, doing house makeovers for poor people all over the country (and world?) to achieve energy independence, training to resist all those invasions the right wing is so afraid of…
Why pick the lesser of 2 evils, or the evil of 2 lessers, or evil at all, when we have another choice?
"I can't judge those who in their own light, see justification for fighting; and that includes Obama."
Why not? In any case, voting is a form of judgment, one way or another.
A bit of polarization happening here? Have you noticed that there is not a lot a talk about "bringing Americans together" in this election? I know that the frothing lunatics who attend Palin rallies are not interested in finding common ground with terrorists like myself, and likewise I would go to great extremes to avoid sitting down to lunch with any of them. I don't want them embraced in the great American forum of ideas. I want them trounced. I want them defeated, humiliated and deported. Forget E Pluribus Unum. Put a border wall at the Mason Dixon line and get them away from the rest of us, or us away from them. Mitosis is nature's way of relieving internal contradiction.
As a Nader voter, however, I am not opposed to agingpacifist in any way. I don't want Nader to beat Obama. Nader, in fact, can't win. But he can get 5% of the vote, and public funding. I'm depending on agingpacifist to elect Obama overwhelmingly and without my help. Our aptitude for multitasking is often overlooked. Just as we can both pat our heads and rub our tummies and bail out the economy and drag predatory lenders to the guillotine, so we can defeat John McCain and create a credible third party which actually does promote civilization and peace.
Goodness gracious, your prejudice is showing Vox. Southerphobia is just not good. By the way, those statements at Palin rallies I believe were made above the Mason Dixon line.
I apologize, Tex. I'm stuck with these phobias I acquired watched Easy Rider and Deliverance, and to tell the truth I have never even visited the South because of these preconceptions. I have, however, known a number of gracious, intelligent southern people. How about a line from Florida, NW through Branson Missouri, ending up in Seattle? Good people on one side, bad people on the other. You might have to move.
I've lived in the northeast for most of my 59 years. This part of the country is full of racists.
-- EKATON --
I should have put an (lol) at the end of that Southerphobia!
"I have never even visited the South because of these preconceptions"
Come on down here, you'll get a surprise! Pretty good folks in the main. And Texas itself is far, far better than reported, even now. As to moving, I just looked at my retirement account. Unless you're apaying, I ain't amoving!
I have friends I visit in Tyler about once a year. Texas weather is great in the fall. Are you anywhere near there?
-- EKATON --
Not too far away. Tyler's a nice little city. Much like Dallas was when I was growing up. Weather is terrific right now.
What if he doesn't win?
What if everyone decides that he will win without my vote?
For once I wish that Nader would pressure in an unified effort and work on building 3rd party objectives between elections rather than sowing division just at election time.
I wondered if it was my age too. What does that tell us? That for our years we observe when it historically is as good as it gets. Which is not to say we can't still carry on.
The Barbarians strolled through the gates in 1968 when Emperor Five O'Clock Shadow moved the ancestral throne down to the swamps at Watergate. It's been there ever since and attempts to move it to higher ground away from the quicksand have repeatedly been met with overwhelming resistance in the form of irrelevance or banishment.
It is certainly easy to have no faith in the democrats given their surrender/support for Bush through his terms, starting with Gore's weak candidacy and apparent unwillingness to fight for the office(unlike the republicans).
We are a people lost. Wandering in the wilderness, waiting for our saviour, one in whom we can trust. Betrayed then, and again by those we'd believed in. When, oh, when, will our savior come?
"...his patriotism, moderation and commitment to capitalism, law and order, and national security are matters of abundant public record--some of which displeases the left wing of his party."
Although your throw-away observation at least address this truth in a more factual way than most Obama mouthpieces, I must point to your penchant for understatement.
If you actually believe that it will be that easy to moderate real anger for what Obama' actions have directly contributed to... well I'm guessing that your ability to understate has a component of self-delusion.
Although, perhaps not on a barbarous level, the times ahead will be more than interesting.
I am a 'Leftwing Puritans' opposed to lesser of two evil kool aid flavored jello. We are just such horrible people and the Democratic Party hates us almost as much as they hate Sarah, and that'a a lot, too. I am just so hurt!
Actually the Democratic Party hates us a lot more than they hate Sarah, because they get along just great with Republicans. They are problably planning with them right now for more pulbic fund give a ways to the Pentagon and bankers. What do you think, 'Non purists'?
"The real Obama's Christianity, his patriotism, moderation and commitment to capitalism, law and order, and national security are matters of abundant public record ..."
Patriotism? Commitment to law and order? Obama violated the oath he took to defend the Constitution by refusing to support the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President for their many unconstitutional actions. Moderation? Refusing to hold the Bush administration and the Democratic leadership accountable for torture is now a moderate position? Maybe among liberals, who long ago relegated morality to their list of quaint, anachronistic irrelevancies.
"If Obama wins, and the barbarians do not show up to rattle the gates, what will the conservatives do next?"
The barbarians have already poured through the gates, Mr. Kim. Torture is barbaric, Mr. Kim. Wars launched on the basis of corporate imperialism are barbaric, Mr. Kim. Senators who support such actions with their votes while hypocritically condemning them with soothing, empty rhetoric are every bit as barbaric as those who issue the orders, Mr. Kim.
A barbarism that stimulates liberal endorphins is not preferable to right-wing tribal barbarism, it's just more insidious.
Good point, but what strikes me is that the quote you begin with lists attributes as if they are essentially virtues-- though they may "displease the left wing of his party".
That vestigial stump is a wing? Then I have wings studding the back of my hands! Except I call them "knuckles"-- and the Democratic Party left knuckle is too tiny to make even a decent knuckle sandwich.
The writer's point is that Obama is actually a grown-up Boy Scout whose qualities ought to inspire devotion from even the Silent Majority. Sadly, I agree.
In light of this--this, this is a good percentage of the electorate.
THIS IS YOUR REALITY and despite it you prattle on with your happy talk about third party fantasies when baby, the wolf is at the door.
Vern,
Not sure what your post means, exactly. But I know this: I'm not worried about no wolf at the door unless it has a friend at the back door.
My talk is mostly unhappy these days. And I'm still stuck on my fantasies of having a SECOND party. Maybe someday...
“Don't feel like Satan
But to them I am,
So I try to forget,
Anyway I can”.
From Keep on Rockin in the Free World. By Neil Young.
Our country won’t work without an enemy. Our domestic and foreign policy requires that we always be defending against something or someone. We were supposed to be the land of the brave.
Hoa binh
I was born in 1949 and I cannot remember a time when the US wasn't involved in a war or a smaller military conflict somewhere on the earth my entire life.
-- EKATON --
Find a New Hero
The zeitgeist is change
but are we roped to the track
by the warrior pack?
Construct a new construct
for a new hero of yore
what sort of hero for our PNAC shore
will he/she shore up new levers
for the fiat that we trust
The one nation manifest
Is it uber alles or under Dues?
Could their be a mammon link?
What would Woodrow Wilson think?
Is the nation really on the brink?
Say do we need a Bonaparte
a Mao or a touch of Tao
or a party truly populist?
Does the bang proceed the bust?
Is there a law that covers trust?
Endangered Homo Wise
Put Homo Sapiens on the endangered list
Genghis Khan is looking for another tryst
as new age looters give plunder a new twist
the flimflam robber baron cysts
blow black gold bubbles
as the spiral of spin is picking up speed
like black water freedom
the security baby burners
victimless and carbonized like clean coal
efficient like corn fuel and safe like nukes
while the Monroe doctrine dukes trump
the slump with worthless greenbacks
This country is going to wake up one morning to find itself involved in the second civil war, fought between the rabid religious right their legions of mind-dead followers, and aa the rest of us.
Sioux Rose
JOHN MITCHELL: Excellent post.
AGING PACIFIST: You're no doubt familiar with the concept of disease prevention? In a world that absolutely PROLIFERATES weapons, the US being the leader of that pack, with entertainment, religion and sports each taking its powerful turn to influence minds and morality with frequently aggressive rhetoric, the way is set FOR war. Prevention would require many new behaviors which I entirely salute and endorse. In fact, for the better part of my life I have written articles, books & movie scripts (never yet utilized) to SEED higher ideas about humanity's interwoven fabric. I do disagree as to the American commitment to WW I & WW II. Taking the stance that Hitler, like a plague would eventually run himself out, allows for many more deaths, although your point about unforeseen consequences is all too real as seen in the blowback from Afghanistan as cover for 911, and the wars to follow. It would make sense to begin with the children, those who have been the least programmed into what's become a NORM OF VIOLENCE; but so long as the military industrial complex and its entertainment conduits controls message, we have neither hope nor prayer for that intelligent outcome.
Americans are most moved by their wallets... and as $ gets tighter, and systems break down, a different paradigm will emerge. People may devour one another or see things competitively; or rise above circumstance to work together. I hope for the latter...
I am not waiting for the barbarians. To my eye, they are here. They have been here. They have been reaping the benefits of "bipartisanship."
If my disapproval of both the barbarians AND collusion with them inspires agingpacifist, et al, to insist that I'm some sort of purist, so be it.
My own take on Woodie Guthrie is that he would not approve of "better" military aggression or "better" shredding of the Bill of Rights or "better" ransoms to the financial sector or ... you get the idea. The song "Which Side Are You On?" does not refer to finding a slightly less oppressive boss, after all.
On YouTube, there's a back-porch conversation about this very issue. I want very much for Obama to be a progressive leader, leading a pack of progressive Democrats into positions of power and influence. But I'm still waiting for Barack to show his progressive side. I'm afraid it will be a long wait.
The YouTube selection is titled "Obama - Don't Screw It Up" and can be found at:
http://www.youtube.com/Eskit99
I checked out the clip. It was a clear-eyed and droll bit of theatre, but still too optimistic.
I'm just a little apprehensive of backing--in any way, shape or form, a government that wants to "save the world" while oppressing its own people and selling the worst weapons of war to the world.
I could never--ever, support it, given what's happened over the last 8 years by the "two" political parties.
Democrats should be especially ashamed, given what they THINK they stand for.
As Obama said about New Hampshire, we ought not to get cocky. Remember when Goldwater was massively rejected by American in favor of Johnson back in the 60s? It was that very defeat, a truly crushing repudiation of the Republican party, that lead to the later successful infliction of nearly three decades of right wing radicalism on us starting with Reagan.
In doing so, the party leaders after Goldwater counter intuitively purged from the original "big tent" of their party all who were moderates. They morphed into the single mind set Neocon extremists of today. Their tactic of increasing partisanship and divisiveness focusing on voter differences rather than similarities combined with their perpetual drumbeat of fear and loathing to which humans are so susceptible proved surprisingly successful in capturing offices.
What is worrisome is that when they lose the next election, their temptation will be to become even more reactionary and paranoid. In light of what they did to destroy the Constitutution when they had legitimate exercise of power through Bush and Cheney, suggests next time around their extremism may have no bounds whatsoever. Next time they might not bother seeking votes. After all, they proved that all that really counted was five Republican votes on the Supreme Court.
Subversion itself probably seems acceptable to those who think as they do. Assassination? Their ilk openly calls for it. Remember Pat Roberston? Now listen to the full throated crowds at some of the Palin rallies.
Just think what might have happened toward establish a new dictatorship if Bush had been more competent in all he was attempting. If he hadn't screwed up so much else, he might be expecting a third term for life. Declaration of martial law to ferret out the "terrorists" among us. Jail without trial or counsel. Torture? Spy on opponents with the so-called Patriot Act?
We had a close call. Even though everyone who voted Republican in the 21st Century should be mortally embarrassed, just remember, if we drop our vigilance like we did after Goldwater's trouncing, those who want to remake the Constitution over in their own image could come roaring back,. . . next time with tanks.
What a big cow patty of an article this and every other article is that whines about barbarians, racists, and Islamofascist baiting. These guys and gals are not some vanguard of intolerance, they are chronological adults, social adolescents, and emotional 2 year olds in the thrall of Viagra-Levitra-Cialis or Hormone replacement therapy stimulation.
These bozos along with their mascot, Sarah Stupid, governor of Alaska, think they are participating in a pep ralley instead of an election. Like dinosaurs trying to flee the advancing glacier of resentment they have richly earned, all they can do is call names and make empty threats.
Poet
American sense of fair play: always hit below the belt and if caught, blame someone else. Same old same!
The right wing conservatives who were, are and will always be uneducated simpletons follow those people who wake up their primitive instincts. That's sad but also very dangerous.
But it takes people like McCain/Palin to arouse the devil.
All those people belong to the madness hotel.
There is also a good article about this topic and the Republicans use hate as weapon against their opponents:
--Desperate Republicans are sinking to new lows
Thomas F. Schaller
October 21, 2008
Facing the prospect of a catastrophic defeat in two weeks and, with it, possible relegation to minority party status in all branches of the national government, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, his running mate, the Republican National Committee and their affiliated partisans are flailing around in a disoriented fit of pique.
In recent weeks, attendees at McCain rallies have shouted, "Kill him!" in reference to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama; dressed up a monkey doll with an Obama sticker; held up a sign calling for waterboarding Mr. Obama; told a black television cameraman, "Sit down, boy"; and kicked another reporter in the leg.
It's easy to dismiss these episodes as the isolated outrages of a lunatic few. That excuse cannot be used, however, to explain the disgusting robo-calls and television ads sponsored by the RNC, or incendiary statements made by Mr. McCain, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and McCain advisers.
Some automated telephone calls insinuate that Mr. Obama is a terrorist because of his association with former domestic terrorist William Ayers. (They fail to mention that Mr. Ayers committed his crimes when Mr. Obama was an 8-year-old living halfway around the world, and Republicans also "associated" with the two men on a civic board that included a McCain backer.) Meanwhile, a new ad by the National Republican Trust political action committee uses scary images of 9/11 hijackers as a way to link Mr. Obama's position on driver's licenses to the terrorist attacks seven years ago.--
more
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.schaller21oct21,0,5949139.column