Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Where Is the Change?
Is it too early to criticize Barack Obama for his program, his appointments, and his policies? He is not yet president but he is dominating the news and influencing markets and foreign-policy as though he had already been inaugurated. At the same time, he tells us that we have only one president at a time and that president is George W. Bush.
Personnel indicates policy, often determines policy, and Obama's appointments are from the establishment on both domestic and foreign affairs. Yet Obama's prime message during his meteoric rise to power was "change". How can establishment figures from both parties install significant change?
Obama's foreign and military policies will be developed by four power centers: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser, Marine General James Jones. All supported the invasion of Iraq; none advocate immediate withdrawal from that country or revision of US world-wide military involvement.
Obama's economic team is dominated by veterans of the Clinton and Bush administrations, who participated in the repeal of financial regulations, an act that precipitated the current crisis. Robert Rubin guided Citicorp to its current bankrupt position, Lawrence Summers was the prime mover for the repeal and Timothy Geithner is a Bush appointee. How can Obama entrust the American economy to these failures?
During his campaign Barack Obama exhorted the adoring crowds of supporters with, "We are the people we have been waiting for". Well, where are these people? He promised reform ideas for fundamental change of the system. The voters projected on him their personal ideals and idiosyncratic hopes for change. They are sure to be disappointed at Obama's emphasis on traditional experience by establishment figures who brought us to the current crisis.
And a large part of the Obama vote came from liberals. It's fair to ask, "Where are the liberals in the Obama administration?" Obama is seeking support from conservative Republicans, offers to include their ideas and opinions in his programs, and appoints them to key positions, a process that pushes the Obama agenda in a conservative direction.
Do the liberals have the abilities and experience to manage these bureaucracies, to furnish the necessary ideas? For answers consult the Nobel Prize winners, the faculties of our finest universities, the managers of some of our largest businesses. The liberals are there, in big numbers, but not on Obama's list.
Obama needs to answer important questions about his administration. Where are the liberals? Where are the people who voted against the war? Where are the prescient who warned against financial deregulation? Where are the advisors who will give Obama a full range of policy options to make him a better problem solver and successful president?
- Posted in
133 Comments so far
Show AllI ask you, if it were a Republican President, with Republican Congress in power, would you be as critical, if his or her administration was full of Democrats and left of center appointees?
People voted for a Democrat who promised change. Your scenario doesn't apply, although John McCain has been praising Obama's cabinet picks of late.
-TIA
Sioux Rose
THOUGHTS: You gave the shorter version, and it's apt. Gracias.
Sioux Rose
O REI: Your question would hold merit had the Republicans who have held power the past 8 years (and given Clinton's "Republican lite policies" longer) done anything REMOTELY positive for America or most Americans. Apart from delivering to their corporate masters a greater share of the nation's income & profits, waging a falacious war, dragging their feet on intelligent investment in green technologies to offset the REAL threat (that is global climate change)and Goddess knows how many other egregious sins against the spirit of mankind, then the comparison would be justified. However, since the Repubs have dragged us to the edge of the abyss in all of these key arenas, it makes no sense to squander time or judgment wondering if there could be a similar issue raised by reversing who's at the wheel. The same self-centered egotists, the vast majority either morally disabled or psychopaths, have put MILLIONS and perhaps BILLIIONS into jeopardy by short-sighted decisions amenable only to wealth, and/or a worship of al-mighty Mammon...
Sioux Rose:
Many people write books attempting to describe events which you somehow manage to describe in a single paragraph. I might not always see things your way but I am certainly a fan of just about everything you write.
Thank You
Sioux Rose
DANTE: Thank you very very much for that wonderful compliment. Years ago a man who observed my TV show said, "Sioux Rose, you're over everyone's head!" And I answered, "It's my hope to get them to look up!" Would you agree that our culture is a veritable sewer? How much media is NOT about consumer frenzy, bad habits, using guns as some kind of sexual/erotic bodily extension, and/or violence TO women? Why are subjects like astrology, spiritual healing, the search for meaning OUTSIDE the orthodox agencies frowned upon to the point persons who sought answers in these venues were KILLED as heretics, and today are silenced to attrition? I am glad to bring a different perspective into this forum as it's generally composed of highly intelligent thinkers (though less so lately, as our flock has been artificially culled).
By the way, I also write books. Have published 7... and hope that my screen plays will one day be produced as they really would get people thinking on far broader terms.
Hi Sioux Rose,
I also like your turn of words on these subjects, and consider avenues of esoteric thought of value as well.
Curious...."our flock has been artificially culled"...please explain. I admit, I am missing some of the previous contributors to CD.
We have a very avant guard theater group here in Santa Rosa, CA.....The Sixth Street Playhouse. You might submit some of your plays....I would love to experience your creative endeavors. Hey, nothing ventured....
http://www.6thstreetplayhouse.com/
Yes, look up....and see Chemtrails. Of course, looking for a higher minded viewpoint was your sage suggestion. The dumbing down of our populace is responsible for the election the boob of the century, GWB. In looking to a higher minded viewpoint, I only hope this is a lesson learned on the path to our collective growth toward a meaningful spirituality that encompasses all peoples.
Marianne
A lot of us voters were reluctant to begin with and knew Obama's weakness in pandering to the GOP all too often but pinched our noses tight and gave him our vote. Besides, there's still the same old folks in Congress and the Courts who are equally responsible for killing change for the better. At this point, I could care less about Obama's appointments because even if he has a better set of Cabinet members, you still have a corrupt Congress and Courts with PEE-LOW-SICK and John Roberts to keep the status quo intact.
Mr. Grossman's short article is full of rhetoric questions; after each question mark, the answers are totally obvious to any one of a liberal/progressive frame of mind: Where are the liberals? Do liberals have necessary management skills? Doesn't Obama need advisers from a wide ideological range? I hope that further posters who are disposed toward excuse-making for Obama's betrayal of his faux-progressiveness will not go off on the usual tangents about how bad Bush, Palin or Nancy Pelosi are. Just stick to the questions, Obama defenders! If you have answers to Grossman's questions, bring them on! (And don't say it's wrong to ask these questions right now; that we have to "give the guy chance" and see what he will do as President; because Grossman has already called you out on that one by noting that Obama is acting as if he were President even as, in his usual fork-tongued way, he is saying "there's only one President"--Bush.)
For environmental policy there are still heads of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Don't know who they are, but presumably a president-elect trying to fill out his cabinet could easily get their names. For Treasury, how about Naomi Klein or recent Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman. For Defense how about someone dedicated to peace like Dennis Kucinich. There, does that satisfy you about some liberal names? If he were really interested in change, in reforming the US, I'm sure these people or people much like them would be on the list. But Obama is showing us that he isn't so much about change as about saying what people want to hear so that he can get elected. Much like so many Democrats promised in 2006.
Unfortunately for the US, Naomi Klein is Canadian, born in Montreal.
True, and Carl Pope, who is head of Sierra Club, would be a very questionable choice off his record of "cooperation" with corporate anti-environmentalists. But thank you for the names you named. Can you imagine Obama giving the DOD post to Kucinich (or any other, even though Dennis "supported" him)? Actually I wasn't challenging any one to name names but rather to refute the allegation that OBAMA has not and probably will not nominate any "liberal." So far quite a few of the posters on the site have ignored my challenge and gone back to lesser evilism and give the guy a chance rhetoric.
There is no requirement that members of the Cabinet be American citizens. If they aren't, they just won't be in the line of succession. Madeleine Albright was a naturalized citizen and as such was not eligible to succeed to the presidency had several people in line in front of her during Clinton's administration died.
Obama may have promised change but he did not specify what type of change and now with the choice of his administration appointees it can be presumed that Obama's change will be (amazingly and unsurprisingly considering where his election campaign funds came from) for the worse...
Has the lightbulb started to buzz above your heads yet?
By playing the system created by the Ruling Elite you will ALWAYS vote for their candidate in election for positions of real power, Obama like the chimp-in-residency Bush is just another puppet of the Ruling Elite. As long as we keep playing their game we will just keep being disapointed and let down by politicians who are only serving the agenda given to them by the Ruling Elite the only way forward for real change is to take control of our own lives and ending this current system.
Until the current system ends the inequality inherent in all society will only increase as the Ruling Elite are consolidating their resources and riches via the bailout and sucking us dry from their hold over the resources.
rEvolution now!
Equalitism now!
peace and love
November 27, 2008 "Counterpunch" -- - I feel cheated. I feel betrayed. And I’m not even a Democrat.
Our nation hasn’t yet finished counting all the election returns, but the outlines of a future Obama Administration are already clear: Clinton at State, Geithner at Treasury, Summers to head the National Economic Council, Holder at Justice, Emmanuel as Chief of Staff, General James Jones as the likely National Security Advisor, and Robert Gates likely to stay on at Defense.
There not a progressive among them. Not even one. If Obama was vague about his personal politics during the primaries and general election it was for a reason: he doesn’t have any.
Sioux Rose
And every one of those has proven their bona fides in the form of supporting one bastion of capitalist industry, from corporations to THE corporation, the MIC, or another RATHER THAN the public interest. It's beyond Orwellian that we're being served the same old shit on a more attractive platter. So conditioned to packaging has this consumer-oriented society (trained like Pavlov's dogs) become, that too many cannot tell or smell the difference. Whoa!
"It's beyond Orwellian that we're being served the same old shit on a more attractive platter. So conditioned to packaging has this consumer-oriented society (trained like Pavlov's dogs) become, that too many cannot tell or smell the difference."
Don't forget that there were quite a lot of reluctant voters out there who were interested in what 3rd parties had to say and offer but like myself felt hopeless and in a lost state that more of their friends, neighbors, family, etc ... were switching to the major party candidates. That's how I gave up on November 1, 2008 and hit the button for Obama even when it went against my heart and mind. 3rd parties can often be better but a lot of us just feel powerless, helpless, trapped, etc ... to believe that he or she will get in let alone get anything done as a 3rd party candidate.
I voted third party and I feel good. Of course I voted third party the last three elections, and have felt that I make the right choice. Actually, feeling good isnn't exactly how I felt. I didn't feel good about any of it, what the democrats had to offer, how our media wouldn't allow for third parties who be heard, and how time and time again people get hooked by the propaganda coming from the democrats - vote the lesser of two evils, vote for someone who has a chance to win. They don't reflect my choices. I felt that I was voting for my conscience, and if enough people would vote their conscience, then it could make a difference. But we'll never know if people vote out of fear instead of voting for something they believe in.
I would have loved it if the democratic party would have allowed for discussion of all points of view, but they aren't interested. They marginalized Kucinich, Nader, and anyone else who didn't support their need to win, not necessarily to lead.
The democratic party would rather have had McCain win then move more to the 'left' which is really not even at the center yet. And witness all of Obama's choices for his team. 'Change' you can hope for, but won't ever see.
Life doesn't always offer do overs. At some point it can be too late.
It says a lot that Grossman's letter begins with:
"Is it too early to criticize Barack Obama for his program, his appointments, and his policies?"
as opposed to:
"Is it too early to applaud Barack Obama for his program, his appointments, and his policies?"
This is typical of the piss-and-moan attitude of the far left. No matter what happens, the far lefties will complain and criticize.
How about just being thankful for having someone coming into the White House with a head on his shoulders? Obama is an author, scholar, attorney, activist. He has defeated the most likely (and scarey) of candidates because Americans believe we can and WILL do better.
Give what I've said a little thought. We might have been getting ready to welcome Vice President Palin to Washington had it not been for those of us who recognized Obama for the visionary that he is and supported him for the last 2 years.
Hope you don't choke on your turkey.
Give me a break, idiot, all you do is echo the Right's attempts to red-bait the Left. Asshole, tell me name a single issue where the public at large isn't in agreement with the Left. But by good, we couldn't let that get out--why who knows what the people would do--have to have the fools babbling against their own best interests from healthcare to civil rights.
Obama is smart, Obama is pragmatic, Obama's team of rivals, keep your enemies close---do you really think that people that can think critical are going to jump on the buzzword bandwagon?
I'm very impressed with your very extensive vocabulary.
Just because Obama looks better in a suit than Palin and apparently doesn't moonlight as a table dancer doesn't make him a credible leader.
You have been taken in again.
What's that saying, "Fool me once, shame on you--fool me twice, shame on me"? Something like that....
If you don't like it here, why don't you go somewhere else? Alaska maybe?
Serena is trying to tell you that Obama is no different from Palin on the economy. Whether that be true, only time will tell. Unfortunately, it's already starting to reek.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice – won’t get fooled again!
—G.W. Bush
how amusing you are whilst denigrating what you term the 'far left'.
what a sad state of affairs when the political spectrum has been skewed so much that those who oppose a corporate militarist are labeled so easily by others who speak of a visionary.
although nothing that shouldn't be expected from spineless democrats who have consistently advertised their ability to be complicit in a rightward lurch at every given opportunity.
What a steaming load. William Blake was a visionary. Barack Obama is a mainstream, business-friendly American politician.
When the evidence compels criticism, then it should be voiced, regardless of the poor reception that mainstream apologists might give it. If your concern about "pissing and moaning" is sincere instead of produced for the purpose of this one response, then you might instruct the Dems to fight Republicans with the same gusto that they bring to silencing the Greens. There is no pissing and moaning to compare with a Democratic apparatus that cannot tolerate an opinion to its left.
When it comes to public servants, thankfulness is a misguided response. Policy is the thing that matters.
Sioux Rose
The fact that he is all the things you site, in particular, intelligent, makes it all the more dispiriting to see him choose the old players all over again, given EVIDENCE of where their calamitous decisions have led!
Visiting relatives for the holiday I went into a shopping mall (this is a once every 2 year thing with me) just to get a pulse on the "patriotism" (projected as consumerism) of my fellow Americans, and here in S.Florida, one would not notice a recession cum depression is in full swing. This Mammon-Mars worshipping nation is definitely galvanized when it comes to attaining a bargain.
I gave up cable tv (any tv) 2 years ago and again, due to being at others' homes, the TV is on and all I see are either terrorist images of Mumbai or the levels of shopping being read like some kind of sports score. This is ONE strange country!
"I gave up cable tv (any tv) 2 years ago and again, due to being at others' homes, the TV is on and all I see are either terrorist images of Mumbai or the levels of shopping being read like some kind of sports score. This is ONE strange country"
You got that right, deluded, delusional and on a short sighted path to ecological and economic disaster too IMO.
Visionary!!!!????? Hahahahahaha. And yes I voted for him because Palin SCARED me as a young earth creationist dimwit too close to the nuclear trigger, but 8 years of Clintonism is nothing to cheer about, remember Clinton brought us salvage logging, the end of welfare as we know it, the bombing of Serbia, the massacre of civilians at Waco, and starving of 500,000 Iraqis with the disgusting sanctions, as well as attempted v chip censorship and a false promise of single payer health care.
Sometimes I wonder if having a competent hand of the tiller of empire is WORSE since it breeds complacency. At least with a Bush the contradictions of war for oil and Israel and crony capitalism are out in plain view. And yes I am having regrets about voting for Obama. The only bright spot so far I see is 160 billion for green energy. We MUST push Obama to keep that promiseat least or our "progressive" votes for Obama will have ment nothing other than exchanging an incompetent white guy heading the empire for a competent African American. If a green energy program falls though to pay for bailing out Wall St, that funded Obama's campaign I will be out on the street protesting Obama's failed polices just like I protested Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, count on it Dimocrap koolaid drinkers!
.Your applause for the appointments made so far in this new administration indicate that your politics is far to the right of mine. This might make any reasonable dialogue rather difficult given today's climate of polarization and quick tempered defense of one's position.
I will operate on the assumption that you posted, not to berate, but to discuss, and I will apologize for the reception your post received. Of course your statement:
"This is typical of the piss-and-moan attitude of the far left. No matter what happens, the far lefties will complain and criticize."
certainly lends itself to that type of reception and is a rather strong hint that you may in fact be a troll rather than a person looking for common ground, or maybe it was just an unfortunate choice of phrasing. Hopefully the latter is the case. I might point out that criticisms of Obama does not automatically assign one to the status of " far left".
I do not speak for the entire left, only for myself as you do for your own political positions. I would simply ask you, rather than berating the left for criticisms,can you see the dichotomy between Obama the candidate and Obama the President Elect? After promising change and new leadership, he has filled his staff with those who represent the status quo , obviously those who hoped his words were not simply flowery and empty of substance are disappointed at this indication of the opposite.
You base your defense of our new President Elect upon his intellect, and that he defeated a slate of two with much lesser capability in that area. This is true but I would ask you to understand that many in this nation seek correct action not intelligent continuation of that which weakens our nation and continues to destroy the lives of many around the world as well as the hopes and dreams of far too many Americans.
Dissent is, after all, one of our basic rights. To oppose the opinions of others is, of course, a right as well, but to do so with venom , especially if one responds with polite disagreement, is not a right but a wrong. Perhaps you might expand upon your support of Obama and overlook the unfortunate reception you received at first.
.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
You have summarized well the essential point without the pissy tone that my response contained. Thank you.
.If I have seen further it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants ( yeah I stole that from Isaac Newton!). I consider your posts, professor, to be generally far, far better than my own feeble efforts. Thank you for the kindness.
You as well Ms. Rose
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Sioux Rose
ARDEE: Well said!
But you see, it doesn't matter who Obama appoints to advise his opinion--even when there are no team of rivals, rather all uniformly of the same views, because Obama informs us that HE, himself is the vessel through which change is manifested--he is "the decider".
Yet another "Decider"--just the style of authoritarian leadership needed by a country on the edge of the abyss.
"But you see, it doesn't matter who Obama appoints to advise his opinion--even when there are no team of rivals, rather all uniformly of the same views, because Obama informs us that HE, himself is the vessel through which change is manifested--he is "the decider"."
I agree with you in that it doesn't matter who President-elect Obama appoints to his cabinet provided that they are experienced professionals capable of executing the policies of the 44th President. It matters little to me what past policies they executed on behalf of previous Presidents. Those policies remain responsibilities of past Presidents. History. I am not looking for saints but rather experienced professionals who are capable from day one to execute effective domestic and foreign policy.
"HE, himself is the vessel through which change is manifested--he is "the decider"."
That is true. He gets to decide and any changes (within his executive powers) made will be his decision. Not the decision of his appointed cabinet or advisors. He and he alone will stand or fall on the decisions he makes. No one else. The buck stops with him.
I very happy to see that we agree when you consider articles (However well written) such as this usually attract such unreasonable negative anti- Obama types.
Lots of smart people swallowed Milton Friedman's Kool-Aid and Obama IS a Chicago School alumnus.
"Lots of smart people swallowed Milton Friedman's Kool-Aid and Obama IS a Chicago School alumnus"
No he is not. Columbia University and Harvard Law School.
He was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago from 1992-2004.
That does not make him an "Alumnus of the University of Chicago" He was a part time lecturer ( Senior Lecturer) at the University's law school.( They give the lecturers the title "professor' at the law school) This certainly does not connect him with the school of economics.(Milton Friedman) I believe the previous commentor was attempting to pull the old guilt by association trick. Sound familiar? I know you are smart enought to have seen that.
A lot of people like to call him smart. How does voting to give telecoms immunity from FISA violations jive with the constitution? I can't figure out how someone so "smart" can be so stupid or disingenuous. The Bill of Rights seems like a mystery to him. He seems to understand and care about as much for the first ten amendments as king bush II.
I always knew Obama wasn't a progressive or a liberal. He's a centrist or maybe even a very moderate establishment conservative at best. I'm glad I didn't vote for him. This was too easy to predict, although almost anyone is an improvement over Bush.
I'm not a progressive or a liberal, I'm more of an independent and green with strong libertarian leanings(mostly civil libertarian, but some economic as well). I think progressives would make good allies at this point in time for civil and anti-war libertarians and independents; I tend to sympathize with progressives and I'm willing to compromise with them more, since I despise most conservatives.
Maybe Obama will even be a disaster(certainly Clinton and her husband will help him out with that), but in the very least he will greatly disappoint much of the left.
Someone has already noted that a bowl of soup could succede Bush as president and do a better job. That being said, if you are only noticing now a lack of “progressive” in Obama’s genes, well …
. . . he tells us that we have only one president at a time and that president is George W. Bush.
Yes, George Wanker Bush who today said he "liberated" the Iraqis. If death is liberation, I'll stay a slave.
It's called "chump change."
Some folks just don't get it. Given the lack of third-party support during this past election, they never will, it seems.
The Bill Clinton campaign also had a kind of flair for roping in the rubes. Clinton called it, "real change" back then. Now, whenever I think of that phrase, I think of Clinton's accent - the wailing tone of a Southern Baptist minister. I'm not sure how Clinton managed to say "real change" without laughing, but he pulled it off, and most loyal Democrats still don't get the joke today.
Some people writing here say they are still waiting on Obama. I think Obama's campaign phrase was, "We are the change we've been waiting for." It sounds like an endless loop in computer programming where the premise never comes true. All you do is wait for change, but you get more of the same, so you never get change.
I'm not saying that voters are dumb. The U.S. election process ensures plutocratic control. It's just that some posters here actually seem to have believed Obama's campaign rhetoric. I sure hope they will get angry as they see that they have been betrayed once again. So, I guess, in that sense, I have some hope, albeit faint.
-TIA
How could anyone be surprised that the Left is now (again) marginalized and powerless. I mean, really, did you expect something...different?
Another sucker who can't believe a politician, of all people, pulled the old bait and switch.
GWB promised compassionate conservatism, remember? Uniter not divider? 50 million fell for that shit, too.
Clinton promised to restore ethics. Ha ha ha.
BO voted for telecom immunity, the bailouts, illegal occupation funding; he gratefully accepted bribes - er, contributions - from Citi and Freddie and the rest of the bank robbers; and he repeatedly spoke of his desire to continue and expand the phony "war on terror," just to name a few of the many clear warnings of the future BO was actually promising.
Yet, so many are now so shocked their "hope" that he would be "different" has been quashed so quickly. Guess blinders come in both Red and Blue...
All that is not identical has passed through a change. Some of the faces have changed, ergo – mandate accomplished!
Maybe Obama is smart enough to know that the whole house of cards is going down, so he's appointing most of those responsible, like Summers who helped engineer the overturning of Glass-Steagel, and Hillary the warrior queen, and Gates etc. etc.. It's his way of punishing them, make them really see the errors of their ways. THEN, he'll fire them all, after we've hit bottom, and appoint those he really wants. Is there any other explanation?