Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Allegedly "New" Centrism and His ABC Interview Today
The central tenets of the Beltway religion -- particularly when a Democrat is in the White House -- have long been "centrism" and "bipartisanship." The only good Democrats are the ones who scorn their "left-wing" base while embracing Republicans. In Beltway lingo, that's what "pragmatism" and good "post-partisanship" mean: a Democrat whose primary goal is to prove he's not one of those leftists. The Washington Post's David Ignatius today lavishes praise on Barack Obama for his allegiance to these Beltway pieties -- and actually seems to believe that there is something new and innovative about this approach:
The impatient freshman senator is about to become president, but he hasn't lost his distaste for Washington politics as usual. And as the inauguration approaches, Obama is doing something quite remarkable: Rather than settling into the normal partisan governing stance, he is breaking with it -- moving toward the center in a way that upsets some of his liberal allies but offers the promise of broad national support.
Obama talked during the campaign about creating a new kind of post-partisan politics -- and dissolving the country's cultural and racial and ideological boundaries. Given Obama's limited record as a centrist politician, it was hard to know if he really meant it. . . .
It turns out that Obama was serious. Since Election Day, he has taken a series of steps to co-opt his opponents and fashion a new governing majority. It's an admirable strategy but also a high-risk one, since the "center," however attractive it may be in principle, is often a nebulous political never-never land.
Whatever else one might want to say about this "centrist" approach, the absolute last thing one can say about it is that there's anything "new" or "remarkable" about it. The notion that Democrats must spurn their left-wing base and move to the "non-ideological" center is the most conventional of conventional Beltway wisdom (which is why Ignatius, the most conventional of Beltway pundits, is preaching it). That's how Democrats earn their Seriousness credentials, and it's been that way for decades.
Several weeks ago, I documented that this was the exact approach that fueled Bill Clinton's candidacy and the Clinton Presidency. That's what Clinton's widely-celebrated Sister Souljah moment and his Dick-Morris-designed "triangulation" were all about: "moving toward the center in a way that upsets some of his liberal allies," as Ignatius put it today as though it's some brand new Obama invention. Clinton's approach even resulted in his own GOP Defense Secretary. And, during the Bush era of the last eight years, moving to the Center and spurning their base was about the only "principle" that ever animated Congressional Democrats.
That's why it's been so bizarre listening to Beltway pundits, along with some of the hardest-core Obama followers, acting as though they've discovered some brand new exotic elixir -- the most important discovery since the Fountain of Youth -- with all of these tired buzzphrases about centrism, post-partisan transcendence, and "competence over ideology." These are the same things Democrats have been saying and doing since the early 1980s. This is from some random, typical 1998 Democratic Leadership Council document about "The Third Way":
The Democratic Leadership Council, and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute, have been catalysts for modernizing politics and government. From their political analysis and policy innovations has emerged a progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism. . . .
The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of the information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.
"The worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism." And even before Clinton and the DLC, here was the centerpiece of Michael Dukakis' 1998 Democratic Convention acceptance speech:
It's time to understand that the greatest threat to our national security in this hemisphere is not the Sandinistas-it's the avalanche of drugs that is pouring into this country and poisoning our children.
I don't think I have to tell any of you how much we Americans expect of ourselves or how much we have a right to expect from those we elect to public office.
Because this election isn't about ideology. It's about competence. It's not about overthrowing governments in Central America. It's about creating good jobs in middle America.
It's not about insider trading on Wall Street; it's about creating opportunity on Main Street.
"This election isn't about ideology. It's about competence." That was Michael Dukakis' battle-cry more than 20 years ago in order to prove that he wasn't beholden to those dreaded leftist ideologues in his party, that he was instead devoted to pragmatic solutions, to "whatever works." Yet Beltway centrist fetishists like Ignatius and some Obama supporters genuflect to those clichés -- Competence, Not Ideology! -- as though they're some kind of revolutionary, transformative dogma that the world has never heard before and that therefore serves as an all-purpose justifying instrument for whatever Obama does.
The mere fact that these ideas aren't remotely new doesn't prove that they're wrong. Old ideas can be valid. And it may be that Obama, once he's inaugurated, will do other things differently (Andrew Sullivan and Greg Sargent, in response to my last post on this topic, both described what they think will be new about Obama's approach). It's also possible that Obama's undeniable political talent, or the shifting political mindset of the country, will mean that Obama will succeed politically more than anyone else has in implementing these approaches.
But whatever else is true, what Ignatius and others are celebrating as "remarkable" -- that a national Democratic politician is alienating "the Left" and embracing the center-right in the name of transcending ideology -- is about the least new dynamic that one can imagine. That's what the most trite Beltway mavens -- from David Broder and Mickey Kaus to Joe Klein and The New Republic -- have been demanding since forever, and it's what Democratic leaders have done for as long as one can remember.
* * * * *
I've been saying since the election that it makes little sense to try to guess what Obama is going to do until he actually does it. That's especially true now, since we'll all have the actual evidence very shortly, and trying to guess by divining the predictive meaning of his appointments or prior statements seems fruitless. Moreover, anonymous reports about what Obama is "likely" to do are particularly unreliable. I still believe that, but Obama's interview today with George Stephanopoulos provides the most compelling -- and most alarming -- evidence yet that all of the "centrist" and "post-partisan" chatter from Obama's supporters will mean what it typically means: devotion, first and foremost, to perpetuating rather than challenging how the Washington establishment functions.
As Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt documents, Obama today rather clearly stated that he will not close Guantanamo in the first 100 days of his presidency. He recited the standard Jack Goldsmith/Brookings Institution condescending excuse that closing Guantanamo is "more difficult than people realize." Specifically, Obama argued, we cannot release detainees whom we're unable to convict in a court of law because the evidence against them is "tainted" as a result of our having tortured them, and therefore need some new system -- most likely a so-called new "national security court" -- that "relaxes" due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people indefinitely even though we're unable to obtain an actual conviction in an actual court of law.
Worst of all, Obama (in response to Stephanopoulos' asking him about the number one highest-voted question on Change.gov, first submitted by Bob Fertik) all but said that he does not want to pursue prosecutions for high-level lawbreakers in the Bush administration, twice repeating the standard Beltway mantra that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" and "my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing." Obama didn't categorically rule out prosecutions -- he paid passing lip service to the pretty idea that "nobody is above the law," implied Eric Holder would have some role in making these decisions, and said "we're going to be looking at past practices" -- but he clearly intended to convey his emphatic view that he opposes "past-looking" investigations. In the U.S., high political officials aren't investigated, let alone held accountable, for lawbreaking, and that is rather clearly something Obama has no intention of changing.
In fairness, Obama has long made clear that this is the approach he intends to take to governing. After all, this is someone who, upon arriving in the Senate, sought out Joe Lieberman as his mentor, supported Lieberman over Ned Lamont in the primary, campaigned for Blue Dogs against progressive challengers, and has long paid homage to the Beltway centrism and post-partisan religion. And you can't very well place someone in a high-ranking position who explicitly advocates rendition and enhanced interrogation tactics and then simultaneously lead the way in criminally investigating those who authorized those same tactics.
So Obama can't be fairly criticized for hiding his devotion to this approach. But whatever else one wants to say about it, one cannot call it "new." This is what Democrats have been told for decades they must do and they've spent decades enthusiastically complying.
- Posted in
134 Comments so far
Show AllGreenwald makes a profoundly true statement at the end of this article: that Obama is what he is and has always been and readily admits to being: a "centrist"
through and through. So should one really blame the man for the disappointment that may shortly shock the morale of his supporters; or should one blame the supporters themselves for, as Obama himself says, their tendency to "project" their own values onto him? Of course, as the major thrust of Greenwald's article indicates, the Obamacrats are mightily abetted in their projective delusions by the tendency, built into the very structure of "news," to chronicle the unusual or extraordinary, to help build the bubble of the "new day" that will be born when an exciting leader comes to power. Somehow I think of "Extreme Makeover" as the passion play of our times, the celebration of how miracles of home improvement or weigh reduction can happen wbenever someone comes along with a "new and improved" nostrum for whatever ails us. To the news media and the "reality shows" of TV, it's always "morning again in America" after every election and every sincere effort at improvement. And it's always snake oil salesmen like Clinton or Obama who is able to use that media to sell their "brand" of the latest version of political Geritol and yes the (non) revolution WILL be televised!
What's so disgusting about Democrats and some left leaning people is that while the republicans go as far right as they can--the other side never ever does the same in the other direction.
Its always about being moderate, careful, inoffensive.
Which just pushes everything rightward.
It would be better after push to go as far left as possible to make up for what he has done. These last 20 days feel so slow.
Yup - exactly.
The right goes so far right that you're scraping your shoulder on their side. But, that's ok - because that's all proper and good (and all that happy horse-shit). So they'd have you believe. And yet believe the masses do.
The message has to get out that left/liberal/progressive is not a bad thing. Unfortunately that is the message that the right has been so successful in propagating over the years.
How have they done it? With mindless, simple bumper-sticker slogans. And the stupidest among us eats that shit up. The left gives reasoned, logical debate - but the idiot population just goes "Huh?".
Webber,
What's so disgusting about nay-sayers like you is that you have no hope, no optimism, and no vision for the future. You are a pessimistic drain on society.
This is a new era.
It's time to throw out the bitter baggage of the Bush years!
Let's make politics cool again.
It's not about tired old labels like "Right or Left", it's about right and wrong, good policies and bad policies, smart wars and dumb wars.
Obama wants to do what's right for the country. He's a proud Democrat but he isn't partisan. He's a freethinker. Unlike people like you, he's not fixated on segregating the world in terms of black and white.
from joehope the perennial dumbass. but we've known that for a long time. you're the problem, mr. blowhope. you're so full of cliches there's no room left for anything but more hot air.
Ephraim,
Why hate me just because I support Obama?
Can't we have a civil discussion?
I wish you would work with us instead of against us.
The Party needs you.
.I doubt that you are important enough to anyone here to engender hatred, only a bit of disgust for your incredibly saccharine political views , the way you say absolutely nothing, the way you use emptiness as a political philosophy.
What on earth are you attempting to do here, other than prove yourself a worthless political commentator?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The Party.
Nicely put.
Don't you people recognize parody when you see it?
The concreteness of 99% of the people on this list, really leaves me wondering ...
Obama and I disagree on what is "best for the country". He wants more of the same (Israel, tax cuts for rich and businesss, private health industry) and I dont.
Its called free speech.
Do you have to show the whole world your stupidity and shallow thinking.
It is obvious even to the blind that Obama is a fraud and just another
slick politician aka "black Clinton". He will bring no change and business will
be as usual and may be worse becaus of dumb asses like who have been fooled
by his blackness and oratory.
That's right. Upwards of 80% of the world supports Obama, and growing numbers in this country are becoming politically active. What do you think will happen by fooling all those people. Nothing? Anything? What?
Your ignorance of the challenge before us, and the means required to effect a real change is the stupidity in play here. From the very first presidency of this country there have been political forces at work that force compromise and less than desired outcomes. I'm not ignorant about the fact that those forces are still very much at work, and that they will most definitely and most powerfully sway Obama to serve their interest.
How does you attitude and belligerent words help us fix that?
.Eighty percent is a large number....."The only reason to be in politics is to be out there all alone and then be proven right." Edmund Muskie
"When injustice becomes law resistance becomes duty." Nelson Mandela
Anger that motivates may not be so easily condemned. Behind the anger of that poster lie some real truths, thus he may deserve more than you have given him.
"There are few things that are incapable of being represented by a fiction." Hobbes
The appointments of Barack Obama, the way his campaign slowly devolved from progressive to centrist, the decisions and statements he has made or refused to make are interpreted by you one way and by commoner another. We shall have to see who is correct.
"Common sense is that which tells us the earth is flat." Bertrand Russell
I do not mean to diminish your call for less belligerence, but I for one understand that it may very well be time for more not less impatience and motivational anger.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." Abraham Lincoln
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Very well-considered, but I suggest anyone who thinks Obama hoodwinked them was and is deluding only themselves.
I reserved judgment on Obama for the entire campaign, but watched admirably as he danced and word-crafted his way through tremendously challenging issues. I never for a second believed he would do anything differently than he has. His ability to say what folks wanted to hear was always balanced with an equally cognizant appreciation for the reality of what is doable. And now, my belief in Obama goes only to the extent the vision he helped coalesce is still held by the masses. We can lose the man, but must not lose the vision.
Obama is treading a very thin line, balancing powerful forces with a genuine awareness and attention to common ideas and interests. I appreciate this because I know the influence of power which which he is embedded is real and dangerous, and I would go as far as to say evil. And as Bush proved, he loses little to care only for himself. After all, most of us have said at one time or another, "it doesn't matter what others think." So why should he?
The difference for our future will not be Obama, or any one man. The difference will be us and the vision we choose to serve, to manifest. Because the alternative is that we succumb to the forces of greed and fear, of population overshoot, diminishing resources, an increasingly inhospitable climate, and a world of spiritually deficient peoples.
We are writing the story of humanity, and we are at the time when we need ever increasing unity and clarity instead of bickering.
There are those who would serve themselves at our/your expense, and we need to look beyond ourselves and each other to see where the real problems and issues lie. We need to look beyond America, beyond political parties, and beyond the presumed practices of our current society to find lasting and meaningful truths. That goes beyond common sense but does not exclude it.
.So, are you asking that we ignore our consciences and our common sense and unite behind a man who has not gained our trust? Sorry, no sale. President Obama will do what he will do, and I will judge his words and his deeds while working to bring real change to this nation. Change in the form of third party politics in fact.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I cannot forbear cross-posting just a couple of previous comments, slightly edited for clarity:
_____________________________________________________________
I've always been skeptical of Happy Horseshit talk of reconciliation, cooperation, bipartisanship, etc.
Not because all of those things aren't desirable and wonderful, but because when politicians and the corporate media commentariat talk about such attractive ideals, you may be sure that it's in the service of blowing off the politically unpopular and risky actions needed to achieve social justice.
I spit when I hear a politician glibly pledge to work for "reconciliation", because I know that the grand notion of reconciliation will be used as a magnificent carpet under which to quietly sweep a multitude of sins. And then we tapdance on the carpet.
The sins, like cockroaches and untreated syphilis, invariably fester and return to bite We the People in our pendulous buttocks.
My fear is... that Obama's self-conscious identification with Lincoln will lead naturally to a Lincolnesque proclamation of Letting Bygones Be Bygones, etc.
_____________________________________________________________
I received such a nice e-mail New Year's Newsletter from Harry Reid!
I read down a few paragraphs, and found the buried lede: "I, for one, am eager to turn the page on the last eight years." I see it as a not-very-subliminal statement of the Prime Directive, or theme, of the incoming administration. Seeding the meme here to create a buzz, and get the Big Mo.
Mush! Giddyap! Let's light this candle! "Don't Look Back, Redux"! Forward into the past! Yes We Can!
Of course, despite the relatively non-discouraging appointment of Dawn Johnsen, I remain hypervigilant and paranoid over the prospect of Obama attempting a variation of the Big Lie: The Big Leapfrog, in which Obama amazingly soars from the podium, bearing the Rug of Reconciliation on his shoulders-- and, what the hell, wearing a stovepipe hat-- and lands on the Truman Balcony with said rug perfectly laid over a 21st-Century multitude of sins, high crimes, and misdemeanors.
And we shall never speak of those dreadful things again!
So yeah, maybe I'm reading too much into this devolved hack's pep talk. But I would've felt better if instead, he'd written, "And I'm looking forward to helping to set a lot of wrongs to rights!"
_____________________________________________________________
I wrote an admittedly unfocused comment yesterday, in which I suggested that even seasoned political observers and skeptical analysts can't escape a strong inclination to give politicians the benefit of the doubt.
Hope springs eternal.
Thus, if Obama runs true to form, he might feel compelled to throw us woefully benighted "ideologues"-- non-pragmatists, dontcha know-- a bone in the form of a nominal commission or committee or directive to "investigate" the more egregious irregularities of his predecessor's administration. It will be interesting to see whether the cockeyed optimists here and elsewhere will promptly reset their Inner Goalposts and feel encouraged and at least minimally satisfied by such a dog and pony show.
Daddy can't take us down the shore this summer, darlings; he's far too busy this year, and we have too many bills to pay! But, you know what? We're getting a nice wading pool, and Daddy is building a special sandbox in the back yard!
· Yr Obd't Servant
What a Debbie-downer!
I don't share you negative feelings about Obama.
Obama speaks for those of us who still believe that America can be great again. We are are not so paralyzed with fear that we have sacrificed our dreams on the alter of cynicism. We are not yet hopeless like you.
Obama isn't even President yet.
You won't give him a chance to suceed.
Because you have already decided he can only fail.
What insights can you offer except tired old prejudices and defeatism?
We have just elected the first African American president in the history of America!
This is the time for celebration!
If your prejudices prevent you from being happy for Obama, then at least don't spoil this moment for the rest of us.
This is our moment.
.One could actually get diabetes from reading this crap.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Sioux Rose
Good one! The forum keeps your wit sharpened, huh, Ardee?
.Hee
Some posts actually give me a raging headache, as well as making me despair for the future of this nation. I look to those like you, bright, perceptive and balanced to keep me on an even keel.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
This comment should be read in a Marge Simpson voice, for those of you who watch television.
Joe
Sioux Rose
I think the Lieberman "move" was to prove he was an "insider" that could be trusted. This whole centrist choreography which was well-executed by Clinton, so much so that Michael Moore wisely referred to him as our best Republican president is noxious to every ideal this nation ever purported to stand for.
A person of principle is going to attract controversy. To try to stand somewhere in the middle is to stand for NOTHING, and such a stance due to its insistence on not making any waves also insures that no important changes will be effected. Kind of reminds me (the two parties) of Burger King and McDonalds, in either way, we're mostly talking hamburgers. This type of diet is itself fairly unhealthy and yet for millions these two entities provide the semblance of a choice.
I have a rather well-informed friend who still seems delighted that Obama won. To her, finally "the good team" got in; and when I start talking about these ominous appointments she tries to silence me, or brush me off as one of those liberals who can never be satisfied. I think the power of marketing and the ubiquitous presence of teams has so conditioned a great many minds that they really see politics as either A or B. Further alternatives are simply not on the menu!
"such a stance due to its insistence on not making any waves also insures that no important changes will be effected."
Boat rockers, I love them, we need more of them.
Rickster
.I wonder if you caught both interviews Sunday, one with Bush on Faux Snooze and the one referred to here with Obama.. They were striking in the similar stances taken by the two, almost eerie in fact. It is very, very hard not to get a bit angry at the apparent emptiness of the Obama campaign promises now that he is exposing his intentions to ignore most of them.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Sioux Rose
ARDEE, my dear (so-called double!) I gave up tv 2 years ago so I can dedicate my time to sharing with all you lovely folk in this forum, and write my books & articles. But I'm glad you and NYCArtist keep me informed/apprised of some media highlights!
Sioux Rose:I haven't seen tv in over a decade. The electronics I mention as hearing, are radio: www.wbai.org (WBAI 99.5FM) a Pacifica Network Radio Station.
.OK so I dont look at the pictures, I only read the articles, honest....Oh wait TV....We have NPR on TV out here....
I am siouxrose's evil side I guess....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
As a "Centrist" in the political landscape of America this means...
Inviting religous fundamentalists into the Government.
Support for the corporations and their right to profit over and above the well being of the American Worker.
Even more money sepnt on the Miltary and an expansion of the so called "War on terror" to other nations.
More deregulation of the Financial industry and more Government monies to Big Pharma and the Insurance industry.
The continued belief in the trickle down theory wherein if the elite get even wealthier, everyone prospers.
The continued erosion of Civil liberties under the guise of a war on terror with ever more governmnet surveillance and rollbacks of the Bill of rights.
In most other countries this "Centrism" would be soon as hard right and bordering on fascism.
The notion that Democrats must spurn their left-wing base and move to the "non-ideological" center is the most conventional of conventional Beltway wisdom.
The political "center" is not non-ideological. If only it were. The reality of the center is that it is a 360 degree blind spot which, if Obama takes up residence there, will simply bring us more of the same Bushtastrophe, now in its eighth glorious year. We are at a point in our history where if we do not make radical (i.e., going to the root of the problem) changes we will not be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic but simply looking for a different place, three miles down in the pitch black freezing cold, in which to sink.
G. W. Bush has given every psychopath HOPE they can believe in! The same as Obama gave all the knuckleheads in this country/world Hope that governments should and can be taken seriously! Get Real!!
Anyone planning to watch the inauguration should keep a copy of this essay either taped to the t.v. or the back of the person's head standing in front of them.
And when Obama starts talking about new beginnings and ideals quoting Lincoln among others saying because no man is an island if we join in one voice for the love of freedom we will yet swell the chorus of the Union... and your head starts to swim and your feet start to leave the ground...make a grab for Greenwald's words to bring you back down to earth.
With Obama, what will be new about this old approach is his ability to co-opt everyone. His achievement may well be extending a corrupt system for all.
Now there's equality.
As long as you people keep lying election after election about how the Democrats will clean up yada yada only to watch them fold like a tent once the election is over just like the Republicans do on social issues, this is the shit you'll get. What do you do when your partner cheats and/or backstabs you? Sure forgiving and forgetting can eventually be helpful but first you must HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE AND PUNISH THEM ! Yesterday, I was called an abusive thug for bringing up that solution and I apologize for sounding a little too rough. You see, you people keep forgiving and forgetting how the Democrats acted no different from the Republicans fucking you and they know it and are exploiting that weakness just like the Republicans did on social issues to use as a cover to backdoor fund the monied interests. Either we're all going to shut up, gun them down, and hold them accountable and then forgive and forget when they've proven themselves worthy of reconsideration or we're going to keep getting fucked by them. So what's your choice?
Sioux Rose
WYGUN: Anger management wants you: now!
While this forum shares your outrage for the injustices afoot in our nation, your approach is not altogether different from the violence being displayed by the perpetrators of the evil you purport to abhor. There is something to the statement about removing the board from before your own eyes. Each of us has a spiritual obligation to work on ourselves, that's a focal point of the soul's plan for evolution; AND we share a responsibility for working towards the betterment of the collective/society. These need not be antithetical initiatives. Both are important. Your anger at your wife spills over into your politics and suggests that you're a loose canon ready to pop.
Obama—and any other elected official—can do only what national consciousness will permit. And national consciousness is very centrist, I do believe. People say they want change, especially a change from the last eight years. So now the frenzy of the contest is over. Most voters are happy that change was victorious. Those who have jobs can go back to work and those who have homes can sit in them at night and watch TV.
The US by and large is not a thinking person's territory. There are high levels of both innocence and ignorance in the population. Couple those with the busyness of most people's lives making and spending money, and you get that old familiar silent majority. So things go on pretty much as usual.
I am fairly certain that the deepest part of Obama knows what is right and what is wrong and what ought to be done, even though some of his cabinet picks, notably Tom Vilsack, an obvious shill for the biotech industry, give me some doubt.
The destiny of the nation and the world continues to unfold, and the biggest question for every one of us is this: How will we ourselves live? Will we conduct our lives so that we make a real contribution to the nation and the world?
The state of the world is just one of many possibilities. Just as when you're walking down the street you can turn any way you want, walk slow or walk fast, stop here or stop there, linger or proceed onward. Every individual has his or her own consciousness. The sum of these is world consciousness. And we're all in that one big soup, utterly together.
"The US by and large is not a thinking person's territory. There are high levels of both innocence and ignorance in the population. Couple those with the busyness of most people's lives making and spending money, and you get that old familiar silent majority."
What you express here is key to the Obama approach and his brand of "hope"--which is really just the familiar centuries-old fatalism.
Again, as Greenwald wrote, nothing new.
True enough, it's the same old thing in some ways. Every four years the US embarks on the search for the next Jesus. People look to government as a higher power to fix human problems, problems that it simply cannot fix without some new and better knowledge which can be given to the people through education.
Soon we will have an intelligent man in the job rather than an impossibly ignorant one.
Do not forget that nature has the upper hand: climate change, genetic manipulation, and nuclear technologies will present enormous challenges.
This is a time unlike any other.
"Soon we will have an intelligent man in the job rather than an impossibly ignorant one."
You have a point.
Having the best and brightest back in the White House could possibly make for a time unlike any other.
I suppose the question will be--best and brightest at what? And as Greenwald has noted, the answer to that is fast approaching.
Sioux Rose
TWIN: Are you so sure that the US is as centrist as you seem to think? What are the numbers that want all the troops out of Iraq? What are the numbers that wish the US to take a more neutral approach to the debacle in Palestine? Or the numbers that want single-payer health care? It's the represenatives beholden to their corporate sponsors (via lobbyist payoffs, or legal bribery) that are towing this bull shit centrist line. They have to make it appear that they would be dishonoring their constituents, when in reality, as is so clear of late, the majority are unapologetic principles-lacking whores to big business.
Unlike the Netherlands, a functioning democracy with 10 political parties, why does the US only have 2? Because the US Military Industrial Junta can only dominate two sides of a debate at a time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1963 & 1968- Dallas and Los Angeles Coup d'État by the US Military Industrial Junta completed according to modern examination of old evidence
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein. (Ed note: WHITE PHOSPHOROUS, DENSE METAL SUPER WEAPONS, NUCLEAR STICK UP, MISSILE DEFENSE, AND PROPAGANDA!!!!!)
"Too many choices on the ballot would just confuse people". That's what they told me at the Wake County, NC, Elections Board when I was working in 1996 to get the Natural Law Party on the NC ballot.
It's a good thing we don't have elections more often. By the time most people get out of the laundry soap aisle in the supermarket, they're exhausted from trying to decide which one to buy.
Consumer fatigue is the number one enemy of democracy.
Twincamalfa, that sounds like the questionnaire I got from AARP the other day. It read something like:
"Please take a moment to fill out our survey. Should Obama pass a comprehensive bailout plan that;
(please place a check mark next to one box only)
a. gives all the money to the rich guys
b. gives all the money to the rich guys
c. gives all the money to the rich guys
d. gives all the money to the rich guys
"Thank you for letting your voice be heard in this fine democratic nation of ours."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
1963 & 1968- Dallas and Los Angeles Coup d'État by the US Military Industrial Junta completed according to modern examination of old evidence
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein. (Ed note: WHITE PHOSPHOROUS, DENSE METAL SUPER WEAPONS, NUCLEAR STICK UP, MISSILE DEFENSE, AND PROPAGANDA!!!!!)
To me, if Obama makes bipartisanship and centrism major tools of his approach to leading it will stink like appeasement. After all of the right-wing transgressions we've had to endure the past years, we don't need appeasement. We need a hard turn left; that's what I thought we'd be getting with Obama and that's why I voted for him. Yes, he will be everyone's president but he has to lead by the convictions he espoused during 20 months of campaigning. Bush paid only lip service to bipartisanship; his words "I'm a uniter, not a divider" were stupendously untrue.
I'm a liberal and proud of it. I have never apologized for being one and I've made it point in my life to reject all things jingoistic. Granted, as a working democracy, we must communicate and persuade the other side to look at our approach to governing. But when our Democratic leaders denigrate the Left to cull favor with the Right in order to gain credibility, they actually lose the respect of many of their own and the GOP by watering down their own party's principles. They make us look like wimps and rightfully so.
A lot has been made of Obama emulating Lincoln. Just as Lincoln chose Seward, a party foe, as Secretary of State, Obama chose Hillary Clinton for State after an often-vitriolic primary campaign. But Lincoln held forth on his principles throughout the Civil War despite rancor all around him. We must demand Obama maintains the same certitude and dogged determination to once again make America the beacon of liberty and righteous example to follow.
It's unrealistic to expect an American president of any stripe to denounce the inherent inequality of capitalism and suddenly transform the country and the economy into a social democracy.
About all any progressive thinker in America can hope for is the kind of superficial incrementalism we're currently witnessing in which fascism is dialed down to a less deafening rumble as opposed to the obscene roar of the last 8 years.
This country is still America, after all, where national industrial policy is all about safeguarding American hegemony over production and global marketing of weapons of mass destruction to the exclusion of all else.
Which political leader in anyone's lifetime has ever openly acknowledged this fact or did anything about it since Eisenhower's farewell address warning?
The president can't do it, but the impending collapse will.
Listen to Huey Long US Senator 1932-1935, the mega wealthy had to kill him so you wouldn't get the chance to hear him:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hueyplongshare.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1963 & 1968- Dallas and Los Angeles Coup d'État by the US Military Industrial Junta completed according to modern examination of old evidence
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein. (Ed note: WHITE PHOSPHOROUS, DENSE METAL SUPER WEAPONS, NUCLEAR STICK UP, MISSILE DEFENSE, AND PROPAGANDA!!!!!)
We can count on Glenn Greenwald to read,listen, catch every word as Obama speaks, writes.
I am reminded, but broadly, of I.F.Stone and "I.F.Stone's Weekly",which I read in the mid1960s.
There will be others watching, besides all of us: Marjorie Cohn www.marjoriecohn.com and Phyllis Bennis,with rest of the bunch as IPS www.ips-dc.org. The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU will be all over the Guantanamo men-and-boyswhobecamemen-in-limbo.
I voted for the guy. That means when he goes from president-elect to President, I do my dissenting, as I did before. I knew he was a centrist. I'll push and there will be many others pushing progressive realities.
Howard Zinn covers it well in his Jan.2,2009 speech on DemocracyNow www.democracynow.org (It was given right after the election, on Nov.8,2008.)The transcript is online,free and will be there. The government's interests and the people's interests are not the same. If you don't know history, Zinn says, as well, that it's like you were born yesterday and the government can tell you anything it wants. He ends on a positive note. Read and get active, as can. (There's so much to do, while surviving, but there's a lot of us out here.)also www.howardzinn.org
This is what Nobel prize winning econimist Paul Krugman sayas about it, in "The Conscience of a Liberal". I agree.
"The progressive agenda is clear and achievable, but it will face fierce opposition.Republican Party conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completley antithetical to that of the progressive movement.Because of that control, the notion, beloved of political pundits, that we can make progress through biparitsan consensus is simply foolish...
..to be a progressive, then, means being a partisan--at least for now...Political and economic reform turned the oligarchic America of the Gilded Age, a place of vast inequality, bigotry, an corruption, in to the imperfect but far better society of the postwar era. The challenge now is to do again what the New Deal did: to create institutionas what will support and sustain a decent society".
I submit that you cannot do that with the people being suggested by the Obaam Team--especially Larry Summers..
Obama will be clearly defined by his approach to the Palestinians. If he adopts the extreme, blinkered, pro-Israeli stance followed by his predecessors, then he will be exposed as a complete fraud.
If he can get his mind around the fact that the Israelis are the oppressors, are brutal imperialists, are crazed religious fanatics, then there is hope. Of course, to do this, he has to find the courage to step around the Machiavellian Jewish lobby.
I won't hold my breath!
P.S. I've written a tribute to the brave HAMAS FREEDOM FIGHTERS. Why not check it out?
www.dangerouscreation.com
obama's approach to the Palestinians has already been defined. he's said many times, our relationship with israel is "sacrosanct."
his mentor was joseph lieberman. his chief of staff, rob emanuel, an american citizen, served as a volunteer for the Israeli Defence Forces, during the 1st gulf war. his middle east envoy, dennis ross, is strongly pro israel. all three are jewish.
but somehow, this is "change we can believe in."
And add to that the apparent intention to add to the Middle East desk of the National Security Council Dan Shapiro, another Jewish operative, creator of the Israeli-demanded Syrian Accountability Act that denounced Syrian "terrorism" against Israel. And of course nary a peep from the Pres-Elect as Congress overhelmingly passed resolutions placing all the blame for the Gaza conflict on Hamas. Is there a message in this somewhere?