Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama'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.
134 Comments so far
Show AllJust a suggestion, couldn't we just enjoy the inaugaration of the first African American president in our history? Something many of you said was not possible just a short time ago.
This is a moment in history I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. I'd really like to savor it a bit.
There will be plenty of time soon enough to rip him or praise him. And remember we'd all be a bit more unhappy if John and Sarah were about to take control.
.We had better enjoy it, that inauguration is costing the taxpayer 40 million dollars, bend over and smile!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Enjoy it as you are able Thomas More. But may I ask you a little nagging question, who again is in control of your country?
I am going to have a little trouble with that, considering the economic situation of most of the Af Am community, as well as poor people of other races.
I am still getting emails from the Clintons (and others) to donate MONEY for the inaugeration! you know what would be REAL "change"? If he offered to skip all but the swearing in, and donated it to Medicaid.
This entire campaign has been WAY too obscenely expensive! Now, corp are taking money FROM Obama to pay for commercials there!! How can a "progressive" support such a thing? The happiness of finally having an Af Am in the WH, is tainted because of the "changes" HE has "made".
Clinton, Summers Ross...ther is not ONE "liberal"
Here here!
cosmobilly, nice to see you here here.
That was SOME post you wrote the other night. Yeah, Obama's closing Gitmo? But not fast enough.
Obama is gonna do public works, infrastructure projects, some Green, employing millions? Not enough.
Obama getting out of Iraq? Not enough.
Obama's gonna renounce torture. But No Witch-Hunt? Then renouncing torture is NOT ENOUGH.
Hey, this echo is really WEAK.....weeeeaaaakkkk....
Thanks azjoe!
Yes, it is evidently easier to find fault than good, and more satisfying to complain.
I've been taking part in this forum for a long time and have seen the posts change their basic tenor a couple times. It's fairly apparent that attempts to coalesce this bunch into a genuine and unified system of support for change won't happen.
the inauguration is going to be a big deal about "the democracy" the "constitution" and "oaths to uphold"....
but they might as well do a "REALITY TV" show -- where obama and everyone in congress , except for a few, where all the punditry and media - etc...in short ALL OF AMERICA that they are boasting and moaning and bragging about....can be SHi tting on its own constitution...at least they ought to do it PUBLICLY on actual copies or the original "laws" they claim to uphold, and the "great ideas of history and freedom and justice" they claim to the PROTECTORS of.....
Obama, the new savior? How quickly savior as self, savior as we the people is forgotten in the name of find the one's fault that creates the fault for us all.
Sigh. WE are the problem and WE are the answer. Never Obama, never Bush, never any one of us can lead us if we are all equally free. Obama merely has a job in our government and his job is to do our will, not define our will.
He must do our will, and what is our will? No to torture, shut down Guantanamo, no to war, no to Israeli killing innocents in the guise of killing guilty. Yes to peace, yes to economic revival in sustainable, new energy. Yes to change. Remember he won on change. If he keeps it the same, he is the ultimate liar.
New liar, new criminal, new king???
Hail to the new old king or Yes to me, yes to you, yes to us?????
How quickly we loose sight, how quickly we are blinded, and how quickly we can see again.
This is so not surprising. Elections are already decided long before november. After eliminating anyone who might actually bring about real change for most Americans, the corporate media and the 2 parties they are allied with narrow it down to 2 people from the 2 major parties. They then turn these 2 corporate sponsored candidates over to the electorate to give the illusion of democracy.
I dare say that it is even possible that Obama might be worse than Bush. Obama is very very much for the status quo at a time when a significant departure from the status quo is demanded by the situation. This is a recipe for disaster.
Hey peaceistruth, you are hitting on a vastly neglected fact here. With the level of blindness going on amongst we the people, those who say: 'can't we just savor the moment a little?', see a moment that I think you and I are no longer privy to.
WE must chug the truth as we see it, savor that as we may and go to work to make the change that is demanded, such as pulling back the curtain to the gullible masses and ruin what little comfort they found in their repose in denial.
More of the same will spell economic doom, and with that--yes, you rarely hear it said--comes the collapse of 'national security.' Ironically, the republicans showed a commercial with wolves, implying if Kerry got elected they would penetrate our defenses, which the Bush policies have now all but assured. Well folks, better batten down the hatches because we're in for a rough ride ahead--in many ways.
Obama for 'change we can believe in.'? Not likely.
I didn't vote for Obama, but was happy to see a black man elected in America and happy also to see the madman McCain defeated. But Obama promises to disappoint, and in this only we will not be disappointed. I see little on the horizon that could cause me to vote to re-elect this man, as his promises no change from the past mistakes. We need a major housecleaning of the bandits and murderers who have been running the country, and we won't be getting it with Obama. Too bad. The people clearly are ready for change, but Obama provided only the word.
I did not vote for Obama either. I see many of those now critizing him here, were lining up in a straight line behind him circa Nov. 2008. The more things change the more they stay the same.
I didn't vote for Obama because he started out by diluting his progressivism every step of the way---and here he is showing his true colors now. "We need to look forward, not back"?! Then how in hell can you have any chance of LEARNING or knowing how not to repeat mistakes/crimes in "going forward"? Result: there is no bottom and no ceiling anymore to the crimes that the United Snakes of Kleptocracy can commit and they won't matter because not one person lost their job, not one person went to jail (and many got medals) for all that the Bush Crime Family did with and against our Constitution....THE LEFT HAS PROVEN CORRECT ABOUT EVERY SINGLE DISASTER AND SCANDAL of the last two decades...and media prostitutes enable new versions of the same. Obama's going to stand there and swear to uphold the Constitution and he has already neglected and insulted it...he's going to keep "the war on terror" going with the usual atrocious hypocrisy in biased support of whatever Israel wants and does, and kill more people in Iraqistan. Screw him.
Ken Ward,
One subject never raised when Guantanamo Bay is mentioned is that the United States acquired this fragment of land by means of a classic unequal treaty following the Spanish-American War. There is really as little justification for Guantanamo Bay being American as there would be for The Philippines to have remained American since 1946. It is not enough to close Guantanamo Bay, within 100 days or whenever. It should be returned to Cuba.
When Kucinich was prevented from being a viable presidentail candidate, it became clear that whoever became president would be an enemy of commonpeople and those seeking peace and justice; and while clear to a few then, it is still unclear to many, with altogether too many agog. The fundamental fact is that the president will continue to be the same sort of president we've had since Truman succedded FDR in 1945--beholden to the project for the Empire's continuing expansion, which auto matically makes every president an enemy, and a very barbaric one. Obama wants to keep the Killing Machine operating at a good clip. With the new African Command and Obama's African connections, I think it very likely we'll see a US "scramble for Africa" with Nigeria and its oil the target.
As I pointed out in my comment on the recent Krugman thread, the economy is in steep decline, and Obama's proposals aren't very good because the underlying weakness of the economy was overlooked--too many busniesses were already stressed and primed for failure, many more than appreciated by several factors. This weakness has created a snowballing effect that increases the number of layoffs and bunkruptcies as time moves forward. Couple this with a negative savings rate for the past several years and maxed-out/non-existent credit and serious times will be visiting roughly double the number of people today. There's a way out of this and upcoming problems like Peak Oil and Global Warming, but those soultions won't be found in the Center or on the Right. Governing from the Center will guarantee Obama's failure.
ths is true.
when friends asked my opinion -- i told them OBAMA is still the better choice over mccain or ANY rightwinger - if ONLY because of the slightest chance that in some small way - there is breathing room for real change...but not to expect much.
but it was really clear from the beginning , once the "leftists" were prevented from having a forum at all....
the USA as a democracy is , for all intents and purposes DEAD.
it will not survive as a democracy . that MUCH IS CLEAR.
it is ALREADY a Fascist corporatocratic WAR STATE. has been for decades and only will prove to be MORE so. until one day -- the future generations will CONDEMN Their own forbears for having allowed it to become one.
but a SURE result of all these fascistic , imperial, wartstate, "supernationalistic capitalism" (General Smedley Butler) -- is the eventual fall of the US dollar - the foundation of the WAR STATE'S "power".
and when THAT arrives firmly -- americans will THEN ONLY FIND OUT what it REALLY means to "pay the bills"
"which arrive LATER" -(benjamin franklin)...which will make these "recessions" today look like a PICNIC.
.....as I keep saying, change and progress are coming to us, unstoppable, and unenforceable. WE can usher it in with joy and awareness as partners and lovers, or we can be drug along in our chains, kicking and screaming as prisoners.
That one choice is ours and that is the change we have control over, what our role is in change, not the creators and or destroyers of it.
edited
Obviously, the Demok party has been ideologically bankrupt since Carter left office. "Competence over ideology" is a slogan that means: Stop thinking, stop learning, stop discussing, and stop turning your visions into reality. Instead, let the elites define your reality and replace your visions, because their gravy train is really something not to miss. To the heart of the modern Rome! But we REAL progressives say kaka on the modern Rome! Our ideology ranks number one consistently with the people. The debate was won a long time ago. The people won. The elites lost. Secularism, humanism, socialism, localism are the way. Kaka on the elites. Stop voting for them. Start voting for the people by shifting all of your individual exchange/association away from the elites (all power centers) and toward your local community, to bring the political/economic power back to the people. There is no debate.
rtdrury, you're correct - there is no debate. The information for change is already out there. All one needs to do is access it. Much of the problem is mind control. I've assembled some thoughts - most of it not my own - here:
http://www.freewebs.com/thegorge/MindControl.htm
Nice link Magarulian, food for thought to be sure.
At the end of the trail, Obama was all that was left. And at least he was change in his very personage, for sure. Or there would now be no hope for change at all.
Remember, the only viable other choice, McCain, would have been a pure disaster for this nation, as we would have soon been at war with Russia and China and Iran and Venezuela and Bolivia and Chile and Argentina and Cuba and Pakistan and on and on... had a McCain presidency happened, and there would be a very good chance these wars would go nuclear.
Also, McCain held a pefect score of absolutely Zero votes for the Environment in Congress, according to the League of Conservation Voters. His 'economic' advisor was the Arch-Criminal Super-Corrupted Bastard-Traitor Phil 'the Deregulator' Gramm. He thought the middle-class began at $5 million and his own family fortune is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. What a total Anus McCain would have been as president. He and the Republicans had to be Voted Out of the White House, at all costs! Thus, Obama.
Obama knows that within the beltway live Monsters, in Congress and on K Street and in the Corporate Media. These monsters will not hesitate to metaphorically cut his throat politically to get their way, and they are deeply entrenched and will fight dirty to stay there. The lickspittles, cretins, treasonous, and horribly-corrupted of Congress (and that about covers the entire Republican wing) and the other satrapies will not cooperate with him without a pound of his political flesh for them to consume.
Washington has become as deadly, cynical, and sinister as any court of the Borgias. Obama also knows there are favors to pay back, even to unsavory people, as he would not have gotten to where he is without them. The pure-of-heart cannot live in such a world.
Those who gleefully say, "I told you so; Obama was not progressive enough," lack understanding that it was the only true choice for change Americans had. I say to all of you, get up off your behinds and give us another choice... even to the level of Ross Perot's third way, which was a Real Factor in the 1992 election - and was the reason Bill Clinton got elected, definitely due to the anti-NAFTA vote (do you hear that giant sucking sound, yet?)
Sadly, Bill failed to realized why and how he was elected, and sold America 'down the river' for a Judas-shekel or two (or $100 million!) for himself. Sadly, the same corrupt people (Rubin, etc.) who were there with Bill have embedded themselves like blood-sucking ticks into the Democratic Party today, with the same lame 'centrist' DLC-shill excuses covering up their straight-up NeoCon right-wing positions, continuing the sell-out of the real and majority Democratic-wing of the party by corrupted, dissembling, republican-lite 'leaders'. Their 'center' slants way to the right. It was Bill who moved the center there, leaving the majority of Democratic liberals to twist in the wind, because 'where else they gonna go'?
I hope Obama is better than he is looking now, but again, how happy would Obama-bashers be under McCain/Palin? And don't give me that stupid McKinney stuff, or the Green Party that just destroyed itself internally... how pathetic. Give us a Real Third Party and a Viable Thrid Candidate, and I guarantee you will see a difference. Meanwhile, yes, we are stuck with the vastly-lesser of two evils. But the entrenched oligarchy and power-mongers will not go easily.
Unless, as in Lincoln's time, you want another Civil War; between the slave-holding, private-property-worshipping, hypocritical 'states-rights' yelling, 'free'-market-stupidity following, no-taxes, no-commons, religious-fundamentalist oligarchs versus the community-driven nationalist, fair-market-fair-wage-decent-life, liberty-equality-fraternity-seeking, free-thinking, working and educated classes. Lincoln knew that if the Confederacy (since morphed into the Republican party) had won or been allowed to exist, America would have continued to devolve and unwind to the point that today the continent would be a struggling collection of dinky, warlord-run, feudal city-state enclaves, hundreds of them, at constant war with the others. The nation may still so do. There are no guarantees.
On a side note, it seems Obama's comments on Gaza may be motivated, as are the comments of the rest of our dear congress-persons, by the pragmatic understanding that the international banksters who have America by the shorthairs desire the support and treasure of America to continue to flow to Israel, or they will pull the plug on the rest of the economy. And they have already given the US a taste of what they could do. I have seen one article that intimated that the $50 billion embezzled by Madoff went to Israel, for the most part. And then down the black hole of international finance. This is on top of the full-court-press of the AIPAC legions threatening political destruction to any pol going against Israeli interests. Is that a fight Obama wants right now? The answer is, sadly, no. Maybe later, when he is stronger.
So Obama is not perfect, as he is subject to the storms of DC politics. Who said he was perfect, or a god, or a savior? It really is up to us all. Yes, he is a compromiser, but compromise is part of what has been lacking in these recent Bushite years. At least there is a new measure of hope for better for America, and that, my friends, is something, not nothing.
It's not about Obama, its about us all. If Obama doesn't change it will be because we were not able or ready for change. Not if he doesn't change we won't change.
Society is the great change agent, not individual men and women. If Obama is who he claims, he will start reaching out to us the "you" he pronounced what it was all about and who it was all for.
But his challenge will be great, because to see that "you" he will need to look beyond the illusion he might be blinded by. Most importantly if we are all not largely self realized in this way, we will never allow ourselves to be the important factor in this reality as winners, we will continue to be that persistent unchangeable factor as losers. The fact winning or loosing as us, always remains the same through time, as long as we are here.
We could say that if Obama can be the "Horton" in this play and we as the Who's in Whoville, can become self aware and yell loud enough change can happen and we can save ourselves.
I'm just not sure Obama is this "Horton" of intention though, or just the trojan horse. But I know I am one of the people, one of the us, the we, the who that does believe in change, both in my ability and ours.
Who else believes, beyond Obama, who else still has hope and faith? All you have to say is I am, instead of he is not. It is a crucial shift in where our power is.
Sioux Rose
FVHORN: Although you are more of a pragmatist than I am, I appreciate your points, all well-taken. And I'd like to add that just as it takes a grain of sand to irritate the oyster enough to make it eventually form its prized pearl, Obama NOT delivering when the population has reached the equivalent of a high tide could result in something forming out of the irritant of change NOT being delivered... that may in fact surprise us. In some respects he is a catalyst, and is not of an esence that can stop the dam from bursting. Giving the bankers the money was like putting a finger into that dam, and yet the pressure is still pushing on it... and a guy with a good lingo, a shoeshine, and a smile is NOT gonna stop the movement of destiny. We are in for a really big show as Ed Sullivan used to say...
We are in for a really big show....
YEP!!
The society has hit the skids despite the "miracle" of "lesser evilism". Maybe it's time to try something different. Maybe zero evilism? Hippocratic oath? Of course. We all know that the leftist ideal is the ONLY ideal that works for the people! We just can't implement it cuz we keep crashing on the reef listening to the elites siren songs. Aren't they beautiful? SMASH! Beautiful! SMASH! Beautiful! SMASH!
Agreed. And, yes, there always is an other choice. McCain and Obama were not the only candidates for president. Why do those who now see Obama for what he really is, a con job, say there were no other choices? Why? Because they have swallowed the system's delusion as being reality, that there are only two choices. I suggest this is not only a lack of courage, but contrary to conscience.
...no other choices? Why?
Because of the two-party primary system, and their inability to get positive media coverage, ample financial support, and to carry more than 10% of the vote.
Maybe that's because the masses are brainwashed and deluded, or maybe its because you, like most of us, have been too busy enjoying yourself while the times remained at least somewhat okay over the past decades. Where were you, and what were you doing and saying during the "feel-good" era of Ronnie Raygun, or even during the 60's? Turnin' on? Tunin' out? What?
The unfortunate reality is that it takes a crisis before people get charged up. I wish it weren't true but it is. I have foretold of the current times for more than three decades, and only now do a fair share of people even begin to actually listen. Most still don't. And of those that do, most are too busy knowing to listen to anything more than themselves.
The story goes way beyond Washington and who is president. Yes, we are being played, but how do you stop that?
The story is still unfolding, and many critics are correct that we will still get more of the same, but the next chapter has not been written. And WE will yet write that chapter.
The golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. (And that ain't the president or even the governement.) So what ya' gonna do?
.One might make a case for voting for the best candidate for the office, I felt it was Nader, and I did three elections in a row. I care not at all that my candidate could not win the election, but I cared very much that I had voted for him because I felt him to be the best of the bunch.That was my civic duty after all.
If you continue to vote for the lesser of two evils you will always wind up with evil.If you continue to support a two party system that is simply a duopoly enslaved by the corporate checkbook then things will never change. Regardless of who it is in office, whether Republican or Democrat, WE are not going to write any chapters. The closest we will get may be chapter eleven.....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee, I hate to single you out but you have just offered one of the golden keys of truth for us all to consider. We are voting for ourselves, not for someone else. WE vote for who will do a good job representing US and OUR ideals. This idea that you can vote for the least of the worst is a vote for the least of the worst of yourself.
That this same voting block then sits on their behinds and does nothing for change, tells us the real consequence in such a vote. Total disempowerment of the individual through a contrivance of mental and spiritual supplication poorly understood by the masses but greatly understood by their handlers.
I also voted for Nader, because he felt best to represent me, not because he felt like he could win the least of two evils war.
That's just it, we write ALL the chapters. We either do so wittingly or unwittingly.
Even your Anais Nin quote suggests that.
How about you Americans get up off your bums and ensure that Obama doesn't end up like a lite-version of Bush?
How about instead of constantly whinging, you ensure that you make it clear that if Obama doesn't live up to your expectations and his rhetoric, you'll rise up and make sure he does?
If your country is the pits, do something about it! Stop buying the capitalist crap! Hound your politicians! Engage in millions-marches! Throw shoes at the rich and the elite! Put bumper stickers on your cars! Don't watch MSM! Boycott Israeli goods! Don't pay taxes! Refuse to sing the national anthem! Don't buy Fox papers or magazines!
It's time to stand up and be counted!
www.dangerouscreation.com
.I hereby promise to stop "whinging"...as soon as I figure out what the heck it is that Im supposed to stop doing....
Ok I know its whining....or cringing.....no whining.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
DavidG. I appreciated this post and your link a lot, though it hurt to see those photos.
DavidG.,
All good suggestions. Keep them coming please. I think we need to take some pictures from your website and plaster them up all over town.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1963 & 1968- Dallas and Los Angeles Coup d'État by the US Military Industrial Junta completed
"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!!!!!)
Excellent comment, cosmobilly.
The only way one can have their illusions shattered is to have illusions in the first place. Now is not the time for progressives to surrender to the same short-term focus in their thinking that they so often decry in their opponents. This is a time to take the long view, and the long view is that there hasn't been a more promising opportunity to forge a powerful progressive resurgence in this country than there is right now, at this moment.
Neoliberalism--i.e., market fundamentalist, upward redistributive economics--militarism; racism; American and global elites in general, and their odious self-serving agenda; have all been thoroughly discredited by events. This is our truth to tell: that their failure is absolute and final. Therefore, this is our once-in-a-lifetime chance to strike at the heart of the beast, kill it off once and for all, and thereby bring a kinder, gentler, more human and humane system to life.
But it's the height of foolishness to think that we're going to get everything we want the first time out of the chute. The election of Obama represents a tentative first step in the right direction, and that is all. It will take twenty years minimum to bring a substantive leftward shift to full fruition in America--so, let's get to work on it. That's really all there is to say. "Do or don't do," Yoda advised Luke Skywalker, "There is no 'try.'"
With or without us, progress is coming. That is not a fact that Obama can halt by leaning from center right to try and steer the future. Imagine any one human thinking that per their particular leaning, they alone can change the future.
Obama could see this imminent reality of change, and he is trying to use it to his advantage, but advantage works for the best of us all, not for the best of the one or the few who stand in the center and lean right.
Obama. January 20th, is it? Since he has been lynched on Common Dreams for a year, (but not by me, No Apologies,) lynched and desecrated throughout the campaign, Endlessly......it will be interesting to see where things are in 3 months, 6 months after he actually takes office. Most of CD has him dead and buried, he was impeached last month, so it should be interesting to see what transpires when he is actually in office.
I look forward to a few Respectful Back & Forths.........what a lovely word. forward.
.Do you always see criticism of the ideas you hold to be worthy of being called a lynching ( I agree that word is rather contextually horrific in this case of our first African American President).
I saw concrete criticisms an see them still. You appear much too sensitive and far to personally involved in your political opinions. You should always give weight to criticisms, they may very well be true.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
azjoe:please don't play with "lynched".
NYCartist, Hi, No Sweat. I did as a rare individual who supported Obama amidst months of attacks on him here at CD. Including a few racist ones. After the election this quieted until a couple/few weeks ago.
In any case, on to Polite interaction regarding politics only.
And, honoring your request, w/o the word lynched, literal or metaphorical. Nice to here from you,
Hope your Art is well,
azjoe.
azjoe:Hi. Been mailing out some Fallujah-Gaza art I got done. I am typing away....But, you are not getting off that easily: www.jamescarroll.net/Constantine.html I think you were going to look at Carroll's stuff, possibly I suggested it before I found the url. So, please take a peek, even for 5 min. at summary of the documentary or the book. I'll be watching for your reply. (Smiling, but serious, am I.)
40th comment so far on this article. And my question: where have all the Obama apologists gone who used to haunt these comments threads and lecture any skeptics about how we were interfering with the "lesser evil" of a Democratic presidency? Paul Street noted way back doing the Iowa caucus period that you couldn't engage an Obama supporter in any serious dialogue about their reasons for supporting him, apart from his unusual background and his charismatic appelal. Never really having understood their own motives for their partisanship, they seem tongue-tied when those like Greenwald who held much of their fire during the campaign have started opening up with all guns blazing
This comment seems very Limbaugh-like.
There are some lesser minds that would love to sum it this way, but it isn't what is going on. They seek to deride Clinton and other Democrats for taking centrist positions but the fact is that their more leftist progressive ideas simply can't take root at this time - no way no how. You have to become a realist, and learn how to contend. You can't stop a train on a dime in the blink of an eye, nor turn a battleship 180 degrees all at once. If you don't understand how the current influences of the "machine" have been at work for decades and that there exists very well-developed deeply embedded circles of power that determine the rule of the day then you are simply lost - not worthy of debating - and a helpless victim destined to be frustrated and mystified by the nature of the beast, fated to contribute little more than this type of dribble, forever at the mercy of the power elite and everyone else you deem not as insightful and enlightened as yourself.
Bush and Cheney weren't a fluke. Both the influences of wealth and power as well as social attitudes moved increasingly to the point where their rise to power became not only possible but predictable, and still, as the recent vote for McCain/Palin clearly demonstrate, those currents are still strong.
The so-called Obama apologists haven't gone anywhere, but they are tired of debating with ideologues whom know nothing about actually accomplishing something in today's political arena. To expect a sudden radical change by a single man, whom hasn't yet even taken office, is unrealistic and irrational. It might be nice to dream, but you have to work and persist and sacrifice to realize those dreams, ready to give everything and anything, and against all odds. Nothing worthwhile comes easy, and why should you, how can you, expect that things could suddenly be made different, as if all the brain trusts, NGOs, MIC interests, International Banks, etc. would suddenly take on new personalities, motives and methods?
After the Bush and Cheney these past 8 years, being centrist is positively a move in the right direction. And we can get more progressive as we move forward BUT only when WE collectively become cogent and cohesive enough as a unified people to promote those ideas and carry the day.
Or, are the latest observations about progressives correct? They will never be content. They just want to whine and belly-ache, and wonder why their ideas and representatives don't take root and can't win?
.Your "us and they" rant is a paeon to inaction and a prime reason why nothing gets done.Diminishing criticism by smearing the critics and both the reasons for and the methods used to criticize simply says nothing important or relevant.
"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt." W. Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
this comment seems very uninformed. the democrats are part of the power elite-who funded obamas campaign? and in the last 8 years the republicans ran their asses over. obama was never a progressive, he had very little meaningful history for anyone to judge him on. sheeple just drank the koolaid, hoping "change" was just around the corner. making concessions to drink from the trough is business as usual. nice hyperbole, though, noble sentiment, elitist rubbish. what a donkey.
"their more leftist progressive ideas simply can't take root at this time - no way no how". Of course this is true as long as progressive ideas which they believe in are seen as being unable to come to fruition. Such self-defeatism is the root of always settling for no progress. Remain a "centrist" and stand still. You then get what you believe in. More of the same will always be the norm. Becoming "cogent and cohesive" has become synonymous to capitulation. Many here on CD are no longer able to do this. It's about time. And you Obama apologists will achieve nothing but more of the same. It is, after all, what you voted for.
"And you Obama apologists will achieve nothing but more of the same. It is, after all, what you voted for."
Not true. We voted for a person that essentially united the world with a hope that things can change. We voted for the end of a conservative era wrought with failing ideas and practices. We didn't vote for the wave of a magic wand, or for radical disruptive acts by an ideologue who would merely end up reverting power right back to the conservatives.
Where you Obama and centrist critics fall on your collective deluded asses is in thinking that Obama's victory should have automagically resulted in a radical progressive change. And you falsely accuse even-keeled folks of being deluded, when it is you that do not understand the realities in play, and how it takes time, persistence and focus to bring about genuine and lasting change.
Our contention with you is not about where we are going as much as about how we can get there, and none of you have that answer. You have a lot of ideas and can spew your dribble endlessly, but none of you can present us with a real and viable alternative. And you now spite the one alternative that has actually energized enough critical mass to potentially swing the social and political tide more liberally. Instead, you act as endless critics, not problem solvers.
Obama's election was the result of a growing critical mass of mainstream (not radical) views for how the world needs a new vision, a new promise for practices and principles based on a more equitable consideration of common interest. Without that, he would not have been elected. We realists understand how this is just the beginning, and we are inspired in the realization that the masses are finally beginning to come to their senses. We all agree that real change needs to happen, but you don't realize how your cynically divisive attitudes and rhetoric are unappreciative and damaging to the very cause you seek to promote. At the very point in time when we need to collectively speak louder and more clearly, you have already made up your minds and are convinced you can foretell the future. That's really quite amazing. You're playing right into the whole divide and conquer thing and then trying to blame those very folks you need on your side.
As the old adage goes, you are either part of the solution or part of the problem. We need you to keep voicing your ideas and beliefs, and to help keep the momentum moving back toward the left, but being critical of those that have helped create this momentum is not part of the solution.
This is not self-defeatism, and after 3 decades of growing conservatism, being centrist is not standing still.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Yeah! Take THAT all you nay-sayers! Obama united the WORLD! Look around you, see? The world is UNITED!
There are none so blind as those who will not see, indeed. I love it.
Man, I can't wait for the second coming of RichM. You idiots (me included) are about to get schooled.
your comments are revulting in its sanctimony.
Constructive, pragmatic, evident of an adept mind and distinguished character.
"Where you Obama and centrist critics fall on your collective deluded asses is in thinking that Obama's victory should have automagically resulted in a radical progressive change. And you falsely accuse even-keeled folks of being deluded, when it is you that do not understand the realities in play, and how it takes time, persistence and focus to bring about genuine and lasting change.'
.All anger management suggestions aside, I am unaware of any on the left who thought the Obama election would result in what you claim was expected. KEEPING HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES, OR AT LEAST A COUPLE OF THEM WILL BE A NICE TREAT. But that is looking rather doubtful as more of his statements are heard. By the by, that word you coined,"automagically" is a very nice turn of phrase.
You may use hope as fuel for your own fires, I'll stick with a fuel of greater substance thanks. Most lefties here and elsewhere were little deluded by the hope that Obama was more than he appeared to be, a demogogic speechifier who said very little of substance and has now retracted even that.
Where you see an almost new age vision of this man I see a typical Chicago politician, where you see a great coming together I see an electorate sick unto death and desperate for change. Where you see a long and necessary process evolving I see Bob Gates in Defense and shudder. Where you see fairy tale I see an escalation of war. I further see a President committed to that horrific bailout (sellout mores the word)which lends itself to the belief that he is just another smarmy and useless politician whose soul has been sold to the corporate campaign check.
Now, as to your refusal to note the many suggestions for change that have come out of the left, well, one can speak but closed ears do not listen. The fault seems to lie in your own ignorance of those suggestions rather than their absence. You are free to read the speeches and letters of Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney for many such...or you may continue to foam at the mouth... your choice really.
Protest is as necessary to the process as is eventual agreement, and criticism is also a part of the deal, yours and ours equally. But I would advise that you put more thought and less angst into your critiques, especially as you have made several egregious mistakes. I only pointed out a few in the interest of brevity.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"All anger management suggestions aside" ... Really now.
You suggest I see a fairy tale, when you voted for Nader three times. And then say, "You may use hope as fuel for your own fires, I'll stick with a fuel of greater substance thanks."
Don't for a second forget to apply Anais Nin's quote to yourself, especially when spouting the type of condescending rhetoric you do here.
That you believe McKinney or Nader could even come close to being able to make a real difference strongly suggests it is you not I living a fairy tale. And I don't disagree or disapprove of their points at all. I'm more than aware of the progressive ideas and suggestions that have been floated about. I am also quite aware of how little traction they get. And how you and others can't seem to figure that out.
Yes indeed, a great deal needs to change. But my new age vision is not of or about Obama, it is about us and the momentum built behind electing Obama. That's the ball everyone has taken their eye off of when now being distracted so easily by what was so aptly understood in the first place. You can focus that on being all about Obama and those who supported him, or you could focus that on the issues which underlie the reason why his campaign rhetoric worked.
Again, none are so blind as those who will not see.
.You suggest that, because the task is hard, we should abandon it. That is the underlying current beneath your harsh words. My votes for Ralph Nader represent a clear choice, which is what a vote is supposed to be, not, as you would have it, a capitulation based on probable victory instead of clear choice of platform and direction. By your words a vote for Bush would have been fine because, after all, he had the clearest chance to win....That is not how I cast my ballot, nor is it how we will extricate ourselves from this system.
As to the "movement" surrounding the "magic" of the Obama candidacy, well, after eight years of Bush I would suspect even a dead candidate might seem attractive. I wonder how strong and dedicated all those Obama voters are going to be when he betrays every principle they thought he believed in, fails in every promise he made to them? Many who never voted before came out for Obama, many are naive but thats fine, engaging in the duty of democracy is not to be criticised however wrong headed might be the reasons.
I wonder how many will return to the ranks of the many who never exercise their right to vote as the betrayals mount. We shall have to wait and see.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Limbaugh-like? Last I heard, R.L. was expressing his approval of some of the "centrist" moves that Obama has made. So you folks can have Rush, and welcome to him.
Clearly I was wrong, Obama apologists are still alive, as your comment and a couple of your admirers in the following comments indicate. And the way you apologize is the "same old, same old" ad hominem attack on progressives as fuzzy-headed ideologues who don't have enough pragmatic sense to come in out of the corporacratic rain. And oh yes, you are tired of debating these self-centered types, as if you EVER debated with us, since you used the mantle of a pragmatic candidate whose every move, left, right or center, could be justified by the requirements of dealing with that intractable "system" with which all successful politicians have to contend. And of course you make the pretense that progressive moves will come "later on," after some initial incremental improvements. First it was as soon as he secured the nomination, and then if was after he was inaugurated and now, as that day of reckoning looms as Obama and his mostly right-center appointees take control, it's after an initial period of warm-up baby steps before the Big Bang of a truly progressive agenda emerges. I think many if not most Americans feel like Charlie Brown who was fooled time after time by Lucy's promise to hold the football as he kicked it. As the great philosopher Bush said "fool me once, fool me (whatever the hell he said)"
Jerry, nice post. Question: Is the fuzzy-headed progressive ideologue the guy that nailed three bong hits to cosmobilly's lament about how in order to defeat Republicans you need to become one [first]?
cosmobilly, I'm going to nail three bong hits in your honor right now, Right On. And man, you can write.
You said some things that are true. This IS one man, he can only do so much himself. It is up to people to change what needs to be changed, not to wait for politicians and businessmen to change policies that in the end benefit them. No progressive change has occurred because of elites. Not one. Every social program we have was put in place because of organizing, educating, advocating and providing clear alternatives on a mass scale.
We have no mass social movements now, theft and violence is endemic, and we do nothing. So yes, Obama cannot, will not, and in many ways (like FDR) doesn't want to unless he has to change policies that NEED to fundamentally change.
Having said that, this is nonsense: "and wonder why their (the left) ideas and representatives don't take root"
What is the "progressive" or leftist position on healthcare? What is the DC, media defined "centrist" position on healthcare? Now what type of system do American's favor in regards to healthcare? By a strong majority, the so called "leftist" position (universial access, with preventive care, covered by the government and funded by higher taxes). Look at economic issues, it's the same. Same with the war, the environment, amongst other things. Obama isn't defying the left, he's defying popular opinion, and popular opinion happens to be on the left on the issues themselves. It might not be for ideological reasons, but they are and have been for years. There is no mass social movements however, and there is no participatory and direct democracy measures in our government and political parties (unlike Latin America in recent years). There also is, unlike Europe, no social organizations (like unions) to get people who agree with the left on the issues (while not calling themselves leftist) and want fundamental change. So people are angry, they want REAL change, but there is nothing to use that energy in a constructive way to force change.
The left HAS won on the issues, they are not finding ways to make popular opinion on issues government policy.
Any rate, you are also crazy if you think a "centrist" or the people Obama has appointed are not ideological. If you are a self described "centrist" you cannot logically defend "centrism" by saying that you find out what is on the left, the right and plant yourself in the middle. That is just as illogical as the ideologues people like you harp on about. If you are a logical person who calls yourself "centrist", hopefully Obama is appointing logical people, you think the issues out and are for mixtures. Sometimes when you have power, you back policies that benefit you or fit into an ideology you have, and call it "centrist".
Logically however, you have to be OPEN to the polls' positions on issues. It is possible that the left or right might have a better argument. Dismissing a position because of a label, not because of logic, is not better than accepting it for those reasons. "Centrism" within DC and the corporate media is loaded language, it means far more in regards to rigid ideology than you seem to realize.
On the issues, economics is my primary interest, the "centrist" position is usually justifying bad policies by making them less bad, not allowing alternative arguments to enter in the discussion basically because they're alternative ideas, which is why the economic problems facing us, and what effect they have on the environment, will be pushed aside. The truth, and what needs to be done (reality), is too radical, I mean "ideological".
Jerry D Rose is clearly wrong. The Democratic Party apologists and excuses for selling out haven't gone anywhere. Clearly the apologists are still here, backing the sell outs, the Democrats, the cowards, the party that allowed GWB and the Republicans to trample all over our Constitution without so much as a rebuke. Allowed to break laws, illegally spy on us, lead us into wars based on lies, ignore laws with signing statements, and out CIA agents.
Now we have a new face on imperialism, a minority's face, Obama's face, on the same old crap as evidenced by his cowardly silence on the war crimes being committed against the Palestinians in Gaza and his enthusiastic support for massive wealth transfers for Wall St. I am sure Democratic Party apologists have rationales to excuse these too. That's their job.
It's the cowardly and unprincipled that allows the right to move ever rightward by appeasing and not opposing in the name of pragmatism. Republicans have no opposition; we clearly have no opposition party. All we have is one party of greed, war and corruption and that party has two wings. One wing starts with a D and the other with an R.
As long as the Democrats can count on their apologists nothing will change.
-tailcap
Sioux Rose
RIC A: Thanks for your incisive analysis. I was waiting to hear from Rich M, but I think he would have articulated the points you just made. This principles versus pragmatism new "frame" is being tailored to fog the usual left right linear landscape that defines political preferences. I'd like to see a candidate speak in terms of universal ideals... the beliefs that can bridge people of different backgrounds together, inspire them to discover solutions to the persistent ism divisions and evils that confront the vast majority.
Thanks Sioux Rose your comments are always an inspiration. I think Rich M would have articulated the point much better, but thanks for the compliment. I was banned right after Obama won and they just let me back on during the last fundraiser. I noticed a lot of the heaver-hitters are gone.
When I returned I was glad to see you were still here but I missed Rich M, Little Brother, WSWS.org, COMarc, and many others. They always cut through the crap. Maybe they got banned too and are too principled to return to a site that banned them and I don't blame them.
Sioux Rose
RIC: I can say on good authority that your suppositions are correct. I was not able to log on for a few days myself, and sometimes I get the logo that I am forbidden to post on certain sites. Unfortunately some of the more luminous thinkers have been blocked from this "virtual senate" while some who are best at regurgitating pabulum invited to stay. A senate needs a variety of voices!
So CommonDreams is a clique now?
.How petty can we get here? Feeling left out are we?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"I'd like to see a candidate speak in terms of universal ideals"
All candidates do this, they're what go on bumper stickers. We all want those wonderful sounding generalizations. "Economic & social justice", "democracy", "freedom", all sound wonderful. Who would argue against those WORDS? How do you accomplish those things in reality, in practice, though without struggle, disagreement and sometimes outright confronation? The "left" and the "right", when faced with this, has sorted out their morals and place the values most important to them at the top. The "left", the group that the media and the elites are telling Obama to ignore, knows what economic and social justice IS in practice, and it isn't so called globalization, even with moderate improvements. A globalization with some modifications, the ones Obama is pushing for, is just a little less bad than the current system. It isn't CHANGE really, it is just a little less ideologically fanatical. There is no way to have economic or social in justice in practie without confrontation. Very powerful groups, countries and institutions have benefited off the current system and will fight every change (no matter how moderate) tooth and nail. They will fight against any economic democracy what so ever. The same goes with the rest of the universal ideals. Saying the words is different than making those words a reality. The first step in pushing for that change is no making excuses for pushing Obama in a direction. The powerful people in power have and will, as will those that ideologically disagree. Why should the left not, and why should ideology not matter? If you want univeral healthcare, it isn't only because it is the most logical system, there are VALUES present in the idea of everyone having healthcare available to them. Other ideologies don't think that those values are valid. If you are someone without a core ideology, the only argument you have is end results, with no underlying values to back your argument up. I want univeral healthcare because it is a better system and because of the values present.
Same old cheap, sweet tasting wine that has left us with such a vicious hangover, packaged in a stylish new bottle. Obama's performance to date has been like a lousy movie: the more you see, the worse it gets. I don't think he's a criminal thug like Bush and Cheney, but he's a neocon, a transactional and not a transformational leader. Of the electable candidates on offer he was the best we were going to get, but still a disappointment to those of us who were hoping for a better future.
Alex
Money rules Obama too.
After reading one of his books he made Ayn Rand look like a Pinko.
The victors of class warfare always call for an end to partisanship and claim that ideology is dead.
They believe us all to be fools.
Obama has stated that he believes in 'american exceptionalism'. After hearing that, i expect nothing different from him. But i never did jump on that bandwagon. He said nothing new. Everyone loved his personal story. That is america for you...
No one learned anything from the past eight years except on the most superficial levels, so nothing will change course...
Please give source for where Obama said he believes in "American Exceptionalism".
I don't know that Obama himself has ever used that term as an article of his "belief" but his views have certainly been so described by a number of writers. For example, Paul Street, Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics, p. 156 so characterizes the theme of a speech called "The American Moment" that he gave at the Chicago Council of Global Affairs on 4/23/07
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/opinion/10cohen.html
The article you linked to quotes Obama as saying:
“I believe in American exceptionalism,” he told me, but not one based on “our military prowess or our economic dominance.” Rather, he insisted, “our exceptionalism must be based on our Constitution, our principles, our values and our ideals. We are at our best when we are speaking in a voice that captures the aspirations of people across the globe.”
That's the same Obama who now says that it's unlikely that he'll push to prosecute Bush and Cheney for their many violations of the Constitution. There's certainly nothing exceptional about Obama.
Greenwald does not mention what I believe was Obama's most disturbing comment during this morning's interview. Obama stated that everyone would have to sacrifice to put the US economy back on track, not mentioning that those most responsible for the current economic meltdown, the Wall Street fatcats, indulged in an orgy of risk-taking and recklessness to enrich themselves beyond reason while everyone else was suffering. And of course he did not bring up that, because of right-wing economic policies, the wealthy in general have done very well the past few decades and can afford to sacrifice much more than the non-wealthy, who have been just treading water. After the wealthy predators gained so much for so long and many of them were responsible for putting the economy on the brink of collapse, the middle class and the poor are expected, by Obama, to sacrifice to restore the nation's economic health.
I would tell Mr. Obama that when he tries to harvest that bitter crop, he may get more than he bargained for.
.As the betrayal of Barack Obama becomes more and more clear I hope that progressives will undertake the move to third party and independent politics. I believe it to be the only way to shake off the slavish devotion both major parties have to the status quo.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Paul Street's book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics tells the whole story of Obama's conservatism, his dedication to corporate domination, and his role as the front man for the establishment. Greenwald is singing the same tune as Paul Street. Both are remarkably effective and thorough.
Unless Obama shifts his worldview to something different than he has demonstrated in his entire political career, he will be a defender of the third corporate regime, not a transformer of that regime into a new progressive regime.
For more on the regime concept see Charles Derber in Regime Change Begins at Home, and Hidden Power. Also see Arthur Schlesinger's Cycles of American History.
Progressives will need to become a real opposition with movements and in politics. Most are still defenders of the corporate regime. But a few Democrats are progressive and want a genuine a progressive, constitutional revolution. The same is true of the Green Party people.
"Progressives will need to become a real opposition with movements and in politics. Most are still defenders of the corporate regime."
I think you're right.
Also, I've read some Paul Street articles about the Oprah effect I thought were pretty good. I'll have to check out his book.
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?
oh, i forgot. obama's jewish campaign manager, david axelrod, has also indicted the middle east/israel status quo will remain intact.
These comments suggest that my worst fears will be realized. Why can't America realize that Israel is bringing it down, making it a patsy, a laughing stock?
www.dangerouscreation.com
It's the other way around. America is bringing Israel down.... they are simply one of our Middle East Proxies. Currently being used to debut new Super Weapons technologies, and the wiliness to use chemical weapons, and bomb UN monitored schools indiscriminately; all these actions aimed at sending an ominous message to Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and the Middle East as a whole. It's being done on Bush's watch so as to keep Obama's hands clean, for the time being.
"Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian war surgery specialist working in Gaza, told The Times that he had seen injuries believed to have resulted from Israel's use of a new "dense inert metal explosive" that caused "extreme explosions". He said: "Those inside the perimeter of this weapon's power zone will be torn completely apart." the Times Online/UK"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
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!!!!!)
Sioux Rose
FAKE DEMOCRACY: I think your analysis is solid. The born again Christians who have stood behind this whole decimation of the Holy Land as they've been granted the false witness that this type of aggression constitutes God's will, are also already more than prepared to treat Israel/the Jews as the sacrificial lamb.
Not long ago our military "intelligence" deduced that it would be better to destroy all nations, than to let Russia "win" a war. This type of thinking, aptly given the acronym "MAD" is pretty much being dressed up as End Times. So a sizable mindset sees no mental disconnect between utter destruction and some intelligent plan of future-based action. It's like a mass suicide intention on the part of people that our lives are entrusted to!
Many do see beyond this insanity, but there are precious few prophetic voices, voices given enough media exposure to speak to those with minds capable of turning away from the fate of a calamitous outcome towards a more inviting outcome. Perhaps the shift to digital will open bandwidth to some of those.
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..
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
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?