Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- More Damning Evidence Points to Pesticide as Cause of Mass Bee Deaths
- Nobel Peace Prize Jury Under Investigation
- 'Gasland' Film Director Arrested at US Capitol Hearing
- The Cancerous Politics and Ideology of the Susan G. Komen Foundation
- A Journey To The End Of Empire: It Is Always Darkest Right Before It Goes Completely Black
Popular content
Today's Top News
Changing Obama's Mindset
We are citizens, and Obama is a politician. You might not like that word. But the fact is he's a politician. He's other things, too-he's a very sensitive and intelligent and thoughtful and promising person. But he's a politician.
If you're a citizen, you have to know the difference between them and you-the difference between what they have to do and what you have to do. And there are things they don't have to do, if you make it clear to them they don't have to do it.
From the beginning, I liked Obama. But the first time it suddenly struck me that he was a politician was early on, when Joe Lieberman was running for the Democratic nomination for his Senate seat in 2006.
Lieberman-who, as you know, was and is a war lover-was running for the Democratic nomination, and his opponent was a man named Ned Lamont, who was the peace candidate. And Obama went to Connecticut to support Lieberman against Lamont.
It took me aback. I say that to indicate that, yes, Obama was and is a politician. So we must not be swept away into an unthinking and unquestioning acceptance of what Obama does.
Our job is not to give him a blank check or simply be cheerleaders. It was good that we were cheerleaders while he was running for office, but it's not good to be cheerleaders now. Because we want the country to go beyond where it has been in the past. We want to make a clean break from what it has been in the past.
I had a teacher at Columbia University named Richard Hofstadter, who wrote a book called The American Political Tradition, and in it, he examined presidents from the Founding Fathers down through Franklin Roosevelt. There were liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. And there were differences between them. But he found that the so-called liberals were not as liberal as people thought-and that the difference between the liberals and the conservatives, and between Republicans and Democrats, was not a polar difference. There was a common thread that ran through all American history, and all of the presidents-Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative-followed this thread.
The thread consisted of two elements: one, nationalism; and two, capitalism. And Obama is not yet free of that powerful double heritage.
We can see it in the policies that have been enunciated so far, even though he's been in office only a short time.
Some people might say, "Well, what do you expect?"
And the answer is that we expect a lot.
People say, "What, are you a dreamer?"
And the answer is, yes, we're dreamers. We want it all. We want a peaceful world. We want an egalitarian world. We don't want war. We don't want capitalism. We want a decent society.
We better hold on to that dream-because if we don't, we'll sink closer and closer to this reality that we have, and that we don't want.
Be wary when you hear about the glories of the market system. The market system is what we've had. Let the market decide, they say. The government mustn't give people free health care; let the market decide.
Which is what the market has been doing-and that's why we have forty-eight million people without health care. The market has decided that. Leave things to the market, and there are two million people homeless. Leave things to the market, and there are millions and millions of people who can't pay their rent. Leave things to the market, and there are thirty-five million people who go hungry.
You can't leave it to the market. If you're facing an economic crisis like we're facing now, you can't do what was done in the past. You can't pour money into the upper levels of the country-and into the banks and corporations-and hope that it somehow trickles down.
What was one of the first things that happened when the Bush Administration saw that the economy was in trouble? A $700 billion bailout, and who did we give the $700 billion to? To the financial institutions that caused this crisis.
This was when the Presidential campaign was still going on, and it pained me to see Obama standing there, endorsing this huge bailout to the corporations.
What Obama should have been saying was: Hey, wait a while. The banks aren't poverty stricken. The CEOs aren't poverty stricken. But there are people who are out of work. There are people who can't pay their mortgages. Let's take $700 billion and give it directly to the people who need it. Let's take $1 trillion, let's take $2 trillion.
Let's take this money and give it directly to the people who need it. Give it to the people who have to pay their mortgages. Nobody should be evicted. Nobody should be left with their belongings out on the street.
Obama wants to spend perhaps a trillion more on the banks. Like Bush, he's not giving it directly to homeowners. Unlike the Republicans, Obama also wants to spend $800 billion for his economic stimulus plan. Which is good-the idea of a stimulus is good. But if you look closely at the plan, too much of it goes through the market, through corporations.
It gives tax breaks to businesses, hoping that they'll hire people. No-if people need jobs, you don't give money to the corporations, hoping that maybe jobs will be created. You give people work immediately.
A lot of people don't know the history of the New Deal of the 1930s. The New Deal didn't go far enough, but it had some very good ideas. And the reason the New Deal came to these good ideas was because there was huge agitation in this country, and Roosevelt had to react. So what did he do? He took billions of dollars and said the government was going to hire people. You're out of work? The government has a job for you.
As a result of this, lots of very wonderful work was done all over the country. Several million young people were put into the Civilian Conservation Corps. They went around the country, building bridges and roads and playgrounds, and doing remarkable things.
The government created a federal arts program. It wasn't going to wait for the markets to decide that. The government set up a program and hired thousands of unemployed artists: playwrights, actors, musicians, painters, sculptors, writers. What was the result? The result was the production of 200,000 pieces of art. Today, around the country, there are thousands of murals painted by people in the WPA program. Plays were put on all over the country at very cheap prices, so that people who had never seen a play in their lives were able to afford to go.
And that's just a glimmer of what could be done. The government has to represent the people's needs. The government can't give the job of representing the people's needs to corporations and the banks, because they don't care about the people's needs. They only care about profit.
In the course of his campaign, Obama said something that struck me as very wise-and when people say something very wise, you have to remember it, because they may not hold to it. You may have to remind them of that wise thing they said.
Obama was talking about the war in Iraq, and he said, "It's not just that we have to get out of Iraq." He said "get out of Iraq," and we mustn't forget it. We must keep reminding him: Out of Iraq, out of Iraq, out of Iraq-not next year, not two years from now, but out of Iraq now.
But listen to the second part, too. His whole sentence was: "It's not enough to get out of Iraq; we have to get out of the mindset that led us into Iraq." What is the mindset that got us into Iraq?
It's the mindset that says force will do the trick. Violence, war, bombers-that they will bring democracy and liberty to the people.
It's the mindset that says America has some God-given right to invade other countries for their own benefit. We will bring civilization to the Mexicans in 1846. We will bring freedom to the Cubans in 1898. We will bring democracy to the Filipinos in 1900. You know how successful we've been at bringing democracy all over the world.
Obama has not gotten out of this militaristic missionary mindset. He talks about sending tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan.
Obama is a very smart guy, and surely he must know some of the history. You don't have to know a lot to know the history of Afghanistan has been decades and decades and decades and decades of Western powers trying to impose their will on Afghanistan by force: the English, the Russians, and now the Americans. What has been the result? The result has been a ruined country.
This is the mindset that sends 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and that says, as Obama has, that we've got to have a bigger military. My heart sank when Obama said that. Why do we need a bigger military? We have an enormous military budget. Has Obama talked about cutting the military budget in half or some fraction? No.
We have military bases in more than a hundred countries. We have fourteen military bases on Okinawa alone. Who wants us there? The governments. They get benefits. But the people don't really want us there. There have been huge demonstrations in Italy against the establishment of a U.S. military base. There have been big demonstrations in South Korea and on Okinawa.
One of the first acts of the Obama Administration was to send Predator missiles to bomb Pakistan. People died. The claim is, "Oh, we're very precise with our weapons. We have the latest equipment. We can target anywhere and hit just what we want."
This is the mindset of technological infatuation. Yes, they can actually decide that they're going to bomb this one house. But there's one problem: They don't know who's in the house. They can hit one car with a rocket from a great distance. Do they know who's in the car? No.
And later-after the bodies have been taken out of the car, after the bodies have been taken out of the house-they tell you, "Well, there were three suspected terrorists in that house, and yes, there's seven other people killed, including two children, but we got the suspected terrorists." But notice that the word is "suspected." The truth is they don't know who the terrorists are.
So, yes, we have to get out of the mindset that got us into Iraq, but we've got to identify that mindset. And Obama has to be pulled by the people who elected him, by the people who are enthusiastic about him, to renounce that mindset. We're the ones who have to tell him, "No, you're on the wrong course with this militaristic idea of using force to accomplish things in the world. We won't accomplish anything that way, and we'll remain a hated country in the world."
Obama has talked about a vision for this country. You have to have a vision, and now I want to tell Obama what his vision should be.
The vision should be of a nation that becomes liked all over the world. I won't even say loved-it'll take a while to build up to that. A nation that is not feared, not disliked, not hated, as too often we are, but a nation that is looked upon as peaceful, because we've withdrawn our military bases from all these countries. We don't need to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars on the military budget. Take all the money allocated to military bases and the military budget, and-this is part of the emancipation-you can use that money to give everybody free health care, to guarantee jobs to everybody who doesn't have a job, guaranteed payment of rent to everybody who can't pay their rent, build child care centers.
Let's use the money to help other people around the world, not to send bombers over there. When disasters take place, they need helicopters to transport people out of the floods and out of devastated areas. They need helicopters to save people's lives, and the helicopters are over in the Middle East, bombing and strafing people.
What's required is a total turnaround. We want a country that uses its resources, its wealth, and its power to help people, not to hurt them. That's what we need. This is a vision we have to keep alive. We shouldn't be easily satisfied and say, "Oh well, give him a break. Obama deserves respect."
But you don't respect somebody when you give them a blank check. You respect somebody when you treat them as an equal to you, and as somebody you can talk to and somebody who will listen to you.
Not only is Obama a politician. Worse, he's surrounded by politicians. And some of them he picked himself. He picked Hillary Clinton, he picked Lawrence Summers, he picked people who show no sign of breaking from the past.
We are citizens. We must not put ourselves in the position of looking at the world from their eyes and say, "Well, we have to compromise, we have to do this for political reasons." No, we have to speak our minds.
This is the position that the abolitionists were in before the Civil War, and people said, "Well, you have to look at it from Lincoln's point of view." Lincoln didn't believe that his first priority was abolishing slavery. But the anti-slavery movement did, and the abolitionists said, "We're not going to put ourselves in Lincoln's position. We are going to express our own position, and we are going to express it so powerfully that Lincoln will have to listen to us."
And the anti-slavery movement grew large enough and powerful enough that Lincoln had to listen. That's how we got the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
That's been the story of this country. Where progress has been made,
wherever any kind of injustice has been overturned, it's been because
people acted as citizens, and not as politicians. They didn't just
moan. They worked, they acted, they organized, they rioted if necessary
to bring their situation to the attention of people in power. And
that's what we have to do today.
Thanks to Alex Read and Matt Korn for transcribing Zinn’s talk on
February 2 at the Busboys and Poets restaurant in Washington, D.C.,
from which this is adapted.




94 Comments so far
Show Alli've heard zinn speak on several occasions in boston, at BU etc., charming, funny, and loved "people's history", but he really needs to retire. these apologias for obama diminish his legacy.
see below. the problem isn't strictly Zinn. This is an old academic dispute. It revolves around the question of how societies change. It is there that we have to address the serious issues, not dwelling on personalities and what so-and-so says in a column.
We need to learn quickly what methods work and what don't, but even then, we can only do that when we understand exactly what change it is that we want. Cosmetic? or substantive? Temporary, or enduring?
Your answer will determine whether you believe the US is reformable or not. The key lies in the distribution of power.
Skip,
Very well said....
RE:Your answer will determine whether you believe the US is reformable or not. The key lies in the distribution of power.
These are two very important sentences. The second answers the first. Democracy, literally means, the people rule. If the people rule, then power is dispersed equally among all. The distribution of power IS critical. Once power becomes concentrated, even in a "representative", then the possibility of corruption arises. In our society, power equals wealth. The more wealth, the more concentrated power and concomitantly, the diminution of democracy. Our highly unequal distribution of wealth indicates a highly undemocratic society. Things may have been better in the past, but wealth has always been very unequally distributed in the US. We have never been a democracy. This means to me that the US is UN-reformable.
Our society is nowhere near revolution -a great change- at this time. With all the amazing and creative things that humans do it continually surprises me that more of us cannot imagine a better world. "There is no alternative" is deeply embedded. People are too indoctrinated. We need to create a culture of imagining a better world. We need to discuss in living rooms and coffee houses how we would go about doing it. If the progressive movement is to progress, we need to start thinking a lot bigger about progress.
To quote Funkadelic: "free your mind and your ass will follow."
TL, very nice post.
I agree with much of your post. We are a staggeringly indoctrinated society, but I don't think we're as pathetically bad as posters on progressive boards tend to think. We worry way too much about the typical coterie of bystanders who don't make history anyway. When you think about revolutions both peaceful and violent, past and present, they were rarely majoritarian efforts until perhaps right at the very end of the game. Prior to that, it was always a dedicated minority who risked everything everyday to pave the way for the organizing and action that is required when a state begins to split apart.
It's almost as if we're waiting for a veil to be miraculously lifted from the eyes of most of the people in order to begin the march forward--as if we need *permission* from our fellow citizens to act in order to legitimize our resistance, and I think this subconscious mindset of the left is a mistake. This miracle will not happen and waiting for it is a waste of precious time.
I also think ordinary people do need hope, although not of the Obama variety. They need to see small victories rung up by fringe opposition. That's what we're missing right now. But hte danger of being the first surfer to hitch a wave is that you're taking the weakest one in, and that's something everyone who commits to radical change has to grapple with. Will anyone follow or will you be ridiculed? Will your efforts and suffering pay off in any kind of run, long or short?
We need leaders badly, and we need them now. We need people who are thoughtful, well-read, and articulate as much as they are passionate and courageous, to step up and take the risks that every infant movement takes.
If anyone knows of a board where people can get in touch with local people in their area to start forming some action cells, please post it. I'm personally ready to go.
v.purto
Re: We need leaders badly, and we need them now.
We need idea to build upon even more badly. All previous attempts to better the world people have been living in were built on lofty ideas with strong convictions that progress is doable and lofty ideas are subject of ridicule not only in corporate media. While in fact all attempts to better our world in England, America, France and finally Russia succeeded immensely; they proved to leave indelible marks on the life of humankind.
Many think that Capitalism is winning by addressing to reptilian mind of people but it betrays shallowness of understanding of how this world ticks. This very crisis proves beyond any reasonable doubts that that financial system, upon which Capitalism is build, was destroyed by the currency debauch as V. Lenin so presciently commented almost century ago. So, today Capitalism is not a problem, as well as so called democracy. The problem is us or rather lack of understanding of our reality. Or rather lack of interest in understanding and urge to hide behinds heroes. Hence nihilism.
Whatever is coming in the wake of dead capitalism can be only defeated by standing up and not letting nihilism to prevail.
That is exactly what Howard Zinn is talking about. Closing of human mind is the only condition upon which continuation of capitalism, and hence of American Empire, depends.
Many a nihilist on "progressive" sites with all their good intentions in fact are agents of influence. Wake up comrades.
"We need to create a culture of imagining a better world."
Got your movie script written? Got yourself a movie camera? Got the whole project setup? A picture of that "better world"?
RTdrury:
Not sure what you're getting at here. For me, it's easy to imagine a better world. I do it all the time. But for most people it is not or, if they can, they believe it can never be more than a fantasy. If you can't imagine a better world, then you will never create the strategies for making it a reality. I believe that we are capable of imagining and creating a better world. In a sense, that is a definition of a revolutionary.
The women's movement has arguably been the most significant and durable liberation movement in 20th century America. It started simply by women getting together in living rooms to talk. It didn't happen because they went to a movie.
Tom, you very accurately say, "Our highly unequal distribution of wealth indicates a highly undemocratic society."
Yes, Tom, by many measures, and particularly by economists' standard measure for judging inequality of money-power, the GINI coefficient of income and wealth inequality, the U.S. is quite literally 'off the charts' with respect to any of the functioning post-WWII and post-Empire 'social democracies' of Europe and Japan.
The U.S.'s extremely high GINI index of inequality is only matched by what used to be South American 'banana republics', African dictatorships, and Middle Eastern royal-family oil plutocracies.
The US GINI index of 0.49 (and rising fast) is quickly approaching that of Robert Mugabe's war-torn kleptocracy of Zimbabwe (at 0.53). In fact, the US GINI is well above the level where our own CIA in its country case book warns that countries above the level of 0.45 are subject to civil unrest and revolution.
By all measures of citizen participation in self-government and power, economic justice, health care, absence of police state tyranny and spying, the US is, by rational review, not a functioning democracy at all --- but is following the policies and operational style of an EMPIRE, both 'at home' and 'abroad'.
As Hannah Arendt presciently warned of the Nazi Empire, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home."
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Only by acknowledging that Empire (and 'Empire thinking') is the central pathology causing all other 'single issue' symptoms and sorrows of our condition can we make the "clean break" that Professor Zinn talks about, and choose democracy over Empire -- just as our forefathers did those 233 years ago against the combined political-economic and military British Empire.
Agreed.
It's also time to ditch the concept that "we can push Obama into doing the right thing, he will listen to us".
There is also no reason to believe that Obama is secretly to the left of his policies.
no evidence either, we should not be surprised. But the liberal elite told us we have to give him a chance, benefit of the doubt and all that.
I still think Obama will do it as he promised... and I will continue to think that no matter what he does... in fact, unless he comes to my house and takes away my couch in front of me, I will always support Obama... no matter what... I'm a liberal.
Hey, he might NEED that couch. Give him the benefit of the doubt.
He's not left; that's WHY we need push. He sells policy to gain power. We must require policy to grant power.
We vote once on election day. We vote most times we pull out our wallet.
Comments are back up.
Zinn, whom I adore, is wrong about the one thing he most needs to be right about. He incorrectly believes that protest works as a method to bring about social change.
I wish he were right, but the record is poor, and most of the gains made in two and a half decades of mass protest and mild unrest have all been eroded or rolled back.
We cannot repaint this house. It must be torn down and rebuilt.
What is the alternative in this dilemma? Are you ready to pick up your AK and grab some Molotov cocktails?
see below.
I have to disagree, if you read People's History and listen carefully to what Zinn has to say in a whole host of interviews and lectures, you would realize he is just trying to remain optimistic in a dismal situation, in this case.
His talk at the Progressive magazine's 100 anniversary was great.
Zinn has made some of the most blistering critiques of the election systems, the two-party system, the MSM, US politicians of both parties of the ruling oligopoly.
I'm not sure you are making an argument here, other than you like Zinn. I do, too.
Regarding his critiques, this is also true. And nowhere do I disagree with Zinn on his critique of American power.
I *do* disagree with Howard on the issue of change, although not entirely.
For example, you ask me (I'm assuming sarcastically) if I'm ready for the AKs and molotovs. Well, it's not that simple, and there's no reason to be either that derisive or patronizing, especially if you're going to run around with the nick "socialist".
There are two components of resistance and rebellion: the first is the component of efficacy (will it work?) and the second is the moral component (are x methods necessary and morally justifiable to reach our goals?).
Where the American progressive movement is most in a quandary is the second half of that calculus, because it limits their options in the first component.
So to answer your first question, yes, I'm ready for molotovs and AKs, BUT the moral requirement for anyone believing in social justice is to make every authentic attempt to try non-violent tactics first. That seems fairly uncontroversial (except for principlled pacifists, who have thier own laundry to clean in any event). But what's hard is trying to soberly construct boundaries under which non-violence may transition to violence with moral legitimacy. That's what we're not doing, and in my opinion, this is what is giving the establishment the most comfort to be able to write off popular displays of disaffection. They are, in short, under no real threat.
Just as the state never takes any options off the table, neither should we. But we need to understand how much pressure is required to force power to concede, because short of that, the most you'll ever get are a few crumbs to keep things going.
My argument is pretty clear: Zinn has at other times been very critical, so controversial he is blacklisted from the MSM and even PBS, as is Chomsky and many others.
I see my half-sarcastic comment elicited a reacton and I largely agree. Now that you have articulated your point, I will join you in advocating non-violent civil disobedience first, which I believe can be highly effective. It seems to work fairly well in France, for example, however not in the UK. In the US, we have not seen any real protest in recent years (at least in terms of per capita rates), so it is difficult to make a judgement. It seems material conditions have not deteriorated enough to spur a critical mass of people into action. That day may come, despite every effort of diversion, propaganda, economic blackmail, and other tactics used by the Elite to keep the pot from boiling over
Socialist writes:
"My argument is pretty clear: Zinn has at other times been very critical, so controversial he is blacklisted from the MSM and even PBS, as is Chomsky and many others."
It's still not an argument for Zinn being right or wrong. As for being blacklisted from the MSM, I'll assume you'd agree with me the bar for such a thing is pretty low and not a major accomplishment.
"I will join you in advocating non-violent civil disobedience first, which I believe can be highly effective. It seems to work fairly well in France, for example, however not in the UK. In the US, we have not seen any real protest in recent years (at least in terms of per capita rates), so it is difficult to make a judgement."
This is the meat of your argument, and it's largely the argument you'll find in most liberal-left and soft-red circles. I'm not saying that with disresepct, either. It's Zinn's position, as well as Chomsky's.
What I'm asking you is to tell me and those you wish to get "on board" the protest/direct action train, what your standards are for opening up your options? What would *you* have to see to make you say "okay, this doesn't work, and we have an intrinsic right of rebellion". This is where I think we need to get some sort of agreement on. I'm not wasting another second on another ignored, polite, and marginalzied protest. I've concluded that this method has been thoroughly coopted by the state and the private sector.
I do think that there is still some good non-violent, direct action ground to be covered. I'm not a hothead (too old, too well read). But I also want to win, not be content with just demonstrating my moral superiority to the public.
Speaking of France, btw, the good guys are still losing there. No doubt they're holding on, and no one can do a riot like the French, but still...the French are not advancing in progress it seems. It looks more like they're fighting a bunch of grinding holding actions, which is opening up the landscape for the new racist politics of Sarkosczy and his ilk to divide workers (as it is doing here).
What say you?
Bottom line: we are stuck in a classic "collective action dilemma". Let someone else do the dirty work and we can benefit. A vicious cycle. A critical mass of people have not been hit hard enough to spur action, violent or peaceful. We as a country are still lazy, apathetic, ignorant, materialistic and selfish. Economic hardship may wake some from slumber.
The MSM yes, what about so-called public television? What about what Zinn writes in People's History? Have you read it?
The French have done quite a better job of maintaining social provisions than the UK or the US: compare health care systems; working hours; vacation time; distribution of income and wealth (Gini coefficient or other indicator) So, while utopia will never happen, they have us beat hands down on these issues.
I'm not ready for molotov's and AK's either. We can't even get true-blue progressives to vote for a candidate who stands for everything they agree with (Nader or McKinney) over a candidate who stands for almost nothing they believe in (Obama). Given that we can barely get people to attend a protest on a Sunday afternoon, I don't think we're ready for violence. Not that the elites don't deserve a revival of the guillotine.
"It seems material conditions have not deteriorated enough to spur a critical mass of people into action."
How true. We've all had loans, credit cards, and the cheap crap at Walmart to keep us placated. However, when the bottom gives out and large numbers of Americans are forced to live in third world conditions (Are we already there? Hurricane Katrina?) I'm afraid there is something in our culture that will still make a revolution of social justice impossible. We live in one of the most indoctrinated societies in the world (although we share that status with many other countries). It's hard to imagine the onset of extreme poverty making the average American more intelligent or better informed. Especially when some of our poorest communities are some of the most religious and right-wing. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Because the financial system looks dangerously close to collapse.
It's an interesting question though, what would it take to turn the American electorate into a citizenry that would vote for a Chavez, a Morales, a Correa, or an Ortega. Possibly it would take domestic death squads (a common thread in the Latin American countries where "change" took place), because a rapidly expanding police state and three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, not to mention deposing Aristide in Haiti, funding Israel's wars, funding the war in the Congo etc...) didn't faze them in terms of who they were willing to vote for.
Oregoncharles
How many progressives for single payer health care would all on the same day drop their health insurance?
Skip, you say, "But we need to understand how much pressure is required to force power to concede" -- which reminds me of a very revealing scene from the movie "Havana", wherein Raul Julia answers Robert Redford's question of why the revolutionaries actually need to fight the Batista proto-fascist regime that is fronting for the US gambling and corporatist Empire, and he answers:
"But they will not leave by asking NICELY"
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
I have the deepest respect for Mr. Zinn.
My only contribution would be what most of the readers have learned to expect from me.
America, if the election of Mr. Obama proved anything it proved that anything is possible in America. It also proved that until you remove the "money guys" from the political process, you will never have anything else than you started out with; a Plutocratic Oligarchy.
People voted for him for change---and they got change---but superficial change. The fact that nothing has changed that really means change for all of America seems to be ignored.
But now you have major problems---all of them of your own making, because you either did not recognize that your Plutocratic Oligarchy had "time limits" attached to it by the rest of humanity; or you just did not care. Your enemies have grown at your own insistence, and by your own creation.
The ones on the outside and the others that you owe vast sums of your precious "dollars" will simply cut off your credit lines and leave the slaughter---your slaughter---- to your "other enemies" and the most dangerous to you are the "home grown" enemies that you have nurtured yourself for several generations now---and they will most likely devour you.
You may have the time to make the needed changes---but this
observer does not give you the credit for having the courage or the integrity to make the changes----and so----
America, until you remove the 'money guys' from the political process, you will never have a democracy----and your Plutocratic Oligarchy is falling apart this very moment.
Your time is running out.
If not me, then my children's children's children will ride their horses through your empty cities, and you will have emptied them----------- all by yourselves.
Bring America Back !!!!..........Correct the title to read:
.....Changing Obama's Terrible Mindset.... is much better and accurate.
****So far, Team Obama has given us the third term of
King George and the Tyrants. No change for the better !
****To match that atrocity of a mindset, our own mentality
must be that this Prez gets only 4 years in Office, not 8 !
Or, less than 4 years, if an Impeach Obama mindset can be justified ! Continuing the war crimes is a war crime !
Jeevee
RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT! And again. RIGHT!!!!
I am taking the liberty of reproducing a comment from below that belongs here, with a footnote from Your Humble Narrator:
______________________________
DaveBronstein May 16th, 2009 2:03 pm
- Yeah, that's exactly right. Despite his long & admirable service to the cause, the Zinn article published on CD today is lousy, & suggests Howard is losing his touch. In the article, he sounds like a common liberal, not like someone who has come to analytical grips with the disgusting deficiencies of liberalism.
For a liberal, the main issue is simply whether the president seems like a "nice man." If he's a "nice man," he supposedly can be prevailed upon by "the people" to do the right thing.
This is a thoroughly false conception, as Zinn himself knows (or once knew). The president doesn't do what he does because of his personality or his "lovely family." He is selected by what is essentially a corporate-military system, & can only follow the dictates of that system. If he tries to disobey or challenge the dictates of that system, the system will promptly bring him down -- either by shooting him (JFK) or destabilizing his public image (Eliot Spitzer).
Furthermore, the idea that the president, if he's a "nice man," can be prevailed upon by the people to do the right thing -- this is utter horseshit. Too many weakling liberals are parroting the little anecdote about FDR supposedly saying, "OK, I agree with you -- now make me do it." This is all bullshit. The president of a corporate-military system CANNOT be prevailed upon to "change his mindset" by the people. The president of such a system is simply a frontman for that system. He cannot possibly get elected in the first place without convincing the dominant interests that he will reliably defend their interests. And once in office, he has no choice except to carry out the dictates of the system, under threat of being removed if he doesn't obey.
It is not in the interests of the corporate-military system to permit government leaders to "listen to the people," so we may be absolutely certain that any leader chosen by this system is not going to produce a leader who really listens. From the system's point of view, the best possible government figurehead is someone like Obama -- who on the one hand does a clever theatrical imitation of a potential "tribune of the people," but who in reality is utterly subservient to the real power-holders.
______________________________
OS: Sometimes dittoheadedness is thrust upon one; I again agree with Dave, who got here first.
I also want to emphasize that it is possible to disagree with Dr. Zinn's current opinions without losing affection and respect for him.
The same is true of Chomsky, another icon who is difficult to criticize without defenders assuming that disagreement evidences disrespect and even malice or rancor.
When I watched Zinn the other night with Amy Goodman, and Chomsky a week or so ago, I felt towards them as one might feel for a truly kind, wise, and lovable uncle or grandfather who is no fool, and who speaks with uncommon thoughtfulness, deep knowledge, and a stout heart.
Still, it's true that both Zinn and Chomsky are ever-so-faintly "organization men" in the sunset of their distinguished careers. Nowhere near Establishment apologists, to use a term which has regained currency. But men who have, after all, worked in and for Establishment institutions for decades.
There's a certain instinctive or unconscious comity and politic demeanor that is universally present in academics-- even "gadflies".
So I continue to look forward to their opinions, and continue to reject those opinions on their merits, if warranted, without rejecting the men.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Very well stated, O.S., and Bronstein too.
Ageed ,A clasic case of hopefull projection.Something I am guilty of as well as my mentors Zinn and Chomsky.We still need to hold the President accountable and call him on broken campaign promises. peace
While O'Bamba is by default loyal to his current masters, the elites, that obedience may be easily broken by a critical mass of people pressure. Easily, because the Demok party claims to serve the people. Despite the party's miserable failure to uphold this claim, it will lurch back opportunistically at the first moment it detects an imminent change of masters, when it hears the dull thud of the battery ram to the gates. A few royal acrobats will do handstands and cartwheels, the media will crank up the circus music, and throngs of elites will race offshore with boatloads of booty. But O'Bamba will serve the people if/when the people decide to compel him, though they should instead dismiss him and run the government themselves, as most of the tools are available. But none of this will happen while their credit cards still work, and they can still realize their dreams of new $30,000 bathroom upgrades.
There was a plan when Obama was voted in. First off, Bush and his party were unbearable, if the Republicans had won because the independents had split off onto different candidates (such as: McKinney, Nader and Dr. Paul) the neo-cons would have won the election, again... And yes, some people would feel great because of their clear conscious while the neverending war would continue to be pushed down their throats.
We voted for Obama because he was the next logical step. Now that people are getting fed up with Obama's unwillingness to follow through with what was expected of him, it is time to go for the candidate which embodies the dream of most Americans, that of a society where we are not at war, where we are not at the mercy of government surveillance, a society where we use common sense instead of pandering to interest groups when we make decisions. At the moment, the internet is opening up possibilities for this type of model, the truth exists, logic is logical and it is only a matter of time before direct democracy becomes a viable solution in the world. We can see that governments, especially in Europe have been threatened by this possibility and therefore are creating rules to govern and monitor web usage in order to keep power in the hands of the few interest holders.
We need to start making demands.
Iraq needs to be ended, its not difficult.
Afghanistan needs to be ended, everyone knows that Osama is dead and that should bring about a quick end to the regime there. We have to realize as a people that our best weapon against tyranny is the truth and openness, we have to wield it and make sure it is heeded in all corners of the planet, when this happens, petty governments will not be able to rule over the enlightened masses.
The biggest threat to our Common Dreams is mass surveillance which is already generally accepted in the USA, there are many European countries where this battle is being fought and I feel that I stand on the front lines in Sweden, though I really do plan on moving back to the states in a short while.
Now is the time to apply pressure to Mr. Obama, he is starting to falter in the face of Republican pressure and this is unnecessary and wrong. We need to restore the Constitution and restore personal integrity at all levels. Its time for a massive protest to show that we are not pleased with the current turns of events, we are not pleased with a compromised Constitution and we are not pleased with being at War on the other side of the planet because of a Texan plant.
Sorry about planting this comment again, I just need it to be heard.
where do you start? Mind control in this country is pretty complete, disassociation from reality, I know folks who will argue in favor of the forces that are destroying them and then wonder why we're all going down...the veils need to fall and people need to see where they are truly standing...but it won't happen until everyone is starving, out of work, denied health care, and money stops flowing uphill, because until then, the media has us all down for 'hunky dory', unless of course something is 'wrong' with you..."must be one of those socialistic gay commies huh?"
The problem is if we get rid of Obama, what other choice can our system offer us? Gingrich? Palin? No one will get any press or air time if they don't toe the line, we have seen that time and time again.
Turnabout Is What It'll Take
"Why?
"Time is running out."
"Based on?"
"Perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday."
"The answer being?"
"That we rise up en masse."
"And do what?"
"Turn our world into a place where there are no wars no more, nowhere, never, not even one; where each of us is in charge of his (or her) own destiny and where there are no have-nots nor left-outs."
"And the role of President Obama and the other politicans in bringing this about?"
"Go along or get out of our way."
"Based on?"
"Yes we can."
Obama walked into the top job as a new cog in a machine fueled by money. That money, more than any other entity, has his ear. This state of affairs has been a long time in the making. And the wheels at the top do their utmost to preserve it. It's all they know. It's all they can embrace.
The ordinary citizen is acutely aware of the disconnect between himself and his government. And this usually precludes any chances of action on his part.
Effective citizen protest is unlikely. There is far too much fear. Even nonviolent actions are not tolerated. The US' pre-emptive war doctrine extends even into domestic policy. We have always shot first and questioned afterwards; though today there is no questioning, just an assumption of intent to disrupt business as usual. Given how brittle and fragile is the public mood and the level of peace, any disruption of "normal" proceedings is cause for police action. Look at the recent Senate meeting on health care. A handful of people who spoke out for single-payer were immediately taken from the room by police as Max Baucus joked about needing more police. Talk about a country-club mindset: the US Senate is absolutely corrupt.
The thing is, national consciousness has got to change. How that change will come is anyone's guess. Without catastrophe, the change will come gradually. It's not hopeless because there are so many changes in the works that are simply beyond the ken of simple-minded politicians. Oil, energy, the environment, the emergence of new centers of power and new ways of doing things, including business and all its aspects—the rug is being pulled out from under the prevailing order so quickly that the only thing these moneyed interests can do is try to hold on to what they've got.
Change is inevitable. Let's hope it is orderly and not too destructive.
Oregoncharles
Obama didn't "walk in," he was "placed in." There's a difference.
Arundhati said: Why play their game where they make all the rules and have all the power. Why not identify where our own power lies and design our own power game?
How many progressives would stop paying their health insurance plans for a few months?
a populace that will allow itself to be herded into "free speech zones" isn't ready to change the system, by whatever means.
utah phillips put it this way:
"freedom isn't something that somebody gives you. it's something you're born with, something you assume, like your eyes or your nose.
"some day, somebody may try to take your freedom away. the degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free."
Zinn is largely on target. Obama is good on many progressive issues but less good on Wall St,and Afghanistan. But he knew how to get ELECTED. Lets remind him where we stand on the big issues.
Oregoncharles
shach
Please list the things on which Obama is Progressive. Please do not include rhetorical "things."
Thanks.
The Part Zinn Got Right ...
"That’s been the story of this country. Where progress has been made, wherever any kind of injustice has been overturned, it’s been because people acted as citizens, and not as politicians. They didn’t just moan. They worked, they acted, they organized, they rioted if necessary to bring their situation to the attention of people in power. And that’s what we have to do today."
The Other Part ...
Howard Zinn has a much more benign picture of who Obama is than I do ... I believe Obama is doing exactly what the Banksters and the Military Industrial Complex want him to do ... I believe Obama is a front for TPTB and the work and the organizing and the rioting will have to be enormous, involve tens of millions of people and may even result in a police state.
Let's face it, we already have fascism light. Severe crony-capitalism, giving the banksters trillions and the people peanuts, secret surveilance of our lives, secret no-fly, no hire lists, police departments already enlisted and trained as storm troopers armed with assault rifles and "no tell" warrant-less search and seizures.
I see a much bleaker picture than Zinn. The economy is crashing yet the lies about green shoots and recovery keep on coming. Those in the know are squeezing the last drops of blood out of the people.
Zinn has the right ideas for action but to be honest I think there is a better than 50% chance we'll end up with a police state. The PTB know that the stakes are too high, the threat to their power and wealth too great to chance anything but a brutal, repressive fascist response.
Until we meet in the streets ... " buena suerte"
Oregoncharles
Why go to "the streets" where you can be zapped by tasers, tear gas, and rubber bullets. Can you be arrested for not going to work for a couple of days? for dropping your helath insurance plan?
But I thought we had freedom of assembly and freedom of speech guaranteed by something called a Constitution. Oh, I forgot that it is only for the ruling classes and corporations.
I agree, if everyone called and cancelled their "health" insurance plan; those that still had jobs called a general strike including police, fire, teachers, as well as the workers who build the weapons systems at Raytheon, GE, Lockheed Martin, Boeing et al. That would get someone's attention very quickly. The problem is collective action.
Right - the problem is there is no solidarity in this country. It isn't even a value. Rugged individualism -- hell, we don't even think we should have to take care of our parents when they get old. Indeed, we are under no obligation whatsoever. The problem is we all benefit from the system we deplore.
This concept -- depriving ourselves of healthcare to get healthcare for all, plunging ourselves into financial ruin (strikes) to fight corporate power -- I don't see that happening. And the corporate/political establishment won't go down peacefully, that's for sure.
However, if we somehow managed to organize ourselves within our communities to take care of our own needs, if instead of trying to change the world, we simply created a new one -- we could possibly just make them irrelevant.
But first, we need solidarity. I am starting to think the first, most radical act we could do toward this end would be to pull our kids out of school. Refuse to indoctrinate them further, and teach them the values of community, working together and taking care of our home -- the real skills they need to create a peaceful, sustainable world.
I agree that going to the streets is virtually useless. I say "virtually" because it does have its merits, but it's not the solution... or even a big part of it. What has worked in the past no longer works as power has become more and more concentrated.
What we need to do are all things that none of us can be prevented from doing or arrested for. We need to change people's minds and inform people through personal dialogs.
But in addition WE MUST start building an alternative to the system. The system will take care of itself in the long run. We all know the inevitable outcome is collapse... it's just a question of when. We can't reform something that's intrinsically wrong in every way and is built on a flawed view of humanity's place in the world.
Rather than focusing on all that is wrong with the system and getting swept up in this left vs. right political nonsense, we need to build local self-sufficient community structures to provide for our basic needs. Food. Shelter. Healthcare. Even entertainment. The sooner we start providing all of these things for ourselves on a community level, the sooner the corporate machine will grind to a halt. None of us will have any use for it anymore.
Part of the problem is that there are now laws on the books, thanks to the Patriot Act, that make any act that threatens the status quo an act of terrorism. And they have deputized a massive citizen militia with authority to shoot to kill in order to protect "vital infrastructure" -- so, I suppose if you tried to shut the freeway down, block the ports, the borders, etc. (all the stuff they do in France -- and they don't do it for a day -- they do it for weeks, sometimes even months!), you can get arrested, you can even be killed. Hell, we saw during the RNC convention, the kids who were just planning basic civil disobedience acts and support services for activists were rounded up and arrested having done NOTHING at all. We do live in a police state. We just don't notice it so much because everyone is so frickin' compliant.
And I see we think alike on the answer! We can all learn from the Zapatistas!
Let me know when Zinn starts to talk about re-investigasting 9/11 and throws away that gate key..then I'll start to deal with his "pseudo naivete".
That is beyond Zinn's expertise and capacity (no offense, but how old is he now?). Leave that to David Ray Griffin, check him out on youtube.
I'm very familiar with DRG. My point is that Zinn is a gatekeeper like Amy and Nohm. Thanks....
Get some DVDs at 911DVDproject.com and check out
ae911truth.org.....and if you have the time, consider.........
http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral
_Damage_911.pdf