EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
Popular content
Today's Top News
Squandered Opportunity
After his brilliant beginning, the president suddenly looks weak and
unreliable. That will be the common interpretation around Washington of
the president's abrupt retreat on
substantive heathcare reform. Give
Barack Obama a hard shove, they will say, rough him up a bit and he
folds. A few weeks back, the president was touting a "public option"
health plan as an essential element in reform. Now he says, take it or
leave it. Whatever Congress does, he's okay with that
The White House quickly added confusion to the outrage by insisting the
president didn't really say anything new. He's just being flexible. He
still wants what most Democrats want--a government plan that gives
people a real escape from the profit-driven clutches of the insurance
companies. But serious power players will not be fooled by the nimble
spinners. Obama choked. He raised the white flag, even before the fight
got underway in Congress.
He hands the insurance industry a huge victory. He rewards the right-wing frothers who have been calling him Adolph Hitler or Dr. Death. He caves to the conservative bias of the major media who insist only bipartisan consensus is acceptable for big reform (a standard they never invoked during the Bush years). Obama is deluded if he thinks this will win him any peace or respect or Republican votes. Weakness does not lead to consensus in Washington. It leads to more weakness. The Party of No intends to bring him down and will pile on. Obama has inadvertently demonstrated their strategy of vicious invective seems to be working.
Barack Obama mainly did this to himself. To avoid the accusation of socialized medicine, he intentionally shrouded his objectives in bureaucratic euphemisms like "public option." What the hell does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. The vagueness allowed anyone to fill in the blanks and anxious people did so in apocalyptic ways. The original idea, after all, was making something similar to Medicare available to anyone between childhood and old age who was either shut out by high prices or abused by insurance companies policing the system. This approach--call it Medicare Basic--would in theory give government the greater leverage needed to control the price inflation and reshape the system in positive ways. If you told people "public option" was a Medicare equivalent, the polls would demonstrate the popularity. Instead, that objective is now at risk. The right still calls Obama a covert socialist.
There is a more cynical interpretation of Obama's flexibility. He is coming out right about where he wanted to be. Forget the good talk, it is said, this president never really intended to do deep reform that truly alters the industrial power structure dominating our dysfunctional healthcare system. He just wanted minimalist reforms he could sell as "victory." Not until years later would people figure out that nothing fundamental had been changed.
In this scenario, Obama has always been more comfortable with the center-right forces within the Democratic party--Senator Max Baucus and the Blue Dogs--and the Clintonistas of DLC lineage who now fill his administration. His real political challenge was to string along the liberals with reassuring talk until they were stuck with lousy choices-- either go along with this popular president's pale version of reform or take him on and risk ruining his presidency. This sounds a lot like the choices Democrats faced during the Clinton years. Candidate Obama said it was "time to turn the page." We are still waiting to see what he meant.
I do not subscribe to the manipulative, deceptive portrait (not yet), but you can find lots of supporting evidence in Obama's behavior. His response to the financial crisis demonstrates a clear desire to restore Wall Street power, not to change it. His war strategy in Afghanistan looks like the familiar trap of open-ended counterinsurgency. The trap may soon close on him when the generals announce their need for more troops. Will this president dare to say no? Obama negotiated a truly ugly deal with the pharmaceutical industry--a promise not to use government bargaining power to bring down drug prices. His lieutenants still yearn to demonstrate "fiscal responsibility' by taxing the health-care benefits of union members or whacking Social Security.
In other words, this is really a decisive test for the Democratic party and its main constituencies. Will they go along with the president or push back and reject his misdirections? The burden will fall mainly on Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House majority. They will be under intense pressure from the White House to stay "on message" with the president. Organized labor seems to be breaking out of the go-along passivity. Richard L. Trumka, soon to be president of the AFL-CIO, promises to blackball Blue Dogs or anyone else who double-crosses the working people who faithfully financed their election campaigns.
Taking the high road will be hard and divisive. But maybe this is at last the season when Democrats reveal which side they are on.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
67 Comments so far
Show AllObama , along with the rest of the Democrats will have to make a choice. LEFT or Right.
there is no "in between" or straddling the fence.
Fence Straddlers only end up IMPALING themselves, then falling to the right side where the Right Drags them and Cannibalizes them.
that's how US Economics works.
I don't get this-
Greider writes
"I do not subscribe to the manipulative, deceptive portrait (not yet), but you can find lots of supporting evidence in Obama's behavior"
Then proceeds to itemize the evidence, adding
"this is really a decisive test for the Democratic party and its main constituencies. Will they go along with the president or push back and reject his misdirections?"
Well, if Greider doesn't "subscribe" to what the evidence clearly tells him, then how can he make a decision?
Good article, though.
I think that Greider is trying to say - perhaps a bit too nicely - that Obama is not so much a liar as an incompetent.
Gee, I guess that there's really no nice way to say that.
q
Free translation of this article:
Are Obama and the Democrats the cowardly lions or the cynical foxes in the way they have messed up the effort for health care reform?
I think they're just cowardly and only need to find a backbone to stand up to those who oppose the program...and
I don't think (yet) that they are being cynically manipulative in allowing to fail a program they're pushing but really hope will fail. (though there's some evidence of that.)
Go, team, go!
End of translation; did I miss anything?
"End of translation; did I miss anything?"
Only one very simple truth:
It is always better to be someone's Daddy than it is to be their bitch.
Obama is deluded
He is much more than deluded. Also much less. A coward with a monstrous ego. Quite a combination. Kind of like George Wanker Bush.
His slaughter-in-Afghanistan-is-a-necessary-war babble is right out of the G Wanker Bush playbook. Amazing that they have the same puppet masters speech writers.
Hi RichM--I too was rather confused by Bill's "brilliant" remark. But I won't go and call him an appologist; at least, not yet.
Sioux Rose
KARLOF. I will! (Call him an apologist).
RICH M: Great analysis as always! You definitely have helped me to see through the morass and recognize the flaws in other commentators' thinking when they give anyone with a D after their name a free pass. It's almost surreal, same policies but so long as Obama enacts them, all kinds of excuses, apologies, and delayed judgments are offered. The evidence on hand would work for a very funny SNL parody. Through humor people might be able to see and recognize what their otherwise team-programmed knee JERK reactions otherwise blindside them to NOT noticing. I hope the SNL team does an enactment!
Hi Sioux Rose--I find it difficult to call Bill an appologist because in the corpus of his writings he hasn't shrunk from calling Democrats to the carpet, nor does he at the end of his essay. I took the step to email Bill at The Nation to allow him the opportunity of explaining his "brilliant" remark. I just reread that sentence, and it seems he's referring to Obama's deciciveness, not his policies. It may even be sarcastic. As a former writing instructor, I would give Bill a hard time over his choice of topic sentences, although it does relate to the point he's trying to make in that first paragraph. Perhaps our knees jerk to rapidly?
On one point, Bill is 100% correct, unless the bill(s) never comes up for a vote: we will soon find out who sides with the People's interest and who our enemies are, although I would also say that this point has already been decided as seen by who cosponsored Kucinich's Single Payer HR676.
In his book, "Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy," Greider says that Americans were sold out by both parties, but had yet to recognize this fact, especially when it comes to Democrats, and that work was published in 1992. Apparantly, he, like us, learned that you cannot tell folks they've been sold out; rather, they must discover that for themselves; otherwise, we're just wasting our time and energy. A whole new generation has attained voting age since he started working on that book--the generation that helped push Obama over the electoral top--and it is they, not us, who need to learn for themselves which side the Democrats are on. I knew in 1992 and voted Perot. I don't support Obama one iota; you well know I've called him Public Enemy #1 from day one of his presidency and for good reason, which is a sentiment I think you, and many others, share. What I see happening now is a charade made for public consumption to obscure the Imperial game. If the Union died, Corporadoes would lose a lot of power, as the Union facilitates their existence. The Union hasn't worked for its citizens for well over 130 years--since 1876; longer some would say. I would say that Greider did once tell the people, but the people didn't want to hear, which explains his cryptic style of writing as he's probably more cynical than either of us.
I know the book and I recommended it to people, actually buying several copies and giving them as gifts. Your post above is also spot on and an accurate description of the political mentality of the majority of Americans: they prefer ignorance rather than learning the facts of the matter. If the public can't comprehend plain, direct talk on how they are being screwed by the powers that be, than very few will understand his cryptic style of writing.
Everything hard fought for since the 1930's is being dismantled and the ruling-elite are establishing a feudal authoritarian society and most of the public still hasn't figured out the game plan yet.
It is time for William Greider and others to start shouting from the rooftops about the sellout of the people by the deceptive Democrats who betray them time after time. And the term, "blue dog" is an insult to my canine friends. How about "collaborators" with the Republic Crime Family of goose-steppers, instead?
RichM: First post of yours is excellent! You detailed it very well!
And the answer to karlof1 is spot on!
I have read some of Mr. Greider's works over the years, and admire him, but it seems this obsession of Obama and the Democrats as an alternative to reactionary Republicans has even gotten to Mr. G.
Why are so many people in denial over Obama and his party's direction? I hear excuses everyday from Democratic loyalists.
This is a continuation of the Bush/Cheney Crime Family with a slightly different cast. Mr. Greider knows the score. I'm surprised he's so tolerant.
Is this the change people had hoped for?
It seems to me that the reason so many liberals refuse to believe that 'one of their own' would sell them out is because the inevitable conclusion - that we live in a fascistic state where unelected CEOs are actually calling the shots - is unacceptable.
Not here! Not in the 'greatest democracy' in the world!!!
Sioux Rose
KARLOF: I was an English teacher (high school) and a creative writing teacher, too. I just do NOT have any faith left in either Obama or 90% of the democrats. Sell-out after sell-out stops falling into categories of accident, coincidence, or mistake when the pattern becomes the norm. I have to go with Rich on this one. But like Huck Finn, I wish we could "say it ain't so."
A fine summary of Obama's policy failings. Trouble is, people really don't vote for candidates on the basis of policy. It's all identity politics.
Obama was able to convince blacks, Hispanics, and educated whites that he stood for them. It doesn't matter what policies he espouses--the only thing that matters is that people forge that connection between the political leader and themselves. Hell, he could end affirmative action and the blacks that voted for him wouldn't care. They would vote for him anyway. He connects with them. Same with women, same with those against these damnable wars. Everyone will give him a break since he connects with them.
All politicians know this. They know policies and promises have less to do with getting elected than creating that persona that attracts the required demographics. No matter what this president does, the resulting policies will be framed in such a way as to attract the people that Democrats going trolling for when it comes election time. It never fails.
You think he connects?
More like he was a pop culture product, but I don't sense any depth of connection there.
To be fair, Rich, perhaps the "beginning" was before Obama actually got his foot in the door. From the moment he won, before he was even inaugurated, it was an accelerated decline. In some ways, winning was the end for candidate Obama. Doesn't it seem, even now, that he is still in campaign mode--like that was the only skill he has? Okay, I am going to admit something embarrassing here. I can't really listen to Obama in the same way I couldn't watch Bush, but I can listen to Bill Clinton. I don't like him, but I can listen to him talk. I am so ashamed. LOL!
I think the "brilliant beginning" was mostly a sort of nice standard form that you see when someone writes about someone else that isn't commonly seen as really terrible(like grotesque serial killers). Usually from a writing POV it is considered a way to get people who are in favor of the individual/group that you are calling to carpet less dismissive if you say something nice about what it is that you are calling to the carpet.
There is an old saying: Why dazzle them with brilliance, when you can baffle them with bullsh*t? The reality, it works far better dazzle them with brilliant showmanship, so they might not see the bullsh*t due to the glare. Obama's brilliance is is showmanship. How many believed his message of hope, when his campaign positions were not as bad as Hilary's, which were not as bad as McCain's. It is correct he has accomplished little of importance.
I think the best thing that could happen is for angry mobs of real American progressives and other who want healthcare for all to start showing up in front of insurance companies. Would the MSN even cover that? It is just not enough to virtually organize via the web.
The left needs to show that it represents the majority opinion here.
This is NOT the change I voted for.
Obama is proving himself to be another gutless, spineless Democrat.
From now on, I will vote GREEN party.
Welcome to the club. I decided that way years ago. I don't fall for the line my 1 vote will make a difference in a large election, so I vote my choice. If my candidate has no chance, well at least my vote is more likely to be counted and not switched by some machine.
Maybe we are mistaken and the majority doesn't want this health insurance or care reform regardless of which interests are propogandizng what?
It's all diversionary tactics. When is enough enough?? Single payer or march.
Obama's scam of a public health care plan without the 'public option', matches his collapse of an anti-war plan without the 'anti', and exactly matches his Wall Street crooks reform without the 'reform'.
This dog don't hunt. (Period)
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
(a confident, four-time Nader voter, whose time is coming round at last --- for real revolution against this two-party 'Vichy' facade that has the arrogance to call itself democracy)
"I do not subscribe to the manipulative, deceptive portrait (not yet), but you can find lots of supporting evidence in Obama's behavior." –(William Grieder)
William Grieder is a smart guy, but with statements like thIs he throws that laudatory assessment and any presumption of intelligence, out the window and into the scrap heap; sadly, this applies in spades to the degeneration of "The Nation Magazine" as a critical voice on the left. If Grieder hasn't "yet" seen where Obama is coming from, (or more accurately, been all along), one wonders when that epiphanic moment will descend and enlighten him! Perhaps the unapologetic descent into some variant of Neo-fascism, all under the benign auspices of the Democratic party will finally dong his addled brain? The basal, bottom line adherence to the Democratic party (despite any hypocritical misgivings he may proclaim) has rendered William Grieder and his parent sponsor magazine all but irrelevant, if not non-sensical. –(Jill Bains)
This may be a ploy to get the Nation to publish the article, and the result a product of self or editorial censorship. Or it might not be.
Mr. Greider,
Thank you again for getting to the point about Obama and what is happening in the country. I have been an Obama supporter, but absent meaningful change in health policy, this marks the end of any honeymoon I've granted him. He seems unable to stand up to the right-wing jerks that dominate the media. He still seems to foster the incredibly naive idea that there are no 'evil' people in America.. and they'll all eventually compromise on these policy matters.
Alas. He is a weak president. It is a shame that he is the best the Democrats can do.
I've voted Socialist or Green before. I'll do it again if the time comes.
I am surprised to see William Greider "pussy footing" through the tulips of capitalism. Is he getting soft on capitalism?
The issue is the greed of capitalism, period. We need to take the greed of capitalism out of the health care system. This is the issue most Americans do not want to hear.
As a nation, the middle working class can no longer afford to make the rich richer, whether it is in the Health Care industry, the banking system or the Defense industry.
In response to several comments, I put Grieder in a group of Amerikan pundits, many regularly published here, who have s-l-o-w-l-y begun to wake up, or at least publicly admit that they are waking up, but are still struggling in a hypnagogic state.
I frankly don't feel like taking the trouble of Naming Names, much less pulling references from the archives. I believe that most comments readers are pretty familiar with the stance.
It's a demonstration of cognitive dissonance. Or perhaps, like grief, enlightenment passes through several phases. They're at that struggling stage where they still want to go back to sleep and dreams.
Over and over, these articles detail increasingly problematic or troubling behavior by Obama and his team. Sometimes they even reference explicit outcomes which will either vindicate faith in Obama's ability or demolish it.
But like Weebles®, they wobble but they never fall down. Or perhaps they're Bizarro Weebles®, who wobble but never stand up straight.
That is, regardless of mounting evidence that Obama is not the super-competent, trans-partisan pragmatist advertised, these writers always refuse to concede that Obama's already past his sell-by date.
As with the health care debacle, even after various Moments of Reckoning, they always present the scenario as if Obama is heading on a dubious course, but still has time to recover and succeed.
In short, they're stuck in "hysterical optimism", or "mocktimism"; none of them wants to be the first to step up and say, "He REALLY blew it THIS time!"
So, while part of their heads are still on straight, they can't help but pepper their sanity with outrageous delusions like "brilliant beginning" any more than an unmedicated Tourette's sufferer can help interjecting profane utterances into their speech.
· Yr Obd't Servant
YOS: You don't want to take the trouble of naming names about the kind of Obama attitude displayed by William Greider. I have had no such reticence, as I listed (in an article back in May) Greider among quite a few other names of people afflicted with the disease of "subjunctivitis," the main symptom of which is the tendency to confuse their wishes with their analyses of reality. Based on the current article, I'm not sure Mr. Greider has recovered from that ailment.
http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/?p=240
Well, Hell! As you doubtless knew, the Names you Named are exactly the ones I was too lazy to retrieve and enumerate.
(BTW, I was surprised by the reference to Roy Clark's work; until now, I was only familiar with his appearances on "Hee-Haw". He's a helluva picker, ain't he?)
I encourage visitors to read Jerry's fine article, and the condition of "subjunctivitis" which concisely analyzes the pathology under discussion.
And it isn't getting better.
Sadly, Paul Krugman has apparently contracted double subjunctivitis, and has been relying on a Portugese water dog loaned by the government to research his commentaries.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Hope springs eternal.
;-)
Absolutely spot on!
When you look at Obama's record, I think the cynical view is the appropriate one.
His policies aren't one iota different from Bush's whether it's imperial warfare, shielding war criminals or rewarding the banksters for destroying the financial system.
He's about giving away the farm to the ruling elite and sticking us with the bill for back taxes.
United Health will be the new Goldman Sachs if this health care Trojan Horse makes it through congress.
i'm in the process of reading the secrets of the temple.
last year in september in i had the extreme pleasure of listening
to william naomi klein and chris hedges at the brecht forum
here in nyc. talk about collective brains intelligence
and most importantly the facts as they expounded on the
fate and state of america and the world. there were some
other very smart folks on the panel but these three are
in a class by themselves. some rightwingers who made two mistakes. first showing up and more importantly trying to
engage these three in dialogue.they were put thru. the
proverbial shredder and actually added some humor by getting
eaten alive by william. this is one of the toughest reporters
i've seen in a city where everyone has a thick hide. william
ought to run for office and pick a seat where he intimately
knows all of his opponents dark secrets crimes and misdemeanors
and eats them alive. america could really use a man of
williams intellect and integrity at the most trying and
darkest hour in our history.
This is late, but I wanted you to know that I agree with you about William Greider, Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges. I read everything I can get my hands on, and attend whatever panel discussions I can that feature any or all of them.
Several years ago, I read Secrets of the Temple. For me, the book was a page-turner! A few days ago, I finished reading the new Chris Hedges book, The Illusion of Empire.
I wasn't able to go to the Brecht Forum on the evening you mention, however, in the past, I have attended some of their events.
"I do not subscribe to the manipulative, deceptive portrait..."
It's about time WG accepted the ugly truth:
"Frankly, they (Big Bankster, Insurance, Drug, Energy, Military) own the place (our government.)"
BO was hired by the owners of the place to insure the place continues to line their pockets with unearned gold.
The problem isn't BO - BO is doing what BO was hired to do. The problem is all the 'liberals' and 'progressives' who simply refuse to catch the next flight out of hope+change fantasyland...
Exactly.
The only thing I find somewhat entertaining and amusing about President Obama and his crisis management PR is that they are dancing so hard and fast you can barely see their legs move.
They know their, so called, "moment" has passed. They are just doing triage for their corporate bosses.
All we heard about during the election was the record breaking amount Obama received from small donors. Now all we hear about is how much corporate cash he received like the millions he received from the people never happened.
No one anticipated Obama would be this bad across the board. I didn't even think Clinton would be this bad and I expected worse from her. At least she isn't a coward. At least she avoided the lobotomy they gave Mrs Bush and now, Mrs Obama--discussing her favorite children's books- which sounds like a Laura project.
It is like Obama was playing the role, but when it came time to apply it to the real world his 15 minutes were up. This bipartisan campaign is inappropriate for this moment in time and space and that moment is being squandered by his ego-driven fantasy of being a sacred vessel of unity at a time when the Right needs to be put in its place for the sake of the county, not coddled for your vanity, Mr President. Actually, of all Democrats, Howard Dean is a better fit and Obama ostricized him. Got to hand it to Dean though, it doesn't stop him. I don't agree with Dean on everything, but I can respect him. Obama is incompetent, cowardly, corporate, corrupt,complicit, elitist, out of sync and out of touch.
We've seen the hope -- now where's the audacity?
sierra7
This is my latest letter-to-editor:
"The Democratic Party, the incoming Obama Administration bleated “change” to the American voters. They would clean house of the horrible execution of the presidency by the outgoing Bush Team.
Our “American Empire” continues it’s overt and covert war(s), renditions and the ensuing torture, holding individuals in prisons regardless of whether they have been charged or not with a crime, giving those who precipitated in the economic mess the reins to bring us out with no new ideas whatsoever except to begin building another bubble to crash in the near future, increasing our overly bloated military machine while we now are cutting back those necessary parts of a good democracy like education, support for the unfortunate and condemning Universal Single-Payer Health Care to the trash bin without any good, healthy debate.
We have the “staging” of “town hall” meetings that are pre-empted by picture slides and ground rules to stifle debate, and probably a “salted” audience in opposition to true health-care reform.
Business Week (a true “lefty” rag 8-17-09) says that the insurance industry is already giving hi-fives and celebrating.
I’m reminded by my friends who oppose my views that, “….things can’t change overnight.” But, when all is said and done, this political party in charge will leave no stone unturned to maintain the grasp of power over the people. (Disclosure: I’m a registered no-partisan voter)
To have true “change”, and at least a good debate about change we need more political parties to grow and challenge the two-party “American Exceptionalism” theory whereby our leaders are always right and the American people are just “children.”
That is monarchy and political mediocrity.
Maybe we need some anarchy.
********************************************************************
“You do not cut deals with the system that has to be replaced, which is the health insurance system and the monster costs imposed by the drug corporations, all of which are getting huge taxpayer subsidies, by the way.” Ralph Nader at:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23268.htm
I'm a registered non partisan voter.
I read William Grieder's Secrets of the Temple when it was first published in 1987, and it remains well within..."..arm's reach."
William Grieder if you have carefully listened to him over the years has become more and more cynical regarding this "...great democracy." And, he has been very outspoken about his views.
Regarding his writing for "The Nation" he is a writer and he needs a venue....all writer's have "qualifying" phraseology so as to be published.
(I stopped reading The Nation (and listening to NPR) way back during the lead up of the "first Persian Gulf War" perpetrated by Bush the First, the "other family criminal."
We need a "firewall" between the forces of capital and the progressive needs (not necessarily the "desires") of society. Marx and Adam Smith essentially stated the same. Until this happens we will have to fight for every little bit of social progress. That's America.
Well said by Mr. Greider. This is a defining moment for Obama and the democratic party. Legislation without a public option is meaningless. Better wait til we are ready to pass medicare for all or something similar.
"After his brilliant beginning, the president suddenly looks weak and unreliable."
Is this The Nation's editorial consensus? President Obama's weakness and unreliability were amply evident long before the election, when he aided the Bush administration in promoting the Wall Street bailout.
"I do not subscribe to the manipulative, deceptive portrait (not yet), but you can find lots of supporting evidence in Obama's behavior." –(William Grieder)
If that "subscription" was a magazine, it would have over one hundred million subscribers by now.
But I think I follow you, Mr. Grieder. You are telling the Obama team that you WILL subscribe to it in your next article. You are just laying it out there. Nice signal. But these guys are from Chicago. You might get a phone call soon. If you do, yell and scream about it in your next article. Don't let them bully you.
Maybe not.
Maybe he is just threatening to start a fire.
The interesting thing about Obama with all his soliciting of the Right and his hollow unity banter is he is hostile to the Left - and the truth be told, on the issues, the majority are actually on the Left. As Obama regresses (squanders) his approval rating is falling. What they don't tell you is the Republicans approval rating is falling even further. For the first time last night, I actually heard a MSM pundit discuss the possibility of an emerging third party.
Obama needs his ass kicked.
How can anyone think that Obama or anybody can save us from a system so meticulously designed to enhance the power of the oligarchy at public expense that it is practically foolproof?
A system that makes us blame ourselves for Mammon's depredations, sets us at each other's throats, gives us puppets to throw darts at instead, gives us the MSM to distract us, that keeps us drunk, sedated, imprisoned, uneducated, unhealthy, working two jobs in wage slavery and too tired and complacent to revolt against these parasites?
,,,,,and our churches and universities are part of "the system".
Absolutely. They are the Propaganda and Indoctrination Systems. And I second the point that it's the whole culture. Just look at how atomized the US is compared to Italy or Greece. Such atomization increases the effectiveness of divide and conquer strategies that capitalize on the fear of the unknown, the Other. The situation would be vastly different if the USA were 50 individual, independent states.
Currently, I am reading a new book written by Chris Hedges, The Illusion of Empire, and he discusses, in depth, the issues you raise in your e-mail, backing them up with substantial reserach. Mr. Hedges links all of these issues and how they effect our lives.
I'm not here to sell his book. In fact, I'm reading it, chapter-by-chapter, sitting on the floor of Barnes & Noble, and taking notes. Laura Flanders interviewed Mr. Hedges on GritTV, but she kept referring to hope. Hedges told her that illusions, and hope, don't mean much if we fail to recognize the truth, which means, of course, reality. Unless we embrace reality, we can't begin to make changes.
I agree! The problems in our society are systemic, as you stated in your post.
Several years ago, I read William Greider's book, The Secret of the Temple, and I began to understand the problems with economic policy in this country and the fact that I always felt strapped, no matter how good a job I had. I have recommended the book to countless friends, and their eyes always seem to become glazed as I talk. For me, the book was a page-turner. The historical context, beginning with the establishment of the Fed in 1913, is important to understand. Maybe, you've read the book. So began my economic education. If more people had a better understanding of economic policy, they would be more likely to stand up to the injustices that are created by the policies, put in place by our own elected officials, Democrats and Republicans.