EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Mystique of 'Free-Market Guy' Obama
No matter what the facts are, some liberal activists and leaders persist in seeing President Obama as a principled progressive reformer who lives and breathes the campaign rhetoric about "change you can believe in."
When he compromises, it's not Obama's fault - it's the opposition. Retreat is never a sell-out but a shrewd tactic, part of some secret long-range strategy for triumphant reform.
He's been in the White House eight months. It's time for activists take a harder look at Obama. And a more assertive posture toward him.
Because if Obama believes it's okay to pass healthcare "reform" that subsidizes insurance firms without a robust public option and he dispatches still more troops to Afghanistan, it could demobilize progressive activists while emboldening the Teabag & Beck crowd to bring the GOP back from the dead in low-turnout congressional elections next year. That would be a rerun of the 1994 rightwing triumph brought on by President Clinton's weakness (e.g. healthcare reform) and corporatism (e.g. the business-friendly NAFTA).
Some activists still see Obama as a brilliant political superhero who - although maddeningly slow to fight back against his opponents - always manages to win in the end . . . like Muhammad Ali defeating George Foreman.
But watching Obama last weekend on the news shows gave little reason for confidence. It's hard to win the public toward reform if you accept - as Obama often does - the rightwing terms of debate. The right frames healthcare as a debate over a dangerously over-intrusive government taking away individual freedom. The left says it's about greedy insurance and drug companies - with CEOs getting paid $10 million or $20 million per year - putting profits above public good.
Last weekend, when he was repeatedly asked to comment on Jimmy Carter's view about anti-Obama animosity being racially motivated, Obama kept wielding the rightwing frame about big "intrusive" government. On ABC, Obama talked about people being "more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right. I think that that's probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol."
On NBC, Obama said: "This debate that's taking place is not about race, it's about people being worried about how our government should operate." He asked: "What's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another?"
The president has a huge bully pulpit, which he's largely squandered.
I've heard him discuss healthcare close to ten times in recent weeks
without once hearing him rally the public against the corporate greed
that leaves our country No. 1 in healthcare spending and 37th in health
outcomes, on par with Serbia. Without a populist challenge to corporate
profiteering, what's left is either a bloodless debate about "cost
containment" or a rightwing debate about "big government." Neither
mobilizes the public toward progressive change.
Recent U.S. history shows that you can't serve corporate interests at
the same time you're seeking reform - of healthcare or Wall Street or
any other sector. Not when big corporations are the problem . . . and
the major obstacles to change.
Placating big business en route to social reform is like downing a flask of whiskey en route to kicking alcoholism.
Yet there was the Obama White House this summer entering into secret deals with the pharmaceutical lobby protecting that industry's outsized profits.
If Obama is radical about anything, it's about NOT rocking corporate boats.
That's why he received more Wall Street funding than any candidate in history and why - before he was a front-runner in early 2007 - he was raising more money from the biggest Wall Street banks than even Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, presidential candidates from New York.
That's why - as soon as Hillary left the race - he went on CNBC and assured big business: "Look: I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."
That's why he declared to the New York Times last March that his economic policies were absolutely not socialist, but rather "entirely consistent with free market principles."
That's why during his 2008 "I love the market" interview on CNBC, he shunned the "populist" label.
President Franklin Roosevelt showed in the 1930s that major reform is possible if a populist upsurge of ordinary people is mobilized to overcome the entrenched opposition of business interests - derided by FDR as the "economic royalists."
The problem today is that Obama doesn't seem to have a populist bone in his body. A smart guy, he should know that it's absurd - in an era when a shrinking number of ever-larger corporations dominate Congress and regulators as they deform markets in industries like banking and healthcare - to keep believing we have a "free market." Yet he waxes on about being a "free-market guy."
I guess he's smart enough NOT to call himself "a corporate guy."
Liberal activists need to be smart enough to see Obama for the status quo politician he is - and to act accordingly.
- 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...
127 Comments so far
Show AllI've always liked Jeff Cohen's writing and respected his work with FAIR but I think this article represents the problem I have with the left - of which I am one. While I agree Obama could have argued more passionately for the public option, is there any serious evidence that it would have mattered much, in terms of how Congress actually votes? (ie. If Obama argued passionately for the public option, he would convince any of the 40 Republicans in the Senate to vote for it, or even Blue Dog Evan Bayh for that matter? Really?) This is the part that is missing from most analysis from the left. It imagines the world as it "should be", not how it actually is.
For example, could Obama have even gotten elected if he didn't reassure the country that he likes the market? I mean, does Cohen really think denouncing the market & economic growth could have even gotten Obama the nomination? Obama was about as progressive - rhetoric-wise -as you can get for a major party nominee during the 2008 campaign and yet only won 53% of the vote (It was a landslide by electoral college standards but not by popular vote). That's after 8 years of George Bush! (not that anyone needed reminding). My point being that as much as the left wants to believe it, the majority of the country just does not agree with progressive policies. I think that's a shame, don't get me wrong, but I'm not in denial about it.
I'm convinced the only way to bring about progressive policies is unfortunately with slow steady grass roots lobbying and persuasive arguments, over an extended period of time. Energy is better spent there then arguments claiming Obama isn't trying to move the federal government slowly to the left or questioning his character.
And I still say ANY bill reforming health care is better than doing nothing at all. Even without a public option, there are still millions of Americans who will benefit when a bill is ultimately passed. This sets up future congresses to eventually include a public option.
Hello, we've never met.
I'm uninsured, and have been un-and under-employed for the better part of five years. I haven't been to the doctor or dentist in that time, not because I didn't need to, but because I couldn't afford it.
Obama says that I am a burden on the system, so he's going to force me to buy insurance I can't afford now, and fine me a grand if I don't get insured. That's a grand I'd spend on a few dental checkups, eyeglasses, maybe an annual medical exam...none of which I get now.
How does this promote healthcare? Have you read the bill? Or simply listened to a few soundbites and seen Pelosi wax tearful and that was enough for you--?
Obama, Pelosi, Reid--when will yo(and your ilk) stop making excuses for these people?
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT US.
Obama could go all LBJ/civil rights on Congress and twist some fucking arms. LBJ got Mississippi senators to vote for civil rights. How hard is healthcare to get in comparison?
But I assume you're insured, eh?
Don't speak of others' situation unless you know it. I fell a few weeks ago and twisted a knee. I need an MRI to determine what type of damage, but, you guessed it, I won't be getting one and am hoping for the best. Obama's bill wouldn't change that because, get ready, I won't be able to pay for the insurance. How do people who claim this bill is better than no bill fail to see that this takes money from people who don't have it and criminalizes them when they can't pay it--?
If your situation is like mine, then I apologize. I would then replace my indignation with worry for you.
Cheers.
He's not in your boat or if he is, he's drank the cool-aid. Government mandated private insurance is deformity, not reform. It will make a bad system even worse. This is the kind of policy only a corporate fascist would lick his chops over.
Guys - there are 5 different bills in Congress right now. You say "this bill" as though it's a done deal. I assume you are talking about the Baucus bill, which is a dog's breakfast I agree.
Do you really think Obama and the Democrats would pass a bill that makes things worse for people like you? They're not stupid. They do have to answer to the voters at some point.
Let's see what the final bill looks like after the sausage making process before we get hysterical.
P.S. I am an American living in Canada. I support single payer...but I'm realistic about what can be done in the American system and that things have to be done in stages.
P.P.S. LBJ didn't have to contend with a 24-hour news cycle nor the enormous deficits Obama inherited. This is 1/6 of the economy. Civil rights isn't comparable in that respect.
That's just the point. With progressives/libs getting behind these generations of "public-option" bills (yes, there are several and amendments being added each day. I am trying to keep up), they are in no danger of losing. I think it is interesting that many of the changes won't actually take place until 2013.
I don't think they are stupid; they're cunning. They are not addressing the people's problem; they are using it.
"I don't think they are stupid; they're cunning. They are not addressing the people's problem; they are using it." -- iteachpeace
I agree with you! And, at first I was caught off-guard by the 2013 date to take effect, but once I thought about it, it made perfect sense. They don't want it to get in the way of the 2012 elections. The vagueness of what is actually in the bill will carry them through. We'll learn the details -- later!
They are cunning!
Take the apologist hat off. I am getting emails from my Senator gloating over the Baucus bill. That has to be a bad sign. There's a turd floating in the punch bowl. You should stop drinking from it.
It's show time and if the Democrats don't develop a backbone real fast, they can kiss their heinies goodbye.
Obama and the democrats have continued and expanded the wars, handed trillions (you know, thousands of billions, enough to pay for jobs health and education and housing and food for the populace for decades...what was that about 1/6 of the economy?) to the banks just 'cause they asked, and in about two weeks...and yet, on an issue as easy as health care, we have to be "realistic" about what can be accomplished?
It should be screamingly obvious, but I guess I assumed you knew this:
Elections don't matter. They merely change the face, not the policy. Wealth disparity continues, accelerates, and you claim we are unrealistic--
But you're ignoring the facts. Until we remove the corporate oligarchy that controls the elections (and after the FEC case pending before the SCOTUS is decided, this is exceedingly unlikely, as corp. dollars will then be protected speech), it matters not at all if the democrats are in power.
During W, they whined they had no majority (and refused to filibuster in the Senate.) Then, they got the majority in both houses and whined it was too slim. Then they got the White House and a bigger majority in the Legislature...and they whine the Repugs will filibuster, or the Blue Dogs won't come under the tent, or or or or--
And what, exactly,will change in this country after another election?
This one's broke. You fled to Canada, so good for you. Here's hoping you don't get renditioned on your next visit to the Homeland.
They're expanding the Iraq war? Could have fooled me.
You really think they should have done nothing about the financial crisis? I mean, seriously, just let the big banks and automotive companies go bankrupt? That's really your solution? I'm not defending the specifics of the bailout 100% or anything but you imply they shouldn't have done anything, unless I'm reading you wrong.
Obama inherited such a mess, I think he's doing about the best job one can do, given the circumstances. And he does have to govern the whole country you know - not just progressives.
P.S. Regarding congress, all the Dems did was find a way to elect a few conservative Democrats in conservative districts. It's not a progressive congress by any stretch.
OK, look:
It's aggravating to have to explain this, so I'll try to be cool.
The argument for bailing out the banks was, essentially, if the banks didn't get the $ the economy would fail because they'd have no $ to lend. Agreed?
So Congress (under threat of martial law from Sec'y Paulson) threw the trillions at them.
The banks, under no control of any kind, took the trillions and HAVE REFUSED TO TELL CONGRESS WHERE IT WENT.
But never mind their soul-sucking chutzpah. The important issue is why you bought that line. If the goal is to make it so the banks can loan money, it seems to me the way to do it would be to pay off all the student loans, mortgages, credit cards and other consumer debt. The banks still get the money, but now they have a whole lotta debt-free folks with shiny credit ratings (and disposable income, having been relieved of the burden of debt service) to borrow and spend it.
In a phrase: Fuck the free marketers, because they only like the market until they don't, and then the non-investor class pays through the nose.
In this world (and yours, apparently) turnips will bleed.
"You really think they should have done nothing about the financial crisis?"
-- As a matter of fact, yes:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year
Sioux Rose
TRAMAKER: You sound a lot like a former poster, Daniel David, have you reincarnated on this site under a new moniker, still playing the Obama, rain or shine, theme song?
"Guys - there are 5 different bills in Congress right now. You say "this bill" as though it's a done deal. I assume you are talking about the Baucus bill, which is a dog's breakfast I agree."
Only one bill has anything like a public option. I'll bet you $100 (canadian dollars) that whatever makes it through will not contain it. Didja miss Obama, Baucus and Pelosi all getting big $ from Big Pharma and Big Insurers?
Jesus.
You have no say in this health care debate. You got yours, dude. Stop proselytizing to the rest of us.
I am sick to death of the expats who come on these blogs and sites and say "Just move! I did it!"
No, health care doesn't have to be done "in stages." That's laughable. WTF? Obama could have issued a signing statement his first day in office opening up Medicare to everybody. He could have gone on T.V. and said, "from this day forward everybody in the U.S. gets Medicare. If you need health care, go and get it. We'll work out the details later. We'll be hiring thousands of people to overhaul Medicare and make it workable as our single payer plan. In the meantime, Americans, go out and get the care you need. That is the most important thing right now. We'll work out the details as we move along."
If he had done that, he could have run for a THIRD term. The man would have attained god-like status. He would have been the most relevant pretzel in modern history if he had done that. Instead, he's going down as a mediocre one-term warmonging right-wing capitulator.
But you got yours, hon. So back out of this debate, PLEASE!!! YOU ARE IRRELEVANT.
thepuffin- Thank you so much for sharing your experience. I stand out in my small town's public square every Wednesday evening with my single-payer sign, write letters to my rep/senators in congress (and the few progressives that are actually standing up for the people this "supposed" reform is supposed to help). Most of my friends believe the public option is the way forward, that we have to take what we can get in increments. I, like you, think whatever form this amended Bauchus plan takes spells disaster for the people who actually need help. Any way forward is not the right way forward. As far as I can tell this is a disaster for the uninsured and the working class.
The progressive response is disheartening to say the least, with most standing in line behind this designed-to-fail public option. This plan will be one more example of the "center right" left's incompetence.
How do we get single-payer back on the table?
iteachpeace: Thank you for your dedicated advocacy!
Your question isn't easy to answer -- How do we get single-payer back on the table?
I still think the "Baucus 13" -- the doctors and nurses who were arrested during the Baucus committee meetings -- while he kept calling for order and more police -- are responsible for the fact that we are here still talking about it. Even in places like Nebraska, Bluedog Senator Ben Nelson has had to answer to his constituents who are advocating for single-payer. In the beginning, I thought there would be absolutely no discussion at all -- but there were those brave doctors and nurses, and I watched them, one by one, stand up, speak for single-payer, and be arrested.
In addition, journalists like Bill Moyers, Amy Goodman, Laura Flanders, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, Dave Lindorff, Jane Hamsher and even Paul Craig Roberts, continue to hammer away for single-payer. Last week, on Real Time, Bill Maher brought up, again, single-payer, and supports it. Wendell Potter, the ex-Cigna employee, has become a big voice for single-payer. None of the people I listed have given up the fight, despite Obama's stance on the issue. In fact, his Chicago doctor is advocating for single-payer. There are others, too, like Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Dennis Kucinich. Anthony Weiner has also been very outspoken about the health care debates, and lack of debates. He's a representative from Brooklyn -- close to my neck of the woods, but he isn't my representative.
In the very beginning, I thought it would be a done deal, right away, without a mention of single-payer, but it isn't quite over! Truthfully, though, I'm not that optimistic, but here we are -- continuing to discuss it, and once in a while, the subject even leaks out into the more broad public sphere.
When you take into account that 70% of the U.S. citizeny want, and need, a single-payer system -- we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that we aren't being represented, in the way we deserve, by our very own elected officials.
I'm ready to listen to any ideas that you might have -- I have marched, attended rallies, written my elected officials and contacted them by phone -- and then, started all over again.
I'm unsure how we get single payer. My belief, fear, even, is that we won't get it and that the gutting of the middle class and disposal of the lower class will simply continue unabated, and our dumbed-down, iPodded (and, let's face it, internet-using) anaesthitized populace won't wake up until they're face down in a concrete cell and forced to make Fun Meal toys in the corporate-prison industrial complex, unless we're recalcitrant and unproductive.
Then we'll be rendered for our organs, to keep the bodies of richer people healthy.
See, I've written and called and marched and voted since Reagan's re-election, and it's been one long dry screwing (with a bit o' bubble-economic lubrication during Clinton, who still screwed us by ending welfare and making student loans permanent and ramming NAFTA and so on) ever since. All I see, since Reagan, but probably overall since JFK, is one massive upward transfer of wealth.
What to do? Emigrate, I guess, like that expat in Canada who keeps defending Obama and Dems in the miasma of postings elsewhere in this forum. I'll give her/him that much...smart move getting out.
I try to stay positive, but just a few minutes of perusing MSM screams in very shrill tones just how bad it is.
I have to get away from this board for awhile. I appreciate your optimism and hope that I will someday share it. I wouldn't mind hearing more about your efforts.
Peace--
Puff, Kay- I participated in a telephone conference with Kucinich the evening (or two, I forget) after Obama's speech because I was so disheartened. Dennis suggested we not give up, but it was not the time for single-payer to move forward. He sounded disappointed, as were most of the people who participated in the call. Several made comments about demonstrations, etc., but he did not think it would be effective right now. I'm not so sure I agree. I do feel like we are all getting the bum's rush on whatever congress comes up with. Last I read (I think it was from Black Agenda Report yesterday. I think it is posted here today) the bills & their amendments in congress amount to 6,000 pages. That's evidence enough that we have no idea what they are up to-- and they know it.
One thing Kucinich did suggest was that we begin to educate more people in our communities about what single-payer is. He feels certain we will be back here again. As I stated before, whatever comes out of congress now will not be the right medicine.
Meanwhile, I think I am going to have to part company with my public option friends. Maybe try an informational meeting in town looking at HR676. A larger problem is getting progressives together. They are all over the place, especially in the media. You know when Sanders and Kucinich are standing down something is wrong. There's nowhere to rally. We need a focal point.
I am a progressive from Illinois. I have never known or seen Obama as a progressive, so I am not disappointed. He is behaving exactly as I expected. What concerns me most are those who voted for him who really believed his hope and change message. Rhetoric is a crafty art that unfortunately obscures the truth as often or more than it reveals it.
Right on. Grew up in IL, know Hyde Park, heard the Chicago cadence in his voice and voted for him despite FISA, etc. I fell for it, albeit cautiously.
Kucinich is one of the only truly decent reps we have, but when he tries to help, they whip out the ol' "he saw a UFO" bit, never mind that Bush saw Jesus Joseph and Mary, and Cheney talked to Satan--
I hope you're right, but if it has to get worse before it gets better, I figure since 1980 is long enough to wait--
Peace
I don't think of Kucinich as one of the good guys. For starters, he's a capitalist. Like you said, he's the liberal plant that the corporate class trots out to "prove" that "progressivism" is a bunch of hoo-ha and not to be taken seriously. And he allows himself to be used that way.
Kucinich is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Your income is such that your insurance will be subsidized. Fines are only for people who can afford insurance but are not getting it.
We'll see. I guarantee that millions will be fined who had no means to pay, and it will be up to them to prove they didn't have the money. The fact you think any fines at all for anyone is a good idea in this context causes me to tremble for my country...
Oh, right. You're in Canada.
Great points all the way through this thread. Keep 'em coming.
Tramaker,
Please read the Bruce Dixon piece, just posted on CD above this article.
You said it all, Puffin.
The apalling part is they know there are many folks like you out there. Especially now with the actual unemployment numbers around 20%. When this plan kicks in, you might get subsidized like the other 60 million. Please don't take this personally, but all the subsidies will break the folks already hanging on by a thread.
For them it will be mission accomplished. The insurance companies will be bathing in cash and that's all that matters.
You're right. They don't give a shit.
Wanna know why?
Because it's one big corrupt cesspool of human garbage.
thepuffin: Very good post!
You are correct: THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT US!
I, too, am one of the uninsured, and this current idea of a mandate to buy insurance is simply another upwards shift of wealth to the already massively wealthy insurance executives. Shame on our elected officials!
No doubt, Stephen Hemsley (United Health) will receive another bonus, or a hike in his salary -- he already makes $102,000 per hour. When is enough, enough?
Just don't cooperate. If enough people don't, they will be forced back to the drawing board.
I think you come out of the gate with "Medicare for all" on the table. Then the compromise becomes a public option and states rights to implement single payer. He comes out with single payer off the table and the compromise becomes government mandated private insurance. I am beginning to suspect that this strategic lapse was not a mistake. If he is a tool of the corporate fascists, we are in for a long run of Republican rule. I won't be voting for another Democrat and I know plenty of people like myself who feel the same way. This is called "alienating his progressive base". Political suicide by any measure. You can worry about Congress but we never even got to that bridge to cross it. This thing was stillborn from the git go. You can try your slow and steady grass roots with the next string of Republican presidents. That and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
No. If you want single payer, "Medicare for all," or whatever you want to name it, you come out of the gate with NATIONALIZATION of health care resources. Everybody in health care becomes a federal employee. Everybody.
From there, you water it down to single payer, which is government payments for services provided in the PRIVATE sector.
But you sure as shit don't come out with a "public option" out of the gate, that is then watered down to "triggers," and then of course watered down even more to "mandated insurance or you are a common criminal."
Fuck that states' right shit on health care. Are you serious? Arnold here in California in 2007 vetoed our single payer bill that passed both legislatures. Then he had the audacity to say 2008 was the year of health care, and of course nothing was done in 2008 or in 2009. Why would you want to leave something as vital as health care to the states? That's lunacy.
Please stop making excuses for him. Yes, everyone was desperate for relief from the GOP crazies, and the Big O knew exactly which buttons to push. For a moment there, it looked like the black pall of despair was going to be lifted, and by a guy who theoretically, it could be assumed, had an idea what social injustice felt like. (Had he really no idea that he would have been banned from hs college of choice a few decades ago?)
But no.
And now it's much worse, the betrayal sharper, the disappointment deeper, the frustration more bitter...and the anger lacking focus, unfortunately.
Some of us old geezers tried to warn you - some of us old geezers have seen this shtick before under other guises. We wanted to prepare you, soften the blow when it came, inevitably.
But the younger ones among you wanted us to jump off cliffs, yield the bright shiny new world to the believers in the Great Black Hope, the corporate lackey, the WS shill.
Everyone understood the nature of the village idiot that had played president for a while, so while people were angry and outraged at his buffonery, it wan't anywhere near as painful as the stunning, utter betrayal that O has delivered in just a few months.
It's too bad Nader never learned how to hit those same buttons, how to appeal to the less educated, to the Common Man. It's too bad he and Kucinich and Sanders and a few others can't rally the support, mobilize the big donors to get themselves into the Oval. Maybe that's really a litmus test. Maybe less razzle-dazzle and more substance. (Maybe publicly funded election campaigns would help reduce, if not eliminate, corporate meddling, even out the playing field.)
Well, good luck living with the glamour edition of Bush. Don't be too disappointed at what happens next.
We geezers and boomers are too busy now, looking for a dry culvert to spend the night in.
Spot on.
Without a scintilla of evidence, the "left" sure loves them some Obama.
It's symptomatic of some larger malady, or perhaps just indicative of the effectiveness of modern advertising which is mind control by any other name.
I have had the surreal experience of ticking off the list of items proving Obama is merely Bush's 3rd term (Afghanistan, Iraq and their associated torture prisons, habeus corpus, wiretapping, trillions to the banks whilst simultaneously chiding those without health insurance as the problem and criminalizing poverty...
Yet when faced with this (non-exhaustive, top-of-the-head) list, they insist that everything is fine now. One woman, when pressed to give an example, said, But Obama is so much better for the environment... but couldn't name a single policy that bore out that out--
Their defense of Obama is no different than the empty-eyed
evangelical adulation of a Bush hillbilly--or the reptilian smile of an free-market MBA--
I voted for BHO knowing full well he would not be nearly progressive enough, but he's worse. He's done more damage in eight months than Bush did before 9-11.
HST said it in one of his final interviews, and it's tough to dispute:
This country's finished.
Otherwise, this self-revered "FDRcolyte" will ride his Wall Street-walking Bull over the rest of US, yahooing, we have nothing to steer, but steer itself!
Got this is the email from Andy the Plummer. Gotta love these tea-baggers.
-Andy the Plummer
Restoring Liberty in the Obam-era: the Importance of the Jeffersonian Ideal in the Age of Freedom-Loss
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people as much as I am feared by my slaves, there is liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson
Dear friend,
Unless you've been living under a rock for the last seven months, you realize our country is in a state of crisis. Our economy is in shambles, living standards are dropping, and socialism is the new standard. Yes, socialism. I know, I know, you probably thought President Reagan (bless his soul) successfully snuffed it out when he made the Berlin wall crumble by paying militias to blow up hospitals and rape peasant women in Nicaragua during the 1980s, but somehow, it survived...and it has sickle-clawed its way right into the Oval Office.
Ever since Obama took office, fading are the days of total liberty where Joe McRegularGuy could just launch a company and simply compete on a global scale with major firms like Wal-Mart. Gone are the days of competition and innovation.
Recent events such as borderline run-of-the-mill federal industry subsidies and modest health-care proposals have driven us straight into the heart of a red downward spiral (by "red" I mean socialist) and subsequent liberty void. Who would have guessed that in less than one year, President Obama would carry out a complete overhaul of our political system, economy, and society without changing many of the Bush administrations policies? Well it may or may not be surprising, but just as Newsweek announced in February, "we are all socialists now." We are literally watching the death of our glorious Jeffersonian ideals that have been, for years, dragging us toward the bottom of the Human Development Index. Fact: Jefferson was an amazing guy and his words should be unconditionally considered as gold. We simply cannot standby while the federal government pursues policies slightly different from the previous administration. Now is the time to act! Here is a good starting point...
Socialism 101: Know Your Enemy!
Many people will tell you that truly understanding socialism is a complicated process and that the ideas driving its numerous strains are nuanced and intricate. However, this is stupid. Here are some equations to help you better grasp the reality that is destroying your livelihood.
Socialism = Communism = Soviet Union = Bad (Hence all the US secret wars, CIA interventions, assassination attempts, peasant massacres etc...)
Democratic Party Corporate Subsidies = Socialism
Republican Party Corporate Subsidies = Not Socialism
Is this getting any clearer? Try some more!
Functional, Inclusive Health-Care = Socialism = Communism = Totalitarianism = Bad
48 Million People Without Access to Health-Care = Jeffersonian Ideal
Obama + USA = USSA
Now we're on the same page. Here's another inspirational quote:
"I think Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe...that's right, tribes are composed of savages. I said it. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men so that he can fend for himself in a world of directionless cut-throat competition and vacuous material fetishism--where basic survival resources/services and even human beings are turned into commodities which can be bought, sold, or destroyed at will by large market actors and complicit governments while the opportunity for achieving ACTUAL human progress flies out the fucking window of time."
-Ayn Rand
I think if Jefferson were alive today, he would agree with Ms. Rand and then use her ethnocentric, baseless, and culturally offensive remarks to oppose the promotion of health-care, err Obamacare...possibly by disrupting a series of town-hall discussions and somehow actually fucking making the President alter his already Gerber-esque reform strategy (?!?!?!). Yeah, that's what he would have done. He would have been like "Free market, man. Deal with it." Jefferson's ideas are the bedrock of our country's ideals. Why? you ask... Because the foundation of our country's democratic foundation freedom-base was constructed on Jeffersonian principles. Jefferson. Jefferson was the American dream in action.
He was born into a wealthy family, then he worked really super fucking ultra hard (like all successful Americans) to become a notable president and slave-owner. The man had fortitude. Jeffersonian ideals. He was a man who understood the virtue of being born into wealth amid a society where meaningful class mobility is scarce and difficult at best. Sure, some might question commentaries on the nature of liberty coming from a slave-owner and rapist. Classical liberalism. Some might even call his rhetoric disgusting, hypocritical, and ironic in that context. But what's most important is that we stay the course toward freedom and avoid serious consideration of any ideas put forward by other people for the rest of history (exceptions for Ayn Rand, Thomas Friedman, and Ronald Reagan).
It is through this path of super-duper Jeffersonian market deregulation that we will achieve the ultimate goal of plutocracy and Jeffersonian ideals. If we act now, we can still build a nation-state where health-care is both privatized and mandatory; where the only functioning industry is the manufacture of weapons and other wasteful military bullshit; where every single thing that we ever buy is made by babies in China; where our government is fighting like 80 fucking wars simultaneously to help stimulate our economy and neutralize potential enemies (poor people/people who aren't American enough); a world where environmental degradation and human rights abuses are so commonplace that American citizens will perpetually invoke a bastardized interpretation of social-Darwinism to convince themselves that they're living in some kind of fucking paradise and not just being exploited daily for their labor and time while their government uses public funds to decimate entire countries in the third world. Think US-sponsored global feudalism with massive laser tanks and fucking automated predator drones :) Fucking sweet huh? Well, we're like 8/10ths of the way there! I can practically hear a bald eagle screeching in my heart. My eyes are starry and striped just thinking about this super-future. However, Obama's ideal future looks much different. Oh wait, it really doesn't. Regardless, as Peter Ferrera of the American Spectator put it, "Obama will also force Americans out of the big, powerful, luxurious vehicles they drive now, with lots of space for kids, their friends, and cargo, into small, weak, death traps. Another decline in the standard of living...this means less use of computers, flat screen TVs, cell phones, iPods, dishwashers, microwaves, ovens, ranges, microwaves, refrigerators, washers and dryers...this all translates to another major decline in the standard of living."
What a shame it will be to see our per-capita iPod ownership rating drop on the HDI over the next four years. I'll justify most US war-crimes any day of the week but nobody is touching my iPod! Jefferson would not approve of that.
Long story short: Obama is a socialist. Jefferson. Jefferson. Jefferson. Free market. Ayn Rand. I'll leave you with this classic Thomas Friedman quote:
"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist...and by that I mean the spread of global capitalism is a process in which people across the world are exploited daily...and whether it be via destruction of their natural environment or just plain old fashioned wage-slavery (or worse), most people just end up fucked. Like real fucked. So we need like a massive fucking "hidden" fist in the form of a multi-quadrillion dollar military force to keep the world's masses in check, if you know what I mean ;) Like, if they want a piece of the pie--my pie--they're gonna get fucking thrashed by an automated predator drone. You know, that's what those fuckers get for not being born into privilege like me! Take that people who don't speak english! Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch bang bang!!! Hahahaha!!!"
-Thomas Friedman
Now that's entertainment!
i hope we are getting near the end of the obama debate - he is a nwo shill
http://www.obamadeception.net/
a rockefeller boy
simply by being black he has muzzled the black community
shrewd nwo ploy
his job is to keep the lid on the public until the treasury has been cleaned out - and he's doing a good job
his job is to fund the old imperial wars and create new ones, support the rockeflellers and their gmo's, imf, world bank - all rockefeller subsidiaries
he's doing a good job of that too
his job is to ensure the rockefellers maintain their post as the biggest welfare bums in the history of the world, one government handout after the other
his job is to make sure the rockefellers never, ever pay a dime of taxes
finally, when all that is done he will preside over the most angry and disenfranchised population the country has ever known and then wish us well as they take us off the fema prisons for being "terrorists"
he is part of the ongoing rockefeller psyop, now at least 70 years old, of taking over and cotnrolling the world
how much of a fraud is this guy - whom we call barak obama - when for most of his life his name was barry sotero
what's up with that...
In a public school here in CT I refused to allow my children to watch the compulsory telecast of Obama. My two children were the only two in the school of 350 not to sit before the television and watch him give them advice. In fact, they were sent to the principal's office where they were given extra homework and told that it was not going to be fun sitting it out. Most people thought they had done something bad as they sat in the office. They're in 3rd and 5th grade, and they are two of the finest, most considerate peace loving children you will ever meet. But when some so-called progressive Democrats asked me why I had given my children the option to step aside, I cited a number of drone attacks, giving specifics, including the funeral attack that killed 83, wounded 154, and how most of the wounded likely died because of the poverty and lack of medical facilities in that area. I said, that was a war crime and I don't think I want my child lectured by somebody who would authorize this. Obama and Gates are likely to authorize kills of over 50 civilians. Eyes glazed over. According to them I was insane. Didn't I realize that if Barack Obama is doing it, it must be okay? My response: racism allowed Hitler to kill with impunity. That exact same racism allows Obama to kill with impunity. Now watch Mr. Obama become a hero for standing up against McChrystal and multiplying these drone attacks against the invisible poor.
Okay, I'm convinced. You've won me over. I hadn't realized until now that the war in Afghanistan was akin to Nazi policy. What are you, some leftist version of Glenn Beck?
A couple of things worth noting:
1. You sure do make a lot of apologies for this administration. What makes you feel compelled to do so. Doesn't that set off alarm bells in your own mind?
2. By conservative estimates, 80,000 INNOCENT people were slaughtered in Iraq. Now we turn our sights on Afghanistan. I have to watch predator drones slaughter people in a hail of bombs and 50mm gun fire on YouTube. I have to watch Air Force TV ads telling me how great it is to be a predator drone pilot and the power one gets from wielding that joystick. I sense you are in complete denial about what is going on in this country. I think you fail to appreciate the power of the military industrial complex.
When you watch the government hand over a trillion dollar bailout to banks and insurance companies, when you watch corporations and big money interests buy off every politician in DC, when you realize we export more arms than all other countries combined, there really is need to be concerned. We now have a population that produces very little and I think many Americans are starting to realize that they just might lose the sweat shop labor made shirt they have on their back.
Corporate fascism is the melding of government and corporation. Anyone who denies that we are living under corporate fascist rule today is delusional. We are now led by men who lust wealth and power. The result is apparent. From mercenary forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the sweat shops in Asia, it is obvious what America stands for today. Hitler provided a steady stream of slave labor to German corporations. Prescott Bush did much business with the Nazis. Comparisons to Nazi Germany can easily be made. In fact, if Americans don't take back America soon, I suspect we will make Nazi Germany look like a walk in the park.
2. By conservative estimates, 80,000 INNOCENT people were slaughtered in Iraq.
80,000 ???
Tramaker
The boy playing the video game shot off a Hellfire missile in one of the poorest villages of the world. He killed one on June 22, 2009, I believe. Family and medics came to remove their dead. Two hours later, the boy playing the video game in Nevada, shot off another Hellfire missile, killing thirteen and wounding many more. One June 23th President Obama likely gave authorization to shoot off more Hellfire missiles at the funeral of those who were killed by the first two U.S. strikes. Kill: 83, wounded 154. Mostly women and children. Of the wounded, assume most later died in extraordinary pain. Why? Because of their poverty, there are few, if any medical facilities. Defend that, my friend. Oh, and by the way, all of this killing based on the shakiest of intelligence, perhaps no intelligence at all. And one other thing, cite an article for me that shows an single instance, yes, a single instance where the Taliban has attacked a U.S. citizen off the soil of their own country.
So Fenner, you wouldn't have wanted to fight Hitler in WW2 either - the Nazis didn't kill anyone on U.S. soil either.
I'm not sure how to address this because I'm not sure of your position beyond the fact that horrible things happen in war and that there are far too many innocent lives killed by the American military. Does anyone debate that?
But from there...Are you saying there shouldn't have been any military response to 9-11? Are you saying that Obama, even if he wanted to, could just remove the troops from Afghanistan tomorrow, without endangering the lives of American soldiers and Afghanis? Are you saying that letting the Taliban take over the region wouldn't pose any kind of threat to the world and the Afghan population? Are you suggesting that the majority of Afghans want the U.S. & NATO soldiers to leave?
I'm not sure where you are on any of this.
"Are you saying there shouldn't have been any military response to 9-11?"
Yes, I certainly said that repeatedly, starting the morning of September 12, 2001. International police work, using small, well trained, international forces as needed to apprehend the suspects; fine. But invading a whole country in response to the crimes of Sept 11 was preposterous. When Tim McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City did we call airstrikes on Buffalo?
A documented by RAWA, the Taliban are certainly an unsavory lot, but they were an improvement over the vicious warlord-state that preceded them. Imposing liberal democracy with the barrel of a gun doesn't work.
Did you formerly post here with the nickname Joe Hope?
"Yes, I certainly said that repeatedly, starting the morning of September 12, 2001. International police work, using small, well trained, international forces as needed to apprehend the suspects; fine. But invading a whole country in response to the crimes of Sept 11 was preposterous. When Tim McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City did we call airstrikes on Buffalo?" -- pjd412
I argued the same thing with many of my friends!
So, the Taliban is an improvement over the warlords but Obama is not an improvement over Bush?
Wow! Just wow.
Are you having trouble with your neurons firing today?
That's exactly right. The Taliban is a political body that has large support in Afghanistan. Who the hell are we to be putting thugs and weaponry and assassins in there saying the Afghan people don't have the right to self-determination?
And we're getting our asses kicked by the Taliban, which is a good thing, frankly. Opposition to what we are doing over there is growing in Amerikka, and now more than 50% of the U.S. are against our policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet, the administration continues to ramp up aggression and violence over there.
I don't necessarily agree with everything the Taliban stands for, but what I do support are groups who fight U.S. imperialism. That includes the Taliban, Hamas, the IRA, the RAF, and others. Right now Afghanistan doesn't have a working class people's movement fighting off U.S. thuggery and violence over there, and the Taliban rose to fill the vacuum. That's the best they can do at this moment given their material conditions and their history.
I can't speak for the above poster, but I myself do support the Taliban. And I don't support our troops.
And no, Obama is not "better" than Bush.
Tramaker,
Appreciate your responses. First, a little lesson about Al Queda that you may not know or understand. Al Queda could give a damn about returning to Afghanistan. They are an INTERNET BASED TERRORIST GROUP. Repeat that to yourself over and over when you're listening to Obama or Hilary's lies about the danger of Al Queda returning to Afghanistan. Now, try to imagine a moment, if you are part of a terrorist group whose goals are to 1) recruit people 2) plan attacks without leaving a trace behind 3) get America off the Eurasian penisula and free the Palistinian's. Now tell me, why exactly would you want to go into a country with the starvation rate at 30%, lack of medical facilities, lack of clean water and NO INTERNET? Are you heading back there to see if you can find a pair of Osama's old underwear and sniff them? Are you that stupid? Do you understand why the hijackers were Saudi's????? Are you aware that the Saudi's do have an electrical grid??? Did the hijackers go to Afghanistan to train to fly 747's? Do you honestly think the Taliban gives a flying f about Al Queda, do you imagine that they're sitting there trying to plant their crops, going "damn, wish I could just blow myself up in America?" My friend, you are dealing with idiots pumping out horse shit to the masses. 911 should have been a police action, not a military one. In fact, with the sympathy of 89 % of the world, Osama would be sitting in a dungeon somewhere, rather than the free man that he is, laughing at the Americans falling all over themselves expending their empire resources on idiocy all the while recruiting for Al Queda as never before, except in Iraq.
Oh, by the way, my father who died in 2002 was a decorated WWII captain who said exactly what I just said about the police action before his death.
Fenner: Thank you for sharing your argument on this issue. I should have thought of the angle you presented, but I didn't.
One of my serious concerns, of course, is education, and the expansion of the number of high school military academies in the U.S. Originally, a friend of mine in Chicago sent me a couple of articles, and I was, quite frankly, stunned! Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, prior to the Obama appointment, acted as CEO of the Chicago school system. Under the banner of reform, the powers that be wanted to turn Senn High School into a Naval Academy. More than 300 parents, community supporters and teachers protested the decision, and they did not prevail. Senn High School was converted into a high school Naval Academy.
When CEO Duncan was asked about his Quaker roots, and wasn't setting up military academies in conflict with his basic beliefs, CEO Duncan replied, "I come from a Quaker family, and I've always been against war. But I'm going to put the Naval Academy in there, because it will give people in the community more choices."
According to the Chicago Public Schools website, Chicago has 6 public military academies --and I believe Chicago has more of these academies than any other city: 3 Army; 1 Navy; 1 Marines; and 1 Air Force. All six are listed, by name, on the website.
Isn't this a way of indoctrinating young people at even younger ages?
Kay, Thank you for this information. A google search confirms this. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/08/fast-times-recruitment-high
I will use this info in a letter to the local newspaper. The NY Times stopped publishing my letters. They loved me when Clinton and Bush was President, published 3 letters in six weeks one time, under pseudonyms. Now, not a chance.
Fenner: I'm glad that the information is useful to you.
I read that Boston has at least one high school military academy -- but I haven't had time to follow up with actual research. From what I understand, it is the intent of this administration to set up more high school military academies across the U.S. I also read that they may implement them at the middle school level, but I can't confirm that at this time.
Like you, I keep plugging away at these issues -- which on the surface seem unrelated, but beneath that surface they are all very interconnected to the MIC, and the corporate structure of this country.