Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama’s Choice: Play It Safe or Risk It All to Keep Hope Alive
President Barack Obama has a choice to make -- and it is one of Faustian proportions. He needs to decide who he wants to be, and how he wants history -- and his children -- to remember him. More specifically, he needs to decide whether he wants to be a Great Leader or whether to play it safe in the interest of being a two-term president.
Of course, even ‘playing it safe' won't guarantee Obama a second term in the Oval Office. But these days, any politician crazy enough to take on the entrenched corporate and political classes that control Washington is likely facing early retirement. So, it's a pretty safe bet that a president who dared take such a stand would risk being evicted from the White House -- and maybe Washington -- permanently.
Still, that is the kind of bold leadership it will take to begin the process of effecting real change.
In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, then-Senator Obama wrote passionately and at great length about "the ways we can ground our politics in the notion of a common good." It could, of course, be argued (and I have) that Obama has always been more politician than idealist. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that even as he was writing his book, the young author was betraying at least some of its professed values on the floor of the US Senate. Today, in the office of president, an even more calculating side of Obama has emerged. As president, Obama seems to be trying to figure out if that "notion of a common good" has any place at all in a successful political career.
That is not the signature of a Great Leader.
Great leaders are, after all, willing to take great risks -- even fall on their swords -- in the interest of the "greater good." Politicians, on the other hand, must first consider the viability and longevity of their careers. That means factoring in the risks of ‘doing the right thing.' When viewed through the prism of such political ambition, the logic of ‘staying the course' in Afghanistan "because we're there," (as Pat Buchanan recently put it on The McLaughlin Group), begins to make a perverse sort of sense. Such ‘logic' also goes a long way toward explaining why Obama suddenly -- and otherwise inexplicably -- lost the political will to fight for the inclusion of a public option in new health care legislation. Apparently, serving the public good or, in Obama's words, "putting Main Street before Wall Street" just aren't worth the political risk. Not even in the interest of a better world.
But wait.
That is what presidential candidate Barack Obama was talking about way back in 2008 when he railed on the campaign trail about "change we can believe in," isn't it?
That is what Obama meant back in 2008 when he told his audience at a church in Chicago, that "life doesn't count for much unless you're willing to do your small part to leave our children a better world -- even if it's difficult, even if the work seems great, even if we don't get very far in our lifetime." Right?
Apparently not.
If he had really meant what he said, Obama would be willing to risk being a one-term president because he actually believed his own words. He would be willing to make that sacrifice because he meant what he said back on the campaign trail in 2008, when he so passionately pitched "change we can believe in." He would be willing to make it, "even if it's difficult, even if the work seems great."
While still on the campaign trail, Obama promised more than once that he would always tell us the truth. If he was telling the truth then, and if he's sincere about leaving our children a better world, the president should stop trying to save the unsalvageable and wholly corporate-owned status quo, and take a real stand for (what we used to call) the ‘public good.'
He would stop nibbling around the edges of ‘reform,' and tell the political lobbyists, corporate parasites and Congressional sycophants that have brought this nation to its knees that they can no longer make ungodly profits on the backs of the working and middle classes. He would do this publicly and with great fanfare. While he was at it, he would put all the Big Corporate Players on notice that he was going to do what he was elected to do, that is, serve the people -- not corporate interests. Those players would, of course, include the the military industrial complex; the financial/banking industries; the HMOs and Big Pharmaceuticals; the Big Utilities and fossil fuel industries; and let's not forget Big Tobacco and (Way too) Big Agriculture.
Once he found that kind of courage, Obama could finally speak the truth to the Pentagon Generals and their friends in the Defense Department. He would tell them that we can't ever ‘win' in Afghanistan (whatever ‘winning' means). Then he would order them to begin pulling US troops out -- NOW. When he's finished with the Generals, he should tell Wall Street to give their huge bonuses back to American taxpayers -- and to keep it coming until they've paid back every cent of welfare they've stolen.
Yes, I know this is an unlikely scenario. And I understand that chances of Obama risking a second term to take such a politically untenable stand are negligible, and that even if he did, such a move would open the door for a Republican victory in 2012. But Obama could lose in 2012 anyway. With his poll numbers down -- and dropping -- and Independents backing away from him, it wouldn't take much to tip the scales. As it stands, any number of things, from the economy to the war in Afghanistan to (lack of meaningful) health care reform, could effectively take him out of the game. So why not get out of the game, go home, enjoy his beautiful family (and his Nobel Peace Prize), maybe write a few more best-sellers? Why not go down fighting the good fight?
Right now, President Obama has it within his power to change the course of world events by making a relatively small sacrifice. If he has any of the wisdom of his rhetoric, Obama should consider making that sacrifice if only to save his own soul and inspire hope in his own children. Chances are, that in taking such a courageous stand, Obama would inspire not only his children, but young people all over the world. In fact, such a display of personal and political courage would likely inspire the entire international community to move forward in ways they would not otherwise have dared dream. By simply having the courage to do the right thing, President Barack Obama really could change the course of world history.
Now, perhaps more than at any other time, the world needs Great Leadership. Obama should step up and provide that leadership. Without it, there's virtually no chance of keeping hope alive.
27 Comments so far
Show AllHope-nosis
Hope-nosis. I've committed my own indulgence in a smart-assed characterization of the "hope" syndrome in Obama supporters, concentrated for example among Nation editorial writers.
http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/?p=240
However, when a hopeful agenda of what Obama COULD become were he to decide to be a profile in courage is so eloquently assayed by Sandy LaVest, I'm relaxing my upper lip a bit to entertain a smidgeon of hope that Obama might indeed do the "right thing" (which is the "left thing" in the perspective of most of the readers here). Hopefully, speaking "subjunctively," Obama will go home some night with an "undigested bit of beef" in his stomach and be visited by Three Spirits after which he'll wake up and discover that he hasn't missed "Christmas day" (i.e., the opportunity to save the world from its manifold disasters) and we'll all have a Charles Dickens opportunity to sail into the sunset and, with Jules and Jim, to "go down to the seashore."
the persistent belief displayed by a number of published thinkers that the United States government is in place to foster good things for the general US citizen is akin, in my view, to believing in Santa Claus...
these people, the president, congress, the supremes, and every other related entity and agency far down into the workings of global, national, state and local politics and business, are doing precisely what they intend...
expecting otherwise, based on statements made, or positions implied, is not a flattering reflection...
not only does such a belief continually and increasingly frustrate, as assumptions never align with reality, it does even further damage, presenting as an illusory, exclusive path to resolution, by preventing one from looking elsewhere (inside, community) for answers...
Talk the walk is over, now it becomes walk the walk.
He must know this!
The people who want the second term are his advisors. The interest of the advisors is the ability to continue playing the game.
More specifically, (Obama) needs to decide whether he wants to be a Great Leader or whether to play it safe in the interest of being a two-term president.
No-brainer. It's the latter. Obama, especially now that he's won the Nobel Pieces Prize, is the star of his own movie. He is a cross between John Wayne and Sidney Poitier. The film is something like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", or any other embarrassing limousine liberal movie from the days of Stanley Kramer. Except now, Obama shows up with a couple of 9mm pistols beautifully concealed under his tailored suit.
I beg to differ. Obama's job is NOT to create himself a legacy. It is not about Obama. His job is to represent the best interests of the peoples of the United States.
This icludes the future generations of Americans that will be born once more to a legacy of debt and atrocities committed the world over by his war making on the peoples of the world.
Fat chance of him doing the left thing or much of anything meaningful. if he veers to far off the game plan he's a dead man. Obama is really just America's Intl "librul" lawn ornament.
genicon
The hardest thing to admit, is that you have been conned
It kind of makes you look dumb, so we hang in there waiting for change, even though, deep down, we know its never coming.
So snap out of it, get your feet on the ground and your head out of your ---
It's too late for President Obama to change course even if he wanted to. I am certain he doesn't want to.
This is not about Obama; this is about the USA. We have become corrupt at the critical mass level.
What's that?
It's the point in a country's affairs when, from the selectboard members to the President, it's all about money. Of course we still have millions of doggedly honest people but they have been systematically pushed out of decision making roles. We've been "off-gridded".
It's too late. Our only hope is economic ruin. And even that will only improve things for those poor bastards outside the USA that are getting shot at and bombed by our military. We'll be wallowing in poverty and fighting each other for scraps outside the well protected gated communities. Soon some bright young business administration graduate from Harvard or Yale will convince town officials that, due to the fact that most wealth is housed in gated communities, it's no longer "cost effective" to patrol or police any other areas. If you think what I say is ridiculous or un-American, you don't understand critical mass inertia.
That said, I won't change. I'll continue to be doggedly honest and will refuse to fight like an animal with my neighbors. When most people like me are dead because of illness, violence or poverty, perhaps our feral, greedy, egomaniacal, I got mine so fuck you population will tire of destructive behavior. Perhaps not. It matters, but only good people of conscience who espouse responsible and decent behavior regardless of who is watching, care. The rest don't and they ARE the critcal mass.
I think the wealthy are in for some serious surprises in the not-too-distant future...
I will continue to urge Mr. Obama to be the great leader he could become, the great leader that we desperatly need. Am I naive? Maybe, but hope is all I have.
You and millions more have been played for fools, but I am not being perjorative to you and don't feel bad Lorelei, this guy is good, I mean really good; as he conned and took advantage of so many good and well meaning people that are desperate for a great leader. Obama: the consummate con man!
The Dominance of the Financial Sector Has Become a Mortal Danger to Our Economic Security
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/the-dominance-of-the-fina_b_317310.html
Over the last several decades, the financial sector has grown relentlessly. It has doubled in size over the last 14 years. During the period 1973 to 1985 the financial sector never earned more than 16% of domestic profits. This decade, it has averaged 41% of all the profits earned by businesses in the U.S. In 1947 the financial sector represented only 2.5% of our gross domestic product. In 2006 it had risen to 8%. In other words, of every 12.5 dollars earned in the United States, one goes to the financial sector, much of which, let us recall, produces nothing.
That growth has not been among community or regional banks -- or credit unions. I'm talking about Wall Street.
Wall Street's growth is one big reason that most of America's economic growth during the last decade has flowed into the hands of investment bankers, stock traders and partners in firms like Goldman Sachs. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that fully two-thirds of all income gains during the last economic expansion (2002 to 2007) flowed to the top 1% of the population. And that, in turn, is one of the chief reasons why the median income for ordinary Americans actually dropped by $2,197 per year since 2000.
No surprise then that disproportionate numbers of the "best and brightest" graduates of our finest universities headed off to Wall Street. After all, that's where if you are very clever you can make tens of millions of dollars before you are thirty -- mostly producing nothing.
By 2007 the top 50 hedge and private equity fund managers averaged $588 million in annual compensation each -- more than 19,000 times as much as the average U.S. worker. And by the way, the hedge fund managers paid a tax rate on their incomes of only 15% -- far lower than the rates paid by their secretaries.
This huge wealth transfer from the "real" economy to the world of finance has also created a vicious cycle of increased credit dependency. If your family's real income isn't going up, but costs are, you try to borrow to stay afloat. That is one reason why private debt now equals 350% of the Gross Domestic Product -- the highest ever. The more debt that consumers owe to the shrinking number of big financial institutions, the greater the share of their shrinking or stagnant incomes that is siphoned off to the finance sector -- and the cycle just gets worse. And when the disposable income of ordinary Americans shrinks, they don't have the money to buy the new products and services that will fuel long term economic growth in the real economy.
Something is very wrong in this picture.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/the-dominance-of-the-fina_b_317310.html
Sioux Rose
EZE: I remember some years back Las Vegas was the fastest growing US city and arguably quite prosperous. Some new columnist made the very astute point that it had NO PRODUCT. Gambling is just shuffling money around, and the hotels that are built around that odd hobby are not exactly a product, either.
In any case, we often make the analogy between Wall St today and the betting casinos of Vegas, and here again, as per Wall St, we're talking about NO product. The so-called financial industry is nothing more than shuffling paper, the ILLUSION of worth and/or ownership passed around, where like drug dealers, everybody gets their cut.
It's the same currently with the insurance world. I recently received a notice that let me know that for the same AMOUNT of payment on my end, the insurer was stating they would now be covering less. I asked the insurance salesman if he thought I should stick with it. He said the insurance company is BETTING on there being no hurricane in Florida this year; and you're betting that if there is, you'll have protection. I never had thought of insurance as mostly a bet until he put it in those terms.
The U.S. treats actual property, actual hard-earned cash and savings as nothing more than betting chips. Even our health is essentially betted against the profit ratios of some insurance company and its standing to shareholders on Wall St.
Our alleged representatives are beholden to money, not the will of the people; and the money that had been tied to real assets has now lost its moorings. I say that due to the fact that an insidious precedent has been made in the form of taxpayers being held accountable for Wall St's bets INTO THE TRILLIONS on a non-product, another "absence of worth" style portfolio (i.e. "derivatives") that has been traded into the trillions 'round the world.
Hindu mystics refer to this tangible plane as that of Maya, illusion. Increasingly, their thesis is proving most prescient!
Sioux Rose, the Hindu mystics also refer to our age as Dwarpa Yuga ( the present stage of mans evolutionary consciousness) which is sometimes referred to the Piscean Age, which is just one stage above the lowest evolutionary stage of mans consciousness, on the total evolutionary scale and Dharma ( mental virtue ).I think the Hindu mystics have this one right too!
Sioux Rose
Hi, PAUL, I am very aware of this, however, maybe you offered the reference to those in the forum who are not in the know about such things as universal time cycles. I published a book on this topic, "Neptune: And The Final Phase of the Piscean Age." I worked on the material for several years to put my thesis together. It was published in 2004, and I have to admit, things have gotten worse than I probably imagined while writing it.
'Las Vegas has no Product' Yes and well said. OF course, Vegas' product could be seen as entertainment; the problem being that we all know REAL entertainment is educational and enlightening, not merely diverting. Still...
But what does the Finance Sector DO?? If they invest your money 'better', aren't they breaking the first rule of 'free markets'? (that NOTHING can invest your money better than the free market itself since its the most 'efficient'). If they are trading on insider knowledge, or knowledge of a backroom arraingement involving hedge funds or international derivatives, isn't their value really based on their access to UNFREE MARKETS??? A 'free, open' market is one heavily regulated to insure that ALL information is available to all participants and that no one has an unfair advantage. The SEC is designed to ENFORCE such a condition on the American stock market. So, if the finance sector can do BETTER for its clients than the stock or bond markets, HOW DO THEY ACCOMPLISH THIS (except by offering access to closed, backdoor markets that ought to be illegal in this 'free' society)? Bottom line: the growth of the Finance Sector OUGHT to parallel the growth in unfree, backroom markets that tilt the scales to allow predation on the 'little guy' investor. The massive growth in hedge funds and financial derivatives is proof that this is exactly what has happened. Finance is now preying on ordinary Americans. That's how it turns its excess profit, because that's the ONLY WAY IT COULD EVER TURN EXCESS PROFIT. Something the FDR administration worked overtime to pass laws to prevent (thanks to hard experience) is now being allowed to happen. The finance guys don't turn wrenches, don't program computers, don't clean bathrooms. They come up with ways to park money that are 'BETTER' than the free, open market that classic capitalist theory states is the MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO INVEST MONEY. That is, they invent ways to CHEAT the system. According to classic capitalist theory, that's all they ever COULD do, and consistently make more money than the free and open market. They make money, in the end, by PREYING on people who DO turn wrenches, program computers, and clean bathrooms.
Sioux Rose
UBREW: I never took a college course in economics, never invested a dime in stocks (although I inherited some recently), and from a mystical point of view, I have NO planet in my chart in an earth sign. Therefore I find it almost impossible to wrap my mind around economic theories. But there is something that stands out and troubles me greatly, and it is this:
I realize that once the U.S. dollar was torn away from the gold standard, that the whole thing became largely an exercise in symbolic wealth. However, the development of the non-product that equates with derivatives, trades in this nebulous "animal" purportedly into the MANY trillions ($)... can be, and in fact is being claimed against very real assets. The funny money created by these Wall St alchemists is taken as acceptable collateral, used to purchase genuine land and other valuable investments of long-term worth. The paper-illusion of wealth used to make these trades (reminiscent of the first settlers using Wampum to purchase Manhattan) sets up the NATURAL WORLD to pay the REAL price.
The more funny money--i.e. paper funds that carry the illusion of worth (thanks to having been christened as derivatives by our drunk-at-the-wheel regulators), the more claim to be made against nature, thus escalating the present pattern of rabid resource depletion. Fake $ is being used to rape the natural world!
Earth mother's genuine assets, like gold, copper, oil, gas, coal... take EONS to form. Therefore this instantaneous trafficking in paper equivalents of vast sums, leveraged against that which will never come back, or become restored in MANY generations, is a theft against not only nature, but all living systems. And most rely on each other in the grand natural scheme of things; for it IS a web of life that's being dismantled and sold in pieces to not the highest bidders, but those who own no conscience, and traffic in these fiduciary fabrications.
One could make the case that not only do the engines of the industrial world burn vigorously in a manner that provokes global warming, so, too, do the fake engines of the derivative trade as it sets up something equivalent to a land grab, all based on a commonly accepted FICTION of worth! Perhaps PT Barnum recently reincarnated and has taken his "there's a sucker born every minute," to a whole new level of international finance? (I feel like THE LORAX here speaking FOR the trees!)
Si, Sioux Rose. And the more uncertainty in the system, the more parasites profit. Uncertainty is the soil that grows financiers, religions, insurance companies, war profiteers, politicians, banks, economists, Wall Street Casino gamblers and other useful tools of the oligarchy. Government was supposed to get rid of some of our uncertainty and control oligarchy excesses, but we gave our government away to these parasites.
Sioux Rose
EZE: Astute analysis! I agree, of course... except for the "we gave our government away." You, who so champions the idea of greater public input into all voting processes must realize it was not WE that gave the liberties away. Some, millions even, were bamboozled on a grand scale; but the corrupt have been granting each other insider liberties for some time now, and the checks and balances long-ago devised to offset this type of dangerous shenanigan have been effectively disabled.
He would stop nibbling around the edges of ‘reform,' and tell the political lobbyists, corporate parasites and Congressional sycophants that have brought this nation to its knees that they can no longer make ungodly profits on the backs of the working and middle classes."
All he really has to do is to let the people decide all these important issues in fraud-proof referendums, like the Swiss have. That would make him blameless and re-electable. Studies have shown that the people are right more often than the politicians.
"Now, perhaps more than at any other time, the world needs Great Leadership. Obama should step up and provide that leadership. Without it, there's virtually no chance of keeping hope alive."
Why depend on a messiah when we can lead ourselves in a decentralized way, direct democratically?
I am convinced that Team Obama-- and any politician campaigning for president-- begins with a two-term strategy.
This isn't disclosed, because it is obviously not palatable for a presidential candidate to admit to the hubris that he or she is "really" qualified for a double-term before one has even been elected the first time.
Also, publicly disclosing a "two-term strategy" would invite legitimate inquiry into how the presumption of re-electability affected an incumbent's actions. That already exists, of course; but announcing a two-term strategy would exacerbate the question.
I haven't studied the history of campaign timelines, but given the sharply-increased corporatization of the political process, I doubt that a president waits until his "junior year" to decide whether he'll run again.
I'm not forgetting that external events may decide the question, as with LBJ.
I'm just asserting that Team Obama is surely conditioning every act with respect to a two-term strategy, not the best interest of the nation. The latter wouldn't be pragmatic!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Yup. Well said. It's time for Obama, the individual, to 'find Jesus', have an epiphany, and tell 'Team Obama' that got him elected to take a hike. Not easy since these are probably close friends. Prez Obama is in one of those uneviable positions where he either takes the lonely road and becomes 'one for all time' (a Lincoln or an FDR), or he keeps his friends and leaves the real work for the next person (its looking like the latter). The problem, of course, is real people are dying, and many who are living are in fact dying slowly, while Obama channels the fake leadership perfected by all those before him into a calculated 2nd term.
The sad truth is that events have far outstripped the Beltway desire to lead from the sidelines. Obama either does the unpopular thing (not with the public but with the people who matter) or democracy itself is exposed as the sham it has lately been, and people start taking actions on their own, anarchic in nature, and the country falls apart. Chances are 75% the latter. Who said democracy works when the gov't fears the people? We aren't even CLOSE to that yet. But, it'll happen. And it won't be pretty when it does.
I usually holeheartedly agree with you and, even more often, I find you voicing exactly what I think but I have to disagree with you on one thing here: you're actually attributing these presidential leaches with humillity where none exists. It's all a well-crafted agenda and going in, they know it's for the long run. Assuming that they don't want to disclose that is attributing human qualities where none exists and to entities who are anything but human.
Obama would be a 2-term president if he didn't "play it safe." Playing it safe is what's gonna put his presidency and the world in jeopardy.
The public would mostly stand behind him if he were that radical the Right falsely paints him to be. Sometimes I think Obama just likes the fame, the fact that he made history. He got the job, now he's gonna coast.
An accelerating down hill coast it is too.
I thought that Obama had already made that choice and that it was a clear one: he's the same as Bush only he can say it better. They're all corporate puppets and anyone who doesn't obey the corporate masters command will find himself sucking the barrel of a shotgun in no time.