Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Show About Nothing: The Placeholder Presidency of Barack Obama
I think we're at the point now where it's become inescapable that the Obama presidency is also a show about nothing.
It's the same as Seinfeld. Except for two things.
First, unlike Seinfeld, it bills itself as a show about something, if not everything (remember Mr. Bigtime Change from just last year?).
And, second, the nothingness of the Obama administration is not very goddam funny, thanks just the same.
Consider the following crop of headlines, all from the New York Times, and all published in just the last week alone:
"49 Million Americans Report a Lack of Food"
"N.A.A.C.P. Prods Obama on Job Losses"
"The Drug Industry Cashes In"
"3 Democrats Could Block Health Bill In Senate"
"Another Standoff May Be Looming On Abortion Issue"
"Obama Hobbled in Fight Against Climate Change"
"Leaders Will Delay Agreement On Climate"
"Obama Backers Fear Opportunities to Reshape Judiciary Are Slipping Away"
"Guantánamo Won't Close by January, Obama Says"
"China Holds Firm On Major Issues In Obama's Visit"
"As Weight of a Relationship Tilts East, Obama Opts for Nuance and Deference"
"Israel Moves Ahead on Plans to Expand Settlement in Disputed Part of Jerusalem"
"Kurdish Legislators Threaten Boycott of Iraq Election"
"High Costs Weigh On Troop Debate For Afghan War"
If you get a sense from this list that the man holding the most powerful position on the planet is bound and determined to be an object of action, rather than a proactive force on the historical stage, there's a good reason for that feeling. That appears to be precisely his intention.
At a time of significant peril to the country and the world, this president will not act.
And he certainly will not act in any way that is remotely controversial. In normal times, that list would cover just about everything. In our era, however, where rabid regressives have entirely lost even a remote satellite uplink to reality, and have devoted themselves to destroying Obama's presidency at any cost, there is nothing that a president who is worried about ruffling feathers could actually do about anything. If he salutes the fallen returning to Dover Air Force Base, they excoriate him. If he shows a scrap of politeness bowing to the Japanese emperor, they eviscerate him. If he claims he was born in America, they call him a liar for it.
That seems to be fine with Obama. He seems quite content to be a placeholder president, just as Bill Clinton was before him. And, you know what? Placeholder presidents can be just fine. If you're living in the nineteenth century, that is. They've even been survivable recently, though the scale of blown opportunity can be jaw-dropping. Just the same, every time I find myself cringing at the thought of Bill Clinton's eight year self-reverential celebration of all things Bill Clinton, I can always rescue myself by remembering how much worse things there are than indifference in the White House. At last, I have finally discovered a reason, however slim, to be grateful to Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Thanks for the perspective, fellas.
This president, however, doesn't have the luxury he seems so intent on taking. He came to office at a time of multiple crises. 2009 sure as hell isn't 1997. It isn't even 1993. It's a lot worse, and on multiple fronts.
In fairness to Obama (a sentiment which I'm finding increasingly difficult to muster up as the first year of his presidency segues into the second), many of the problems represented in the headlines catalogued above are America's problems, not necessarily his, per se. They would, that is, have greeted any new president inaugurated last January, and lots of them are going to take years or decades to go away under the best of circumstances, assuming they ever do. But that's also the point - he is the president, and he is supposed to be fighting to improve his country's situation. In case after case, however, he appears instead to be sitting aloof on top of his mountain, evidently admiring his admiration. The problems aren't necessarily of his making, but the absence of credible solutions to those problems very much is.
To be even more generous to this president, these aren't, generally, just any random national problems that he inherited, either. They are chiefly the product of America's insane and disastrous experiment with regressivism these last three decades. They are, in short, Reagan's and Bush's gift to Barack. But again, while he's not responsible for his inheritance, he is responsible for what he does with it. And what this fool has done with it is to turn it into a Seinfeld sitcom. That is to say, nothing. He not only doesn't identify the paternity of this bastard child for all to see, he won't even speak up as the very same people who left him this plate of swill have the gall to blame him for it and seek the destruction of his presidency at every turn.
There is, of course, a certain profound richness to the notion of these regresso-bots critiquing Obama from the day he walked in the door. "He's spending outrageous amounts of money!", they fervently decry. What, you mean like the last guy did, the one who doubled the national debt from $5.5 trillion to $11 trillion? What, you mean because spending huge sums is the only possible way to clean up the economic meltdown and myriad other disasters bequeathed to him? What, because it ain't cheap to pay for two sprawling unfinished wars, banking system rescues, a car industry gone off the cliff, unemployment insurance for millions and a drowned city?
But enough with the fairness doctrine already. These caveats don't begin to mitigate the epic disaster of the Obama sclerosis. This guy isn't just a deer caught in headlights, he's Bambi on the 50 yard-line, under the klieg lights of a national stadium. He's Mr. Bill. No, strike that. He's Mr. Bill's nerdy little nephew, Kirby Herbert Pollywog Bill. He's a beetle walking across a school yard, where a hundred bored sixth-graders are standing and staring at their feet during an outdoor assembly. He's a tenth inning hanging tired arm curve ball with an angry Babe Ruth at the plate. He's Neville Chamberlain and Spongebob SquarePants' love-child. Suffering from an anemic blood disorder. Republicans just live for this sort of Democrat - which is to say, nowadays, practically every Democrat. They eat them for breakfast. And, as much as I loathe Republicans - rather like I feel about, say, botulism - I mostly don't blame them.
And, as much as it pains me ever to find myself agreeing with a regressoid, Edward Whelan, president of the right-wing Ethics and Public Policy Center, was right when, expressing his surprise that the Obama administration has made so few nominations to fill open positions in the federal judiciary, he noted: "On judges as on so much else, this administration seems to be much less competent than both its supporters and critics expected". Hear, hear.
Count me in on that one. I didn't know what kind of politics these guys would have, but I felt real confident that they'd be damn good at those politics, whatever they were. And not without good reason did I come to that conclusion. Obama is obviously smart, and he ran a near-perfect campaign, just as he had to, in order to win the presidency against long odds.
And, you know, it may even be the case that these guys would be good at their politics. But, apparently, we're never going to find out, since they don't seem capable of trying. When they're not busy, as they are so much of the time, aping the regressive policies of Bush and Cheney, they're working hard at hardly working. Folding cards, blowing opportunities, missing deadlines, breaking promises. It's hard work putting on a show about nothing, lemme tell ya! Think of all the liberal judges they failed to appoint just today alone! Think of all the prisoners they haven't transferred from Guantánamo! Think of all the egg they have to wipe off their faces as they get spanked by Israeli prime ministers, Big Pharma CEOs and punky members of their own party alike! Think of all the women whose reproductive rights they have to sell out in order to get their Aid To Corporations With Dependent Billions legislation through Congress! Imagine the number of American children and grandchildren who must be saddled with a load of debt and a climate like Venus, just so Obama can receive his Daily Minimum Allowance of ass-whuppin' every day!
Nah, man. It can't be easy takin' it easy. I thought George W. Bush's act would be a hard one to follow. That little puke took 1020 days of vacation during his eight years serving as Cheney's marionette. That was more than one-third of his presidency, and it far exceeded the time taken by any other president. Who could top that?!
Obama's smarter than Bush, though (and how tough is that?). He's figured out how to take vacation while on the job. And so he has. All around him serious crises for the country and the world rage across the landscape, demanding attention. But Barack remains in comfortable contemplation, never breaking a sweat. On a good day he might share with us some of his famously stirring oratory, filled with broad platitudes about niceness and bipartisanship. On a really good day we'll get half-measures, poorly communicated, to deal with full problems. But on most days, alas, we just get an undiluted shot of Goldman Sachs, Big Pharma and every other corporate plutocrat working directly out of the Oval Office.
Why is Obama such a do-nothing dud? Does he feel for financially strapped Americans to the point of doing his own permanent staycation in the White House, the better to model his empathy for them? Does his personality simply prevent him from doing anything that some person or another might object to? Is he yet another tool of Wall Street, whose only difference from George Bush is stylistic? Did some guy in a black suit and sunglasses pull him aside after the election, and say, "Okay, so you're the president now. You'll be following our instructions from here on out, in exchange for which we're gonna let you live."?
I don't know what his deal is. But I do know that this presidency is catastrophic for progressive ideas, and likely as well for the remaining shards of American democracy itself.
As to the former, our values and solutions are being ridiculously associated with this fundamentally conservative administration, and ironically repudiated right along with its mounting failures. This is yet another marketing masterstroke by the regressive right, a group of folks whose politics are so obscene that they've been forced to become geniuses at slinging bullshit. They remind me of nothing so much as the poor fat kid in junior high who had to learn to use humor to keep from getting pummeled every day after school, and grew up to become a famous comedian as an adult. But, whatever. The upshot is that Obama is going down in flames (or would be, except that his muted implosion is careful even to lack that much cinematic drama), and progressivism will be tarred for years and decades because of that. Our politics will be blamed for committing a crime, when they were actually in another country (literally) at the time.
As for American democracy, I think it likely that the elections of 2010 and 2012 will mark continuations and indeed extensions of the pattern from 2006 and 2008. The condition of the country sucks. People want change. But, unless something dramatic happens, they continue to only have two choices - the party in power, or the other party. In 2010 and 2012 the incumbents will be the pathetic Democrats, and the only real alternative will be the just recently comatose Republicans, newly revived courtesy of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Since we can expect the GOP monsters to win those elections handily under such conditions, the question becomes, what will that party stand for, and who will represent it? Here, the signs are especially bad. From New York to Florida to Alaska to all across the radio dial, the GOP is doing the impossible these days. It is actually becoming more regressive, more repressive, more narrow, more stupid, more greedy and more vicious. It's hard to imagine they could surpass their current personal bests in the pathology decathlon, but indeed they are.
Meanwhile, my guess is that the winner of the GOP nomination in 2012 will be the winner of the presidency that fall, just as the real contest in 2008 was to win the Democratic nomination.
My guess is that that person is now running around the country plugging her book.
And my guess is that the next go-round of Reaganism/Bushism will make the last one look like a friendly game of gin rummy by comparison.
They will almost certainly have to pull the plug on any remaining vestige of democracy at that point, since their policies will be utterly useless in addressing people's mounting concerns and their growing impatience.
Get your passport renewed.
Mexico might be a good alternative. The weather is nice and warm.
And, evidently, the money is good. At least compared to what the very sick Uncle Sam's got going on his hospital ward.
Here's one more indicative (and quite real) headline to add to the list above. No offense to my amigos south of the border, but you can file this puppy under "Y", for "You Know The Show Is Over When..."
"Money Starts to Trickle North as Mexicans Help Out Relatives"




133 Comments so far
Show AllNew York Times headlines are offered as evidence?
Please.
It is true that Obama does not appear to support progressive ideas. But if I were to bet on a poker player, I’d put my money on Obama. It is essential to remember that progressives ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY and hold a very weak position. When British troops outnumbered Colonial troops at the battle of Bunker Hill, a Colonial general gave this order: "Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes"; i.e., hold your fire until the moment when shooting will have the greatest effect. A prudent general can't form strategy using imaginary troops.
Know The Show Is Over When..."
"Money Starts to Trickle North as Mexicans Help Out Relatives"
I'm glad I wasn't alone in noticing this new phenomenon.
It is a fallacy that the POTUS is the most powerful man on Earth.
Bush II was proof positive.
He is the front, the face, an impotent talking head.
The power lurks in the shadows off screen.
The Shadow Government is dangerous and needs to be engaged and put on the defensive. Obama is merely theater, puppetry, a man who believes that style trumps substance.
Today, well educated and experienced generalists are needed. It is they who have the capacity to understand widely diverse subjects and the skills to bring one or many to life as needed to meet the challenges. Their strength lies in their diversity and in their decentralization. Strong decentralized actions, each unique to their location, cannot be controlled by centralized authority. The architecture of successful change is decentralized actions. What is missing is strong action. We must actionize locally. Many of the values of the new economy have been identified, now get busy and do something.
If my memory serves me, the last fellow who tried to 'do the right thing' - talked of the Shadow Government and made some moves toward actual governance, ended up on a stainless steel table in a hospital in the Bush's adopted home state.
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."
- President John F. Kennedy-
Wasn't he refering to the Communists in that quote?
Is the "Shadow Government" supposed to be a part of the Global Communist Conspiracy?
It is up for debate whether JFK was referring to the USSR.
The description aptly fits what I perceive to be in the shadows.
But it isn't a government and definitely not communistic.
It's private enterprise that uses governments, religions,
media, anything and everything money can buy to achieve greater wealth
and control.
Kennedy was referring to the european banking cartel, which owns the Federal Reserve, Bank of International Settlements, Private central banks in most countries, & controlling stock in the largest trans-national corporations... They have funded both sides of every major war & "revolution" since the late 18th century, collecting huge profits on interest on loans to kings & parliaments & dictators, as well as weaponry & munitions & mercenaries... The Rothschilds, Schiffs, Warburgs, and others, who can and have ruined entire economies and hundreds of millions of lives by wars, fractional reserve debt, intentional booms & busts and depressions great & small to consolidate their power for fun & profit... they fund the Capitalists like Rockefeller & Morgan, as well as the Bolsheviks like Trotsky, Lenin, & Stalin... And Fascists like Hitler, Mussolini, & Bush to carry out their dialectic of problem-reaction-solution for global hegemony...
Kennedy, like Lincoln before him, had recently signed executive order #11110 to end the private control of the US money supply, which is the reason behind both of their assassinations... Johnson hadn't even waited for the body to get cold before he reversed that law while on the flight from Dallas to DC
The driver of his convertible limo was the one who pulled the trigger, (which is why Jacqui tried to climb out of the back of the limo), Oswald was the patsy, and the CIA helped to coordinate the psy-ops event of the national tragedy for maximum effect...
Owebama was groomed for this role, just like baby bush & Clinton before him....
He knows well enough that he either takes the sack of gold or he will get the gun...
Now you know why he is the Goldman Sachs go-to man.... they are the ones who hold the sacks of gold...
Stone,
Please explain what you mean by the values of the new economy.
It looks to me like there aren't any values,
unless it is the rich get richer,
same ol' capitalistic economy.
Obama's goal was to get elected as the first black (half-black)POTUS. Mission Accomplished!
No, the problems weren't of his making, but the aggravating thing is that he chose all the wrong people to solve those problems. Wall Streeters Geithner and Summers to fix the economy? Pro-Israel hack Hillary Clinton to fix the Middle East? Warmongering Gates to fix Iraq and AfPak? The list goes on. No one expected Obama to fix everything--or even anything--in his first year. But if he had at least chosen credible experts who could have been perceived as working for the people, or for the country, his ratings would be much higher. Obama's administration is one giant give away to corporate America, and either he's too cynical or too stupid to notice.
Our elite oligarchs, who elevated Obama to the presidency, saw in him a man who'd be able to sell their wars, bailouts and keep them out of jail at the same time.
The country no longer wanted to have a beer with a Connecticut cheerleading cowboy. Stupid was out. Grammar was in.
Obama's oratorical mastery, combined with his dapper looks, skin color and SPINELESSNESS was the resume our elites were looking for in a new leading man.
They would make this Obama puppet dance harder than the Bush puppet.
And the masses, who voted for change, would be rendered inert.
How can you say Obama is SPINELESS?
He's screwing We the People over, isn't he? Doesn't that take some spine? He betrayed millions of us - that takes some nerve. Sending young innocent teenagers to Afghanistan to kill and be killed is not only nervy, it's obscene. But progressives seem to have a very low bar these days. Obama's voice and rhetoric seem to be enough for them. Heck, Bill McKibben says Obama is the greatest president in his lifetime! Am I the only one who's living in a Twilight Zone? Or maybe I set the bar too high.
"Whenever we compromised, we lost." -- the Arch Druid, David Brower
Secession might be a better option. Let's form a Northern alliance with a truly representative parlimentary legislature. Let us fortify our borders and keep Texas from getting Nuclear weapons. I don't want to fight a civil war with them again but I don't want to deal with them either except across a well defended border.
I was one of those who was supportive of the nitwit demagogue Rick Perry's calls for secession (though he was not serious, just positioning against Hutchison). I think it is a long shot, but a break-up of the US might be the only thing that could save the US middle class and prevent the US from continuing its catastrophic economic and environmental policies that threaten the long-term welfare of and even the survival of the human race.
The US political system never functioned well, but now that the corporatists have strengthened their grip, it is completely dysfunctional. I do not see how we can ever fix it (e.g., how do you get public financing when the corporate-financed politicians must vote to switch to public financing) without a new constitution establishing a new political system, but that appears extremely unlikely unless the US does break up and each region can develop its own new constitution (I know, that is also extremely unlikely).
Obviously, one obvious improvement in a constitution would be the requirement of public financing in elections and another would be a provision that corporations are not persons and do not have any political rights. And another could be the addition of certain types of instant run-off voting. Also, many would want to consider more closely resembling some of the parliamentary systems of Europe than the current system of the US.
Maybe some could consider something a bit more radical. I believe that representative democracy should be issue-focused and not candidate-focused. So candidates should not campaign and voters should not vote for candidates. Instead, there should be some set of requirements (different for each type of office) an individual would have to meet in order to become a candidate for a particular office. Then the candidate would fill out a form, completely confidential and prior to an election (e.g. between 30 and 60 days before the election), indicating the candidate's position on a wide variety of issues (there would need to be several dozen, almost certainly with some weighted more, balancing the need to allow voters to punish candidates for their stands on some important issues but not allowing any one issue to be determinative). The voters would also fill out a similar form at an election. The candidates could not advocate for any issues in advance of the election. Using some agreed upon mathematical formula for calculating the exact score (if one wanted to use some weighting scheme for issues or for one's stand on the issues), the winner of the election would be the candidate whose answers most closely matched the answers of the voters. At that time, the candidate's answers would be revealed and after the election there would have to be some process for recalling candidates whose performance in office did not match their answers, which could be considered as something more serious and binding than traditional campaign promises. Such candidates could then be forced to suffer public humiliation and be banned for life from the political process (that should also be the case for politicians in traditional systems who break their promises, but in the current system of course it does not).
Probably this system could be gamed too over time as the current system has been gamed by economic elites, but until that time possibly some progress could be made.
I totally support the calls for the breakup of the US. This whole system has collapsed and there's no possibility of fixing it. End the nightmare once and for all and restore the sovereignty of the states. If some of those states wish to join others in new unions that would be fine. But the federal government is a bankrupt dead duck. We need to move on and start all over.
You're comment reminds me of a Groucho patter song in "Duck Soup," I think it was.
"If you think this country's in bad shape now,
Just wait'll I get through with it!"
"I believe that representative democracy should be issue-focused and not candidate-focused. So candidates should not campaign and voters should not vote for candidates."
Before the last presidential election, the Berkley Carroll School in New York held a school wide mock election. Each of several US candidates was given a fictitious name but the real candidates' position on issues remained the same. So essentially, student voted on the issues. Ralph Nader won with 46% of the vote. Obama won 29% (and that was based on what his positions were back then).
I agree, I think we should forget about personality. It's obsolete. It's a dangerous way to run a democracy. As members of relatively small tribes, we looked up to leaders because we trusted them. And those leaders would have to walk among us. If a leader betrayed it's members, a new leader would have to be found immediately, life depended on it. We never would have survived as a species with the kind of media driven politics that we have today.
Have you heard of the National Initiative. Nader and Mike Gravel talked about it during the campaign. Check it out.
I heard that those who really are in power sat him down, showed him the Zapruder film and then said, "Any questions?"
The man is who he is, an utter failure. But this should have been known BEFORE the election, if people cared to pay attention!!!
Ha!
Yes, that was a Bill Hicks routine actually, and the key is that the new President is shown not the Zapruder film of Kennedy's assasination, but a previously unheard of one which seems to have been shot from the infamous "grassy knoll".
The new President's response to "Any questions?" is:
"Just what my Agenda is!"
Great stuff. ;)
I strongly encourage anyone here to check out Bill Hicks's stuff, he was truly great. He died of cancer in 1994 so the younger crowd especially might have never heard of him.
--A warning though, his gleeful -then skeptical- reaction to the defeat of H.W. Bush in 1992 might just cause time-warp induced logic failures in the CPUs of any still-functioning Obamabots.--
We see pessimism overstated. Obama finds himself enmeshed in a corporate controlled political system. The legislative servants of big business largely serve the corporate masters that finance them (with a few exceptions). Greed of the few determines outcomes more than the welfare of the people. Yes I would like to see Obama become more audacious, perhaps use executive powers more effectively. But I suspect he is the best we can get. If he lost the election we'd have "bomb,bomb bomb Iran " McCain as president and Palin as his replacement.
Let's not undermine Obama. I suspect that he'll make good on ending torture, closing Gitmo, ending "don't ask, don't tell", winning the trust of foreign countries, etc. He wont be able to deliver nirvana.
Let's not undermine Obama. I suspect that he'll make good on ending torture, closing Gitmo, ending "don't ask, don't tell", winning the trust of foreign countries, etc. He wont be able to deliver nirvana.
-----------
Torture is already continuing.
Bagram is the new Gitmo.
DADT is small potatoes.
You think Latin America trusts him?
IMHO the overall policies and actions of the United States concerning any MAJOR issues would be the same if the president was Obama, McCain, or Palin. Watch "The Secret Global Empire" video that is in the video section of CD. They lay it out pretty nicely there.
No, your comment is wrong and naive to boot. McCain wouldn't bomb bomb Iran any faster than would Obama. It has nothing to do with what the sock puppets of empire want. It has to do with what the Shadow wants.
Can we just deal with what is and not get trapped in never ending wishful thinking. Your, "I suspect" Obama will do this or that is not useful. It's not all that important what anyone thinks might happen, or suspects will happen, or hopes can happen. We need to deal with what is actually happening.
and "let's not undermine Obama" is a weird thing to say when so many lives are at stake. If he is continuing the torture, indefinite detentions, etc. IT'S OUR DUTY TO UNDERCUT HIM! duh. Were you raised in a military school?
Your logic: "I know he's ordering drones to fly over villages, killing little children, but let's not undercut him here, because I SUSPECT he'll, at some point, stop doing it."
Obama has kept one promise. He said during the campaign that he would spread war into Pakistan. That promise he has kept. We now have war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, war in Pakistan, and proxy wars in Somalia and Palestine. One more war is planned for Iran, and maybe another in Georgia and Ukraine. Wars are illegal, expensive, and they very rarely achieve their purpose.
You forgot the incipient proxy war between US Military/CIA backed Columbia and oil rich Venezuela.
wars always achieve their purpose - profit for the mongers.
" Wars are illegal and expensive and they very rarely achieve their purpose". The purpose of wars are always a punic, canard put out by the whores and presstitutes in the MSM. They never denigrate who the evil war profiteers are and their enormous profits. General Butler had it right when he said: " war is a racket"!
These people STILL don't seem to get it. Barack Obama is a Chicago thug who knows EXACTLY what he's doing. And, like George Bush, he's laughing at all those who fall for his innocent (well, in George's case it was idiotic) act.
People, it's actually racist not to give this guy credit for thinking through his "decisions." I put that in parentheses because Obama is another corporate puppet. HE DOES WHAT THEY TELL HIM TO DO.
It's not because he's "only" 50 - for crying out loud, is 50 the new 20? His frontal lobes are fully developed. Barry KNOWS what true Democratic principles are. He just voluntarily and with full knowledge CHOOSES TO IGNORE THEM...AND YOU!!
Wake up and smell the freakin coffee, and STOP making excuses for the guy - he's a sell out and NOT what you voted for!
Thank God I heard he is seriously considering NOT RUNNING in 2012. Yep, you heard it here, folks. Well, here:
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/20575
Happy Saturday!
Yup. The racists just can't get their mind around the fact that this is just a power hungry fool, no different than many of his Republican counterparts. Power for the sake of power. I knew this was not a nice person when I heard him explain why he was backing corn based ethanol and putting a tariff on sugar based ethanol. National security, he said. Despite the fact that the policy was killing millions of the invisible poor. In fact, most of racists believe that the whites have Barry on such a short leash that he can't even play golf with the guys he likes. Poor Barry, had to play golf with that old white stiff from UBS during his vacation. No rest for such a good hearted person as he. Poor Barry. He just doesn't have enough power and all those hand picked neo cons aren't going to give it to him. Even if he were king of the world, they would be saying that there was some higher power controlling him. President of the U.S. just doesn't cut it. Not according to the racists.
Are you saying that racism is causing the left to believe that Obama is not in control of the country? That somehow we believe that his inferiority to the white masters is the source of his inaction?
That may be the the case. I, we, may be racist. Maybe we just can't understand that he is just another Harvard-educated elitist who in reality cares nothing about the people of the US and is cynically doing the bidding of the people who made his presidency possible. I think this argument has merit. Is this what you are saying?
In any event, I really don't give a damn what Obama's motives are. One way or another, the POTUS is ALWAYS under control of the corporate elites. Whether or not he believes, in his own mind, that their way is right is irrelevant. He is doing nothing for us. That is what matters to us.
In the end we'll never know if he is being overtly threatened, if he begrudgingly accepts the compromises in hopes of achieving at least some good, or if he in fact is just one of the elites, as you seem to imply.
While it may be true that our stereotyping is biasing our beliefs about Obama's intentions, the fact is that we were lied to. His campaign and his presentation of his views and self were misleading at best. In many cases, his stated positions on specific policies have turned out to be lies. I don't care if the guy is white, black, brown, yellow, pink or blue; he is simply a defective product in my eyes. False advertising.
Chicago gangster politics is actual the Chicago Gangster
Theater Guild. As all the paid actors are hand picked
by the rich nobility of Chicago.
In keeping with the title "A show about nothing" I find myself reading this from a perspective of asking, am I an observer or a participant?
The litany is an undeniable profile of where we stand within the context of a society that has been sold a bill of goods over a long history of promises, misrepresentations, extreme concentration of resources and the price coming home both here and all over the world.
It would seem that just as a litany is an itemization, the answer is equally in biting off, step by step, stepping into participatory democracy in ways that are unfamiliar to media presentations, and being prepared to do so learning and being in for the long haul.
Hold not only Obamas feet to the fire but those of all representatives. All of the problems are also individual opportunities to go on record and documenting from the local level on up. No society can survive as complete negation and the more pressure applied the more will get shaken loose for reform.
Document, pressure, repreat....
It's another "well, duh" moment.
Prof. Green, if you're reading this, then I urge you to remember our common obligation to reason. Now that you (and many others) have identified the problem repeatedly, what will you do to move people away from their illogical responses?
It raises the question: are you yourself prepared to cease offering the Democratic Party unconditional support?
Obama will be remembered as the man who made Sarah 'Cariboo Barbie' Palin the next US President.
Yeah, but Jabba the Rush will still demand credit for it.
Perhaps.
But wouldn't you agree that 153 weeks ahead of time is just a BIT too early to concede Election Day 2012?
If a new political party (or a current small party) could form a cadre of 1,000,000 fund-raising members/voters by May 2010, folks who would agree to raise $1 a-day for the purpose of political campaigning, then by the time the 2012 Elections ramp-up that summer this new (or current) party will have $730,000,000 to spend on them.
The fact that an idiot/lunatic like Sarah Palin could even be CONSIDERED as a candidate for Governor, let alone alone acheive that office, be made a Vice-Presidential candidate on a ticket that got almost 46% of the vote, AND be the presumed Presidential candidate for the Repubs in 2012 is, to my mind, solid and absolute proof that quantity and quality of TV exposure has become the main factor in U.S. political campaigns.
$730 mil. buys A LOT of TV time.
To put this 1,000,000-member fundraising team into perspective, size-wise:
-This would represent significantly LESS people than 1% of the 131,257,328 Citizens who voted for President in 2008. 300,000 less people in fact.
-This would also represent significantly LESS people than the 1.41% of Presidential voters who chose to vote non-Dem/Repub. 850,000 less people in fact.
And focusing just on the "progressive" or "leftist" tack:
-This would represent only 99,922 more people than the combined voters for Nader and McKinney in 2008 (900,078). In other words, a modest 11% growth in support for the True Left after more than a full year (by May 2010) of Obama, combined with a new-found willingness to put their money where their mouth is.
-Even restricted to the Naderites, this would represent only 261,525 more people than Ralph's 2008 showing. Or 35% growth plus some true grit.
---
$1 a-day is an exceedingly modest sum for all but the most destitute of U.S. Citizens to raise. But if even a relatively tiny proportion of them could be organized to do so, day in and day out, for two years, for a cause they believe in, then they could invoke an avalanche, a hurricane, a tidal wave of change in U.S. politics and Government. All without even altering the de facto structures of TV-based politics or threatening the Media Conglomerates' bottom line (at least in the sort term)!
That this doesn't happen means one of two things are true about the people of the U.S., and especially the "progressives" and "leftists":
1. The thought of organized, massive participation, low-contribution fund raising has never occured to them.
2. They are too lazy or full of fear to do anything about it once it has.
I'm trying to take care of number 1 -and I need help in spreading the word. I'll leave it to others to address number 2.
I'll leave this with a possible slogan for the campaign to recruit such a fund-raising cadre:
"I'd pay a Dollar-A-Day to Change the World. Wouldn't you?"
Good luck,
-matti.
Bravo, Matti. A great idea. If more of our people would give some thought, as you do, to things we might do to SOLVE our problems, instead of just discussing them, we'd soon have a movement that would plow the one-party two-face system under. It's new ideas we need, and the will and the means to implement the good ones.
The amount of money we could conceivably raise is irrelevant. THEY actually own the printing presses. If the real left were ever to begin to raise a substantial amount of funds, all we would prove is that the elites have infinitely more access to money and power than we have.
They also, by the way, own the other printing presses. The ones you seem to hope we could "buy ALOT of time" on. You think fox would air the truth? or maybe msnbc?
The top 1-10% don't seem to be having any problems as the FED blows another bubble in the stock market, more bailouts are arranged to shift more monies from the poor to rich, and the deficits/debt they make lots of money on keeps rising at breakneck speed. So, the constituency Obama was chosen to represent is doing just fine with his current and proposed policies. Obama is the lead general on the opposing side in the Class War--something Green apparantly can't bring himself to write.
So, Obama isn't a "place holder" president. He's doing real damage to millions of US citizens as the Class War escalates bigtime. There's one theme the Tea Baggers have correct--The great majority of Obama's policies are not good for the commonfolk, as one would expect from the escalation of an already lopsided Class War. Can anyone point to a specific policy of Obama's (aside from medicinal marijuana) that's worthy of support? Are there any legitimate excuses for his lies? Clinton was a horrendous President and War Criminal, as were the Bushes before and after. Obama will probably exceed them all in destruction.
In reading an article here on CD about Obama's golf game, I found a very telling insight into his character. One of his colleagues stated that in golf, as in his politics, Obama is "risk averse".
So I would assume that the least risky position for him to take would be to maintain the status quo, which is exactly what he has done with Geitner, Summers and the military heirarchy, as well as torture, illegal imprisonment, war, the economy, and so on.
He's not a "Change" kinda guy, but he plays one on TV.
"He's not a 'Change' kinda guy, but he plays one on TV."
excellent.
A professor of "political science" that makes no mention at all that all these inherent problems are the results of a capitalist system that by its very nature is unable to address the problems it is responsible for creating. He's so upset that a president is there who supports the system and is constrained by the system in what he can and cannot do. He suggests that if we just had the right guy in there, all is possible. He looks upon politics from the slant of capitalist commodities, where it's simply a question of a choice between one item or another. He's blinded by the capitalist ideology that dominates our society and culture. He offers NOTHING to further a working class struggle against this rotten system, but rather laments the fact that a bourgeois politician isn't bringing about the political results he wants. Prof. Green is just a waste of bytes.
ooooh, thank you. Nice post. But what are we to DO? Item: Elections are run by the wealthiest Amerikans. Item: Elections are won by the 55% who get all their 'information' from Fox network. Item: Fox network is owned by the chief fascist of them all. Item: Short of armed revolution, we are losers.
WHAT DO WE DO? ORGANIZE!
Hi Michael. Good question. The answer is, we learn how to organize - unions, communities, students, churches, and especially how to form coalitions of ALL these elements. And we create schools and forums for organizers in every city.
Next time you go to a meeting or a rally, here is a slogan to remember. "A meeting is never complete until everyone leaves with a job to do and someone to do it with."
Every rally I go to consists of a collection of speeches. Sorry "leaders of the movement," speechmaking is not organizing. Cut short your speech and ask people to gather into action teams. Everyone who wants to go door to door, over here. Talk show callers, this way. People who will bring the message to unions or jobsites, in front of the stage. Church organizers, here. Only in this way will we build up an infrastructure which, over the long haul, can eventually challenge corporate dominance. Unless we learn to function in affinity groups, families if you will, we will never build a real movement, much less a serious party. Now that more and moree people are becoming disillusioned is the time to start.
"what are we do DO?"
Good question. So here's my suggestion, obviously in a very short form...
1. Firstly, understand how the system of capitalism works. How it is structured, where surplus value comes from, what private property is all about under the capitalist system and what the two main contending classes are in this type of economic-social system. For help on this, read either Marx's Capital ** (heavy reading, but so so eye-opening) or read some later Marxists who have simplified the thing. Here's a good one to read ...
Ernest Mandel: http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/intromet/index.htm
** Here's a series of lecturers that will help anyone get through Capital Volume I:
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/
2. After getting a handle on the above, you'll be more equipped to look at all aspects of society with a dialectical viewpoint and a class analysis. This opens up an understanding of what will be necessary to carry out an effective class struggle against capitalism, the capitalist class and its ideology. You'll begin to notice that all extra-parliamentary class struggles if conducted with the underlying intention of exposing the capitalist system for what it really is can make significant inroads into ultimately changing the system. So ...
3. Choose your struggle, be it in the labour movement, the woman's movement, the peace movement, the environmental movement, the unemployed movement, the electoral sphere, etc. with the idea of expanding your class allies' understanding of what you've learned in step 1. Real change will come about when members of the working class start to understand that they in fact are members of a class that can only find true political and economic liberation by changing the system itself.
4. Discard the idea that the system can be changed in one quick stroke through what you stated was a "violent revolution". That may indeed become the case down the road, but the ground work needs to established first and that means winning over the vast majority of the working class to stop playing the capitalist game.
5. Remember that EVERY action, no matter how small, that is directed to advance the interest of the working class over the interests of the capitalist class, further weakens the capitalist class and impacts on how THEIR economic system works. It is the "butterfly effect".
6. Take advantage of the fact that the global capitalist economic system is now at its weakest stage that it has been for a number of generations. It is in a very grave crisis which is only compounding as the various contradictions of the system percolate to the surface and become more and more obvious to ordinary people. Contradictions of things like: growing unemployment, environmental crisis, failing rates of profit, busting bubbles, etc., etc. make capitalism more and more unmanageable and more obviously irrational.
7. Be aware that the ultra-right (fascists) historically build their strength when the reserve army of the unemployed grows significantly. It is becoming increasingly important that this trend be stopped before it has time to become a real threat. Demands for a shorter work week at the same take home pay, must be a marshalling call today to deal with this reserve army of the unemployed and to lower the rate of capitalist exploitation and increase the strength of the working class both economically and politically.
I won't go on at this point, since understanding the real nature of capitalism from a Marxist perspective provides all sorts of answers to your original question, "what are we to DO?". In its simplest form, it is building the class alliances of all the classes within capitalist society that's interests are opposite to those of the bourgeoisie with the intention of building a new and different society than the one we presently have to endure.
Our mistake was in believing that what Obama promised was still possible. We knew in our hearts that true progressive reform was no longer possible within the current political and economic context, yet still we wanted to believe. And that belief has worked to destroy the last vestiges of the possibility of progressive reform.
Yes, it was our mistake, the King Kong of mistakes. We will not make it again in '012. DO NOT WEAKEN! DO NOT SUPPORT OBAMA! VOTE THIRD PARTY!