Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Dear Barack, Spare Me Your E-Mails
Barack Obama’s faux populism is beginning to grate, and when yet another one of those “we the people” e-mails from the president landed on my screen as I was fishing around for a column subject, I came unglued. It is one thing to rob us blind by rewarding the power elite that created our problems but quite another to sugarcoat it in the rhetoric of a David taking on those Goliaths.
In each of the three most important areas of policy with which he has dealt, Obama speaks in the voice of the little people’s champion, but his actions cater fully to the demands of the most powerful economic interests.
With his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, he has given the military-industrial complex an excuse for the United States to carry on in spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined, without a credible military adversary in sight. His response to the banking meltdown was to continue George W. Bush’s massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street, and his health care reform has all the earmarks of a boondoggle for the medical industry profiteers.
Health reform was the subject of Obama’s Tuesday e-mail, which proclaimed in its heading, “We will not back down.” Addressing me by my first name, which I assume is in acknowledgment that I, like the millions of other suckers with whom he so intimately corresponds, had contributed to his campaign, he began with a clarion call for yet another contribution, this time to donate.barackobama.com/FinalStretch.
“As we head into the final stretch of health reform, big insurance company lobbyists and their partisan allies hope that their relentless attacks and millions of dollars can intimidate us into accepting the status quo. So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down.”
But we, following him, have already backed down. Does the president not recall that he began his health care reform effort by ingratiating himself with the insurance lobbyists in taking “single payer” off the table on day one? The insurers are not really upset with what may survive as a minuscule public option, for they have won the big prize: Everyone must buy insurance from them under penalty of law, and there will be no built-in requirement for cost control. Their so-called opposition to the current plans has to do with fine-tuning the president’s guarantee of their future profits.
The same contradiction between progressive rhetoric and big-business giveaways was on display, also on Tuesday, when Obama addressed the economic crisis. Speaking at the Brookings Institution, an Establishment think tank that helped craft the radical financial deregulation of the Clinton years, Obama blamed Republicans for the mess. He thundered against “an opposition party, which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it over to others to solve.”
Rubbish. It was Bill Clinton—in his trademark triangulation of progressive rhetoric with the big-business agenda—who presided over the passage of banking deregulation that led to the mess. Obama knows that full well because he laid out that sordid record in a major speech on economics during the primary campaign, in March 2008 at Manhattan’s Cooper Union:
“Under Republican and Democratic administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices.” He specifically cited the New Deal protections of the Glass-Steagall Act and other legislation that Clinton’s radical deregulation legislation had swept away. Inexplicably as a matter of logic, or all too predictably given the political power of Wall Street, Obama as president turned to the same pro-deregulation Clintonistas to run his economic “reform,” led by Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
As for “solving” the banking problem, Obama simply followed the lead of his Republican predecessor. The throw-money-at-Wall-Street solution for which Obama takes credit is the one crafted by Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, and it was fully endorsed by then New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner, whom Obama named to replace Paulson. The buying off of the financial hustlers was blessed by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who has been renominated to that position by Obama.
The solution that Obama boasts of has left us with trillions more in debt, one out of four children poor enough to qualify for food stamps and, as Obama conceded in his Tuesday speech, “more than seven million fewer Americans with jobs today than when this recession began.”
I do agree with one line in Obama’s e-mail to those of us who hoped for the best from his presidency: “the opponents of reform will not rest.” But I didn’t expect him to be one of them.
112 Comments so far
Show Allwhen all is said and done, Obama will go down in history as a worse leader than Herbert Hoover. Simple fact, in my opinion, many who voted for him did so only based on the color of his skin and not his political record, as his record never gave any indication that he would do anything differently than he has. You reap what you sow. At least for me, it was obvious even during his campaign that Obama was a sham, but too many folks were interested in nothing but soothing their own consciences and this is the result. Enjoy.
You didn't vote for Obama. I'm assuming you didn't vote for McCain. So you voted for a third party. Yes, your vote was symbolic (to no one but yourself). And yes you feel good about yourself for not "selling out" (but only good about yourself). But if less than 48% voted for your third party, which was a certainty, McCain/Palin would be president. That is unimaginable. Yes Obama is turning out to be Bush - 1, but that's way better than being Bush times 2, which is what McCain/Palin would have been.
"That is unimaginable", he says.
Why they would've excused all the Bush folks, drained the treasury for all their corporate cronies, okayed drilling in the artic, advocated mountaintop removal and "clean coal" and nuclear, kept all the generals, continued torture, ignored Iraq which is explodeing, pledged allegiance to Israel, while paying lip service to the peace process, slashed entitlements like social security...well maybe not, the Republicans can't get away with undermining the safety net--but the Dems can because they are the good guys and have a secret plan...if we only gave them more time...But then, maybe they wouldn't have won the peace prize and get to give an acceptance speech advocating for the escalation of war.
Bingo!
If we always vote for 'lesser evil-ism,' then we are stuck. They will pull out a bogey man to get our vote. McCain today, someone else tomorrow...
How is it unimaginable? Name the subatantiative policy differences we would see?
And, if worse, perhaps it would be better, in that it would brign the whole mess down faster, and galvanize the people for the genuine revolutionary change that is needed.
Certainly, attendance at this Saturdays demo in DC would be much, much higher if McCain were President.
We wouldn't have taken this from Mcain.
It's a second Great Depression in this country, and this time there's no national politician to advocate for us.
I've always voted Dem, but no more.
" It is one thing to rob us blind by awarding the power elite that created our problems but quite another to sugarcoat it in the rhetoric of a David taking on those Golaiths". Respectively Sir: it looks like you were another intelligent person who bought the snake oil from the consummate con man. Please support third party candidates; this egregious duopoly has to be truncated. When Obomba said he wanted to look forward and not look at the past he showed his true nature. What he meant by that statement was: I support what Bush,Cheney and the rest of the last Administration has done to America for the last eight years!
Looks like the authentic left is jumping off of Ship Obama.
Would anyone specualte as to a one term presidency?
One term and only one term . . . it's in the bag, the bag FUBARack gets his payoffs in.
Loved the FUBAR by the way!
Well, if the commenters here and the growing number of disgusted commenters on HuffPo are any indication, yes -- provided they don't get spooked at the last minute by the sure-to-be-wingnut-loon Republican candidate and vote that tired "lesser of two evils" meme. I'm standing my ground -- I will not pull the lever for Obama or a Repub.
Me neither. I don't want to dirty my hands any more than I have. After 35 years I'm sick of this "two party" charade.
elohim
Obama already lost the folks that elected him. I would give you a million internet dollar guarantee he is a one term President as we speak.
Barack Obama’s faux populism is beginning to grate
Just now? Only now? I'm afraid Mr. Sheer belongs in the company of Frank Rich, Michael Moore, etc. in his continuing belief that some day, somehow, THE TRUE, THE REAL FUBARack Obama will emerge from the cocoon of de-mock-racy, handed to him by his true parents, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Obama is as phony as the famous three dollar bill, as the tits on the ex-Miss California. "We will not back down"? Oh, really? Well, FUBARack, you backed down, all the way down, the day you exalted yourself as something special. You're as cheap a grafter as Boss Tweed!
That pretty much sums it up
Excellent, as always.
Great as usual. But perhaps Boss Tweed had a bit more style, he gave something occasionally to his voters.
Do what I did and send that shit right to the spam bin.
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 (in Florida), but was so sick of George Bush that I voted for Obama last year. I knew that McNain and Clinton were both corporatists and because I merely suspected that Obama was one I threw in with the Obama machine.
No more.
Yes, Obama is better than Bush. Of course he is. But better than a total fuck-up isn't saying much and I won't get suckered again. I've already changed my party affiliation to the Socialist Party of Florida, the party of Democratic Socialists. That's where my heart has been for years and where I'm staying as long as we remain a one party system.
Here's a better idea from a comment on Truthdig:
"Mid way through the presidents speech, I unsubscribed from all Obama sites left over from election. When asked for my reason, “I have lost my faith in the president as an agent for the change I voted for.”
If there much valued contributor data base evaporates they will notice at some point.”
So they actually ask you why you're unsubscribing. I say forget the spam box and make a statement before you push that unsubscribe button.
Thanks for the idea. I will do just that.
NB
I think Bush was better because it was easier to see through his lies.
The end results are the same.
Obama is slicker.
I am embarrassed.
I am ashamed.
I am disappointed.
I am furious.
I am outraged.
I voted for Barack Obama.
I gave $100 to Barack Obama.
Barack Obama turns out to be:
A man with two faces.
A phony.
A liar.
A man without ethics.
A man without a heart.
A killer.
A war criminal.
To name a few ....
I hereby award to Barack Obama
the Ignoble Prize.
ig·no·ble (ig-no'-bl) adj. 1. Not noble
in quality, character, or purpose; base or mean.
As A. Huxley once noted: welcome to a brave new world.
"As we head into the final stretch of health reform, big insurance company lobbyists and their partisan allies hope that their relentless attacks and millions of dollars can intimidate us into accepting the status quo. So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down."
Truly Orwellian, considering Obama sat back, seeming to distance himself- but pulled strings and manuevered behind the scenes for the plan the Insurance Corp requested in secret meetings. The majority's preference for single payer not being even considered was just the tip of the iceberg. He had his players in position from Baucus to Snowe to front for his preference because he couldn't advocate for himself--it would reveal what a fraud he is. He even cut Kucinich's bid to allow states to pursue single payer. Instead we get limits on abortion, and when that gets voted down, it appears a victory. He must think the toothless "no pre-existing conditions" mandate, easily bypassed by Insurance will represent that "change we can believe in" regarding Health INSURANCE reform. Apparently, in his arrogance, he doesn't see how the half measures of the disasterous Clinton reform ultimately hobbled Hillary politically.
Counterpunch has an article up today suggesting Obama is positioning himself for 2012 with these cynical manuevers on every front, but the dude must be living in a fairytale if he really thinks his campaign about change isn't on the brink of crash and burn. Not being Bush is not enough, especilly when following the same model and employing the same tactics.
What could be more Orwellian than acccepting a peace prize while advocating for war?
The most terrifying element of O's trying to look like a populist, while slavishly serving the corporations, is the "growth medium for the Right" effect. (That was Barbara Ehrenreich's term for the Clinton administration.)
The fascists can claim that "liberals" and "progressives" are doing this to them, whip up their base and come back with an even more extreme Cheney-type next time. Pretty soon all the failings of America will be seen as the responsibility of "liberals," because they didn't do anything to change the policies. Probably, this is all part of the plan.
odoco
Green Dragon - I have long felt that that is exactly the plan; paint Obama as an exceedingly leftist, statist politician, mobilize the masses against their own self-interests, then elect someone who would make Bush II look moderate - all the while deconstructing any remaining vestige of civil dialogue or governmental responsibility toward the people themselves.
It's called fascism.
Scheer has yet to become 100% Anti-Obama, but he's getting closer. I think it best to attack the entire federal government as it tries to destroy the economic viability of Commonfolk in its wide-ranging Class War. And make no mistake--there are many people being killed by the federal government and its allies. It's time for a new union.
I got one of those emails also - I recommend removing yourself from the list. There is a comments section asking why you are being removed; you can use it to vent. Lessons learned: Great speeches that rally the people, and create great hope at a time when the nation is racked and desperate for a way out minus pinpoint specifics = nothing will change.
Although BO did mention he was for single payer, before he was against it
For those who claim 'all you had to do was look at his voting record', I would appreciate what you feel are the biggest examples, ref if possible. thanks.
Well, I know there were more than this but the one that drove me into the permanent third party camp, damn the consequences, was his vote to ex post facto (UnConstitutional, right there) let telecoms off with immunity in their complicity with the unconstitutional domestic spying by the Bush administration on US citizens internally, the so called FISA vote right before the elections.
Also the bank bailout, TARP crap without any re-regulation to Glass Stegall again or repeal of the whatchamacallit Graham act that put aside Glass Stegall.
Yes, I remember now - but that was just before the election, primaries were partially over by then? Anyway, point made..
The Military Commissions Act
multiple war funding
Robert Scheer, such an angry guy,
why don't you run for office get elected and do better
Angry? Isn't that how Bush referred to us?
As if we didn't have good reason to be angry.
It can't be said often enough: if you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
Or if you are paying attention, it stops at the lizard-brain.
Comments like djb's are the weak and empty mutterings of someone who knows something's happening here, but doesn't know what it is.
They betray an absence of self-awareness, too-- because they simultaneously deplore "anger", yet crackle with anti-intellectual anger and bitterness.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Perhaps you would be willing to vote for someone like Robert Scheer...who is not a "popular" celebrity put forth by the establishment as a "liberal" democrat.
GREAT IDEA. We need a strong progressive who is FOR SINGLE PAYER in California's 30th Congressional District. Someone who LISTEN to those constituents who tell him/her to vote AGAINST the wars and war funding. What about it Bob? You have a LOT of name I.D. and all the issues background that is needed.
"Hope has two lovely daughters: Anger and Courage."--St. Augustine
It is amazing how much the glaze-eyed democrat hacks are already coming to sound like the glaze-eyed republican hacks of a half decade ago.
Briggs Seekins
briggsseekins.wordpress.com
Good point -- but it's so much easier to sit in a comfy office (or living room) and tell everyone else how to do things. Politics is the art of compromise -- which is why so many CommonDreams folk don't really like it. I guarantee you'll find more venom directed at Obama than at Castro on this site -- Fidel never had to placate all the constituencies that Obama does. I detect a great deal of scorn for anyone who doesn't toe the ultra-left line -- the only politicians who get any praise are unimportant figures like Kucinich. No wonder the Scheers and so many CDers never stop moaning. One wonders whether their lives are as miserable as they sound.If Scheer ever ran for office and got elected, he'd have the same uber-leftists breathing down his neck in a year or two (unless he ran for Congress and could cast meaningless votes, a la Kucinich).
I guess countries like Canada (universal healthcare) and Japan or Switzerland (military aggresion prohibitied by it's constitution), or Norway and Sweden, (free healthcare, free higher educaton, mandated paid time off to workers for dozens of reasons, $16/hr minimum wage, tougher environmental regulations) are "ultra-left" too.
I want the same thing here. And I'm not interested in vague dreams of it happening hundreds of years in the future. I want to see at least a glimpse of the promised land before I go into that good night, as poor MLK thought he saw in in that Memphis speech where it seems he had certain knowlege he would be killed the next day.
And Fidel is such a bad guy how? Becasue he had to take some tough measures to defend his country, and himself (hundreds of murder attempts), from the madman just to his north?
"he doesn't see how the half measures of the disasterous Clinton reform ultimately hobbled Hillary politically."
He sees everything. He thinks he'll be able to win in 2012 anyway: he'll fool enough people, retain nearly all of the black vote while the rest of us will be so spooked by a Palin-like GOP candidate that we'll pull the lever for him out of fear and panic. He'll certainly have the backing of the corporate media ala Clinton in 96'.
What amazes me is how someone as well informed and intelligent as Robert Scheer could have been so suckered by this Obama thing, when little old me sensed it immediately. How did this happen? I'm about 15 years younger than him, maybe I'm just more cynical by nature, having come of age during the Vietnam era.
In his defense, and I suppose mine too, there was Palin. Many, or most, progressives shrank in horror to think of her so close to the presidency with a man of McCain's age heading their ticket.
So, why didn't people glob onto Hillary? Why indeed. But would she have been better now? Or more of the same?
Clinton was never, ever an option. Remember NAFTA, welfare "reform," and the "New Economy?" Both Clintons are, and always have been, corporate shills.
(Actually I believe that Hillary would have been worse than Bill, as she is the more socially conservative of the two.)
More of the same, though she would have not had as much support from the blacks and so would be more vulnerable to pressure from the (real) left. Obama has a locked in support base (the blacks) and so is in a much stronger position than Hillary would have been to stiff the left. Additionally, any attack on Obama from the left will drive a wedge between the blacks and the left, thus further marginalizing the left. Wall Street and the CEOs played a very smart move in getting Obama elected; they managed to separate the blacks from the left and move them into its pocket. Plan to see more corporate black presidents, from both parties.
BTW, I voted for Obama in the general because McCain seemed horrible and cluless, and Palin scared the $**t out of me.
Many,many well informed and intelligent people like Mr. Scheer fell for being suckered by Obomba. I realized it in the last election when so many well meaning and intelligent people were literally hypnotized by his BS and could not be persuaded to vote third party. That is why I have always said: this guy is good; I mean really good. One of the best con jobs I have ever seen!
NEVER DONATE TO THE DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN PARTY'S!!!!
NEVER DONATE TO ANY DEMOCRAT EITHER!!!!!
THE DEMS ARE WORTHLESS AND USELESS!!!!
The fact that people have to donate to political parties/candidates is pretty sad to begin with. It underlines the fact that elections are bought with un-regulated big money. We ought to just set a price for a Senate seat, say 20 million? Presidency? 500 million; House Rep. 5 million. At least it would be more transparent and honest about it.
Funny you mention that. Just like how there's "left cover" in these e-mails, could there not be "democratic cover" for oligarchy in general?
In more autocratic societies, the common people, knowing they are oppressed, knowing the government is openly corrupt, are actually more willing (in private) to acknowledge public wrongs and the necessity of radical actions. Thus, when they are pushed to the limit, they openly rebel.
In degenerated democratic societies, the common people, based off of their traditions, assume their government, however bad and decaying, is (still) fundamentally sound and that corruption are just a "few bad apples", or at most are a "spreading cancer", something that can be removed when the right party takes over or if enough people are sufficiently angry. Thus, the average citizen, rather than being censored, censors himself from expressing cries for systemic changes, even when he has to accept a lower living standard as somehow normal.
The second seems more subtle and sophisticated, but I'm not so sure I share Orwell's belief that the second method of manipulation is superior to the first. Sure, the US and UK, the premiere Western powers, having spent millions and decades on PR/propaganda, have used it to preempt and smother revolution, but it seems far more vulnerable if many minds suddenly do free themselves (as supposed democracies can't afford to overplay their fascist hand without breaking the illusions of those still brainwashed) from propaganda.