Four years into his presidency, Barack Obama’s political formula
should be obvious. He gives fabulous speeches teeming with popular
liberal ideas, often refuses to take the actions necessary to realize
those ideas and then banks on most voters, activists, reporters and
pundits never bothering to notice – or care about – his sleight of hand.
Whether
railing on financial crime and then refusing to prosecute Wall Street
executives or berating health insurance companies and then passing a
health care bill bailing out those same companies, Obama embodies a
cynical ploy – one that relies on a celebrity-entranced electorate
focusing more on TV-packaged rhetoric than on legislative reality.
Never
was this formula more apparent than when the president discussed
military conflicts during his second inaugural address. Declaring that
“a decade of war is now ending,” he insisted that he “still believe(s)
that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”
The lines generated uncritical applause, much of it from anti-war
liberals who protested against the Bush administration. Living up to
Obama’s calculation, few seemed to notice that the words came from the
same president who is manufacturing a state of “perpetual war.”
Obama,
let’s remember, is the president who escalated the Afghanistan War and
whose spokesman recently reiterated that U.S. troops are not necessarily
leaving that country anytime soon. He is the president who has
initiated undeclared wars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. He is
also the president who, according to data from the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism, has launched more than 20,000 air strikes —
and those assaults show no sign of stopping...
Continued at David Sirota's essay in
Salon.
He got my vote the first time because he was going to end the perpetual wars-but he didn't.
ReplyDeleteHe got my vote the second time because, as pathetic as he was, he was better than his opponent.
He gives fabulous speeches teeming with popular liberal ideas, often refuses to take the actions necessary to realize those ideas and then banks on most voters, activists, reporters and pundits never bothering to notice – or care about – his sleight of hand.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely true. One party is scared to death of its base, and the other (democrats/Obama) takes them completely for granted, because they never issue demands or hold leaders accountable for failing to act. Soaring rhetoric, but nothing else.
This is where the author wanders of the path:
The lines generated uncritical applause, much of it from anti-war liberals who protested against the Bush administration.
The people that actually made the effort to go out into the streets and march against Iraq, Afghanistan, NATO, Wall St. and so on.. (like myself) are progressives, and we are still demonstrating. The author confuses progressives, the kind of people who actually demonstrate and "occupy" if you will, with over half the population that voted for Obama. I can promise you that these "liberals" don't come out to protests or engage in activism or civil disobedience. If they did maybe Democrats and Obama would actually be following up on some of their empty rhetoric.
What I mean is that these "liberals" he speaks of weren't out demonstrating when Bush was president either. They're at home giggling to Jon Stewart..
DeleteSteve, I agree that "true progressives" weren't fooled and are still voicing their disappointment and disagreement. And I can't begin to tell you how disappointed and enraged I am at what this President has promised and failed to do, repeatedly. And truth be told, I have no one to blame but myself, since Senator Obama clearly demonstrated that he went along to get along with the best of them.
DeleteI don't expect much different this coming term. More great speeches, one step forward, two steps back. In the end we're "fortunate" that we averted the immediate debacle and disaster named Romney/Ryan, and Obama will more than likely be allowed to live out another term for failing to live up to his rhetoric. Any President, with the exception of Roosevelt, who attempted to enact genuine reform paid for it with his life. And the only reason he survived was because of all the dirt he amassed on the attempted coup conspirators brought to light by Gen. Smedley Butler.
The world environment will look very different at the end of this century, and not for the better. Global warming will have unprecedented effects on the well being of our planet (eg- drought, famine and the armed conflicts large and small that will incur with the planet's rapidly eroding resources), ninety percent of the large fish population is currently decimated world wide while population levels continue to increase exponentially- that's just the tip of the massively eroding iceberg.
Those real life changes alone will illicit massive social change. Instead of developing and enacting the sweeping changes we need to survive our dwindling resources and ensure our future survival, we continue to try and squeeze out every last desperate drop from yesterday's technology and energy sources. Nowhere is this more obvious than in fracking- poisoning our nation's very water supply for a few more green backs.
The polar ice caps are melting, the Amazon which supplied a quarter of our oxygen is being turned into a parking lot, jellyfish blooms are replacing... real fish- all that and more will hit the tipping point mid century. Not to worry, Rush has our backs, and O'Reilly, Hannity, Palin....
A Brave New World.
Well said Stan. Despite all his shortcomings I prefer Obama to Romney/Ryan, obviously.
DeleteAny President, with the exception of Roosevelt, who attempted to enact genuine reform paid for it with his life.
Agreed, and I'd also add any political activist that gained any real following/momentum to that list too. Funny how every one of them has met with an untimely demise.
I will also note that not ONE conservative was out in the streets protesting about Bush's runaway government spending.
DeleteSteve, I'm not sure about conservatives being in the street or not, but there was quite a bit of criticism of Bush's ridiculous spending. In particular, I remember the Cato institute and Heritage publishing strong pieces expressing disgust over Bush's spending. I also personally remember many fellow conservatives expressing great disdain over the runaway spending.
DeleteAdmittedly, both those institutions and most conservatives I know well are of the Libertarian mindset. The budget problem isn't completely Obama's fault, nor Bush's fault. It is a product of both parties, and a problem for our entire nation.
I'm neither American nor an Obama fan, but what the author describes, isn't that just your average party politician?
ReplyDeleteGive me the name of just one western politician who is holding office whose rhetorics while campaining or even just while in office is mostly consistent with his actions.
I wouldn't know one. And since I am from Europe I know a lot of those - we have minister presidents, presidents and chancellors in abundance, not to talk about commissioners and secretaries and ministers...
Obama does this to the extreme. He talked like an open-government, anti-war liberal prior to his first term, and ended up worse than Bush in many ways (drone strikes, NDAA, indefinite detention).
DeleteI never voted for Obama, but was really disappointed that the few areas I liked him in were all lies.
You have a better grasp of the situation than 47% of this country does.
DeleteThe 20th Century was the great contest between fascism and socialism, and fascism won. We may have disrupted the 3rd Reich, but in doing so every western state adopted some variation of "private ownership, state control".
ReplyDeleteBarry may have socialist roots, but in practice he's a fascist, like every American president since at least FDR.
I suggest you look up the definition of 'fascism' and survey the markers of a fascist state. By the way most of western Europe is socialist, fascism did not win.
Delete"a fascist, like every American president since at least FDR."
DeleteYou're calling my favorite president - Eisenhower - a fascist???
Eisenhower was my favorite as well. Awesome President.
DeleteThe definition of Facism is of course, subject of much controversy. I would argue that this is because the term itself is politically toxic, not because the ideals of fascists have been defeated.
DeleteA few points about fascist economics should sound eerily familiar.
"The fascists opposed both international socialism and liberal capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third way. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.
Fascists argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes.
Fascists believed that too much international trade would make the national economy dependent on international capital, and therefore vulnerable to international economic sanctions. Economic self-sufficiency, was a major goal of most fascist governments."
Fascists wanted "Dirigisme" "an economy in which the government exerts strong directive influence. It designates a mainly capitalist economy with strong directive, as opposed to merely regulatory, economic participation by the state."
"Most modern economies can be characterized as dirigiste to some degree – for instance, state economic action may be exercised through subsidizing research and developing new technologies, or through government procurement, especially military (i.e. a form of mixed economy)."
An interesting read is the program of the NSDAP from 1920
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.asp
Leave out the overt racism, phrase the major planks in modern political doublespeak, and I'll bet a lot of Americans would find this platform familiar and agreeable, if they didn't know the source. Scary stuff.
I agree with Ike's warnings against the military industrial complex, which were sadly ignored. Then again, he started the DHHS, got the US involved in the overthrow of Iran's elected president, and pushed Federal highway programs that have been used time and time again to bully, bribe, and threaten the states into submission.
Minnesotan, your favorite president sent thousands of Americans into prison camps with no legal process.
DeleteI see this everywhere on the web - "Obama hasn't delivered absolute income equality (with everyone making enough money to eat out at their favorite sushi restaurant three times a week)and therefore he is a Republican" - OMFG - he delivered health care for poor people. What do you want from him for god's sake? Reparations for slavery? Free tuition for all college students? Prius's for everyone of voting age? That's why I loath liberals - they aren't pragmatic.
ReplyDeleteI'm not seeing the health care for poor people. Maybe they missed the delivery date?
DeleteNice concern trolling.
DeleteHe's a leftist not a liberal. Leftists have always found liberals to be useful fools so he has to pander .
ReplyDeleteYeah, "leftists" are running things in this country, and pigs are currently flying all over the place. Please buy a dictionary or at the very least look up something on wikipedia to see how completely ridiculous that notion is.
DeleteEmbarrassing.
If "leftists" actually ran things, every one of those Wall St. banks that couldn't bail itself out with private money would have been nationalized, and scores of Wall St. criminals would be prosecuted and in jail.
DeleteIt is HILARIOUS that you think that a guy who fills his cabinet full of ex/current Wall St. bankers is a "leftist".
Keep up to speed, The Leftist run giant factory complexes currently.
DeleteDo you honsetly believe constant projection of force is a Liberal strategy?
Obama gave us healthcare reform, minor Wall Street reform, ended DADT, came out in support of gay marriage, signed Lilly Ledbetter Act, Matthew Shepherd Act, the Stimulus, ended war in Iraq, is planning to get us out of Afghanistan sooner than planned.....
ReplyDeleteAnd got re-elected in the Bush Recession (despite Americans not knowing what they stand for and voting one party out every election and giving us divided governments like OBAMA HAS) so he could bring us ...
Gun Control legislation, immigration reform.
I like drones better than our guys getting killed; we just need to kill fewer civilians using both ways.
He is a left-leaning moderate, and Hillary would have done much the same thing. Liberals can't get elected and most candidates wouldn't have survived the GOP attacks without Obama's charisma. He is the best president in this post-9/11 day and age that reasonable people could hope for.
Thank your lucky stars he is president and not Romney/Gingrich/Santorum.
I see this everywhere on the web - "Obama hasn't delivered absolute income equality (with everyone making enough money to eat out at their favorite sushi restaurant three times a week)and therefore he is a Republican" - OMFG - he delivered health care for poor people. What do you want from him for god's sake? Reparations for slavery? Free tuition for all college students? Prius's for everyone of voting age? That's why I loath liberals - they aren't pragmatic.
ReplyDeleteSerious question- why exactly would Romney/Ryan have been a 'debacle'? The most offensive thing I heard about him (and granted, this was BBC, which is why I'm out of the loop-ish)was that he was nuts, a polygamist (as in 'ha ha' let's make fun of the Mormon by using an outdated stereotype- would have never been tolerated if it have been about anything else, I don't think), etc. I never heard what would have been horrible about his policies/plans. He may not have been a great president, but a debacle? (I personally would have liked to see someone with a business background have a go at fixing the US deficit/depression/economy (all three- not synonyms). (please no flames- I'm seriously asking)
ReplyDeleteNobody said he was nuts or a polygamist on the BBC or anywhere else.
DeleteRomney/Ryan would have cut access for the poor to abortions by allowing red states to force out Planned Parenthood and licensing of abortion clinics. He would have gotten us involved in every foreign entanglement that came along. He would have kept Defense spending where it is, thus limiting other areas that could be cut to only social/entitlement spending. He would have cut healthcare not because Romney wanted, but because Ryan and his party want nothing more than to repeal Obamacare. Romney would have cut taxes for the wealthy and to balance the budget (quicker than is realistic) he would have cut social programs for the poor. He would have privatized social security to do that, thus destroying it by tying it to the "all mighty" stock market's ups and downs. He would cut the size of all Federal programs that didn't benefit corporate welfare.
He would have done less than nothing for global warming. He would oppose Federal support for repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, thus going around any hope that would come for support of marriage equality from the Supreme Court this year. He would facilitate the red states' war on labor unions by appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.
Would have been a devastating disaster. We would likely no longer have an automobile industry - he said he would've let it go bankrupt, whereas Obama gave it a loan & it is now coming back very strong & they've paid back the loan. Is for absolutely nothing but corporations, the rich getting richer off of the middle class's back ( which has already ripped this country in half ). In reality, he knows nothing at all about business; his expertise is making money from money, literally. Heard of house flipping? That is exactly what he does with businesses - buy out a struggling business thereby eliminating employees (so they lose their jobs & health insurance). In short, he's made his quarter of a billion bucks off of hard working Americans' demise, while banking it in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying any taxes on it. The rich get richer while 99% of Americans get screwed. Vulture capitalism. Pro war. Would have been a Bush repeat, if you can even imagine such a horror.
DeleteLeft out a very important fact - every word that ever came out of his mouth was a lie. All politicians are guilty of that, but he even lied when he didn't even need to. Pathological liar.
DeleteCorporations are a large reason why we're in the mess we're in. The last thing we need is a 'business man' at the helm.
ReplyDelete