The “Wait ‘Til He Gets In” Delusion

Sorry, The President Elect is Not a Latent Lefty

One of the more recurrent refrains I heard from many of Barack Obama’s progressive supporters in late 2007 and through the recent election went like this: “oh, he has to say and do that stuff to get elected. The corporate and military powers that be will sink him if he acts as left as he really is. Just wait until he gets in: then you’ll see the real progressive deal.”

“That stuff” included Obama declaring his readiness to bomb Iran, saying that black Americans had come “90 percent” of the way to equality, treating Jeremiah Wright’s anger over American racism as inappropriate for the current era, proclaiming that the U.S. invaded Iraq with noble intentions, and saying that “the Surge” was “succeeding beyond our wildest imagination.” Other parts of the Obama campaign package: advancing nuclear power and Ethanol, claiming that leading Wall Street firms and other large corporations were as interested as anyone else in “American renewal” (they “just hadn’t been asked” to help the country, Obama said last year), supporting the unilateral use of military power even in “situations beyond self-defense” (in a 2007 Foreign Affairs essay), and calling for an expansion of U.S.-imperial armed forces.

Neoliberal From the Start

There were four key problems with this alternatively naïve and cynical defense of candidate Obama’s centrism. First, it neglected Obama’s history as a deeply conciliatory and conservative, privilege-friendly politician. From his Harvard Law School days through his state legislative career and his brief stint in the U.S. Senate, Obama has exhibited what liberal journalist Ryan Lizza rightly calls “an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions.”

Those who think Obama is a “true progressive” whose left and democratic orientation has been “squandered” or carefully hidden thanks to his national political ambitions and/or the influence of his political handlers might want to consider an interesting description of the young phenomenon penned by the veteran black political scientist Adolph Reed Jr. just as Obama’s political career began. By Reed’s account, Obama came to the political game with an already advanced and highly cultivated bourgeois taste for incremental change and compromise with concentrated power. Alternately praised (by moderates) as “pragmatism” and “realism” and reviled (by left progressives and radicals) as “selling out” and “cooptation,” his finely honed centrism was a habit of thought that flowed naturally from his elite socialization in a corporate-neoliberal post-Civil Rights era at privileged private institutions like Columbia, Harvard, and the metropolitan foundations (including the Woods Fund of Chicago and the Joyce Foundation) on whose boards he sat and in whose circles he moved (a rarely noted aspect of Obama’s biography) while he worked as a Chicago lawyer.

This is how Reed described the 30-something Obama in early 1996, shortly after the latter won his first election to the Illinois legislature and more than eight years before the world beyond Springfield and the Chicago and Washington money-politics elite discovered the “Obama phenomenon”:

In Chicago , for instance, we’ve gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices: one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics, has won a state senate seat on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and development worlds. His fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric of authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program — the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle class reform in favoring form over substances. I suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics here, as in Haiti and wherever the International Monetary Fund has sway.1

There’s little basis for many progressives’ desire to share some right-wingers’ picture of Obama as a closeted true-progressive waiting for the White House ascendancy to unveil his left agenda.

Path Confusion

Second, to quote a Buddhist maxim, “the path is the goal.” The point can be exaggerated, but it is hard to end up on the left turn ramp while driving in the center and right lanes. It is difficult (thought not impossible) to rally the troops for progressive change while steering again and again — however stealthily (see my next point) – to the corporate and imperial right.

Third, the bigger truth is that candidate Obama tended to run to the rhetorical left of his actual policy agenda. Especially during the primary campaign, he sounded far more progressive than he actually was. He posed for the liberal base as an “antiwar candidate” even while he signaled clearly to the foreign policy establishment that he would continue the Iraq occupation for an indefinite period. He ran as an advocate of universal heath insurance even while he advanced a plan that left critical cost-driving power in the hands of the big insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.

Things He Didn’t “Have” to Say and Do

Last but not least, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Obama repeatedly said and did things more reactionary than required to make a viable presidential run and still pass muster with concentrated power. The imperial plutocracy didn’t require Obama to vote for the expansion of federal domestic wiretapping powers with retroactive immunity to the big telecommunications corporations last spring.

Harsh political power realities did not mean that Obama “had” to tell CNN’s Candy Crowley last summer that the U.S. should never apologize for any of its actions abroad. (Why wouldn’t a supposedly “benevolent” empire want to occasionally and disingenuously apologize for such “occasional” “mistakes” as the recurrent indiscriminate bombing of Afghan wedding parties?).

Obama did not “have” to provocatively tell the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in the fall of 2006 that the American people were “resolved” in support of “well-intentioned” U.S. foreign policy since they “have seen their sons and daughters killed in the streets of Fallujah” (a city that suffered massive U.S. imperial assaults, with a giant civilian death toll, in April and November of 2004).

Obama didn’t “have” to blow up the public presidential election financing system once and for all, though he would have been crazy (from an “in it to win it” perspective) not to given his remarkable private funding advantage over John McCain.

In the process of torpedoing federal election funding, moreover, Obama didn’t “have” to create the dark deception that his fundraising operation constituted “a parallel system of public financing.” The truth of the matter, reported on ABC’s evening news last week, is that Obama got just a quarter off his campaign finance haul from small donors. That was the same share small donors contributed to George W. Bush’s funding take in 2004 — a telling little detail that gets lost in Obama’ recurrent trumpeting of the fact that he received 91 percent of his contributions from small givers. Too bad those small givers comprised just a fourth of his total money.

And Obama hasn’t “had” to go to the remarkable lengths he has gone to deny the depth and degree of U.S. racial disparities and continuing relevance of racism in explaining those inequalities.

I could go on.

“Honeymoans” and Violins

Five weeks away from Obama’s inauguration, some progressives are disturbed to learn that his corporate-imperial cabinet picks epitomize what former Clinton administration official and Kissinger Associates Managing Director David J. Rothkopf calls “the violin model: Hold power with the left hand, and play the music with your right” (NYT, November 22, 2008, A1). It bothers a growing number of Obama’s liberal backers to learn that, as Wall Street Journal editorial board member Matthew Kaminski notes, “the Obama camp says the future president, who won running from the left, intends to govern from the center” (WSJ, December 6/7, 2008, A8).

“This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Pictured,” whines the title of a recent Washington Post editorial by leading left-liberal writer David Corn.2

It’s long past time for Corn and other “concerned” and “disappointed” Obama liberals to trade in their rose-colored campaign glasses for the demystifying shades donned by the ideology-decoding rebels in John Carpenter’s classic left science fiction movie “They Live.” The balmy feel-good people’s rhetoric of the electoral contest has faded as always before the big chill of corporate-imperial governance.

A little more due diligence research on their candidate’s longstanding centrist history and how well it matches the narrow parameters imposed by the American political tradition and party system might have prevented some of the current left and liberal “honeymoaning” (Alexander Cockburn’s useful term3) about Obama. For all his claims to be a noble and “pragmatic” reformer “above the fray” of America’s imperial plutocracy and “ideological” politics, Obama is no special exception to — and is in many ways an epitome of — what Christopher Hitchens called (in his 1999 study of the Bill and Hillary Clinton phenomenon) “the essence of American politics. This essence, when distilled,” Hitchens explained, “consists of the manipulation of populism by elitism.”Christopher Hitchens, No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family (New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 17-18.

It’s nothing new. Relying heavily on candidates’ repeated promise to restore “hope” to a populace disillusioned by corporate control, corruption, and inequality — a standard claim of non-incumbent Democratic presidential candidates — this dark essence of United States political culture goes back further than the corporate-neoliberal era into which Obama came of political age. It is arguably as old the Republic itself, always torn by the rift between democratic promise and authoritarian realities of concentrated wealth and power.

Underlying systemic contradictions related to the deepening economic crisis may well drive Obama to introduce measures that will seem comparatively progressive in relation to the last thirty-five years of U.S. economic policy. For real and genuinely progressive recovery to occur, however, popular agency on the model of the recent factory occupation at Chicago’s Republic Door and Window plant4 will be required, as in previous periods of reform. Today as in the 1930s and 1960s, rank and file citizens’ agency will be a critical element forcing progressive change that can be reasonably believed in.5 Obama may be left-handed but its’ time to stop waiting for a mythical White House lefty and to get to the work of actual left organizing and vision from the bottom up.

  1. Adolph Reed, Jr., “The Curse of Community,” Village Voice (January 16, 1996), reproduced in Reed, Class Notes: Posing as Politics and Other Thoughts on the American Scene (New York, 2000). For an (I hope) useful summary of Obama’s relatively tepid and centrist career as a state legislator, please see Paul Street , “Statehouse Days: The Myth of Barack Obama’s ‘True Progressive’ Past,” ZNet (July 20, 2008). []
  2. David Corn, “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Pictured,” Washington Post (December 5, 2008). []
  3. Alexander Cockburn, “Honeymoans From the Left,” CounterPunch (December 5/7, 2008). []
  4. Lee Sustar, “Chicago Factory Occupied,” Socialist Worker (December 6, 2008). []
  5. Howard Zinn, “Election Madness,” The Progressive (March 2008). []

Paul Street (paulstreet99@yahoo.com) is a veteran radical historian and independent author, activist, researcher, and journalist in Iowa City, IA. He is the author of Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Paradigm 2005); Segregated Schools: Educational Apartheid in the Post-Civil Rights Era (Routledge 2005): and Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis (Rowman&Littlefied 2007). Street's new book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics can now be ordered. Read other articles by Paul.

27 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on December 13th, 2008 at 11:39am #

    many ‘saviors’ came and went but our feelings came and stayed.
    we r still full of fear, greed, trust, hope, lust for control, anger, envy, hatred, supremacism, deceipt, love, (in)tolerance.
    trust is one of our greatest assets but probably more abused than any other of our panhuman feelings.
    hope also runs eternally; it also is abused by our ‘techers’ such as clergy, politicians, ‘stars’, ‘judges’, bankers, interpreters of constitution, sales people, and many others.
    ‘saviors’ such as jesus, ghandy, kennedy, ‘saints’, et al have not improved our lot.
    the reason is:they can’t.
    this does not mean that we can’t do less evil than we do. we can!
    but the ruling class everywhere will never allow elightenment that wld diminish their own their grip on money and therefore power.
    however, parents can educate their children ab what i said.
    only that may bring a positive change.
    yes, forget ab obama; he’s full of it. thnx

  2. Brian said on December 13th, 2008 at 11:41am #

    Superbly reasoned, carefully documented.

    Paul Street: no one is better at Obama analysis. (Okay, Bruce Dixon, Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberely are all right there, too.)

    Have you read his new book on Obama?

  3. Max Shields said on December 13th, 2008 at 12:23pm #

    Maybe Obama’s father should have stuck around…

  4. Deadbeat said on December 13th, 2008 at 1:01pm #

    Obama may be left-handed but its’ time to stop waiting for a mythical White House lefty and to get to the work of actual left organizing and vision from the bottom up.

    Good advice.

  5. Michael Hureaux said on December 13th, 2008 at 7:46pm #

    Right on, Paul. More spirit of Chicago is what the doctor ordered.

    I never expected much from Obama- but if he actually appoints Joel Klein Secretary of Education over Linda Darling-Hammond, as Greg Palast is predicting of late, he’s far worse news for this country then I’ve ever thought he was.

  6. Mulga Mumblebrain said on December 14th, 2008 at 3:02pm #

    I think you ought also to consider the possibility that the Republicans ‘ran dead’, and allowed Obama to win. The Republican campaign was remarkably inept, and, given Obama’s ‘dirty linen’ outlined on the web, incredibly restrained. They knew Obama was a ‘born-again Jew’ or whatever it is the Judeofascists are crowing, and a corporate stooge, both necessities in US politics, but I also get the feeling they have allowed Obama to gain power in an era of economic collapse and austerity. When he brings in the gigantic budget cuts in social welfare, (what’s left of it) education etc, announces that a decent health-care system is ‘unaffordable’, that climate change is no longer a priority etc, while ramping up the defence budget even higher and ‘obliterating’ Iran to show his ‘Jewish’ roots and please Hilary Clinton, an entire generation of voters will be disillusioned and may never exercise their phony democratic ‘right’ to vote ever again. A ‘win-win-win’ outcome for the Right. Business as usual under a brilliant ‘confidence’-man, disillusioned Left voters and a speedy return to power by the Republicans, starting in 2010 when Obama will find his ‘friends’ in the Establishment turning on him, his usefulness being at an end.

  7. Petronius said on December 14th, 2008 at 3:09pm #

    Nothing to do with Street’s superb analysis of our ‘Bama, but I saw just now where an Iraqi news man threw his two shoes at Bush in Baghdad during a news conference. My message to provincial, ignorant and isolated America is that in Islam such a public gesture is the utmost expression of deep contempt for someone else (as is showing the other person the soles of your shoes when you cross your legs). All Arabs should repeat this act at the barbarian occupying forces from across the seas.

  8. paul street said on December 14th, 2008 at 3:23pm #

    Brian — thank you, yes I have been developing along with the BAR writers on BO. We had this take on him from the keynote address on if not before in their case.

    Michael H: I’ve got a bunch of stuff on education I could not find find space for in the book. When/if he gives the nod to J. Klein could be a good time to dig that stuff up again.

    MM I agree with the Obama could be a prelude to a new regime of the proto-fascistic “populist right.”

    I agree with bozh.

    I got a nice private addition via e-mail: “you have omitted one major misstatement by Obama about Al Qaeda. He went out of his way to state that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel. No previous US president, no matter how much they supported Israel, ever proffered such a view in public. Of course, that statement put off many world leaders but especially the majority of the people in the Islamic world. Obama took the rhetoric to another level and it was not necessary. ”

    This is a very good point. I should have included it, though of course he also to backtrack some from it.

  9. James Keye said on December 14th, 2008 at 4:26pm #

    While everything you write in this well constructed piece is true, there is the implication that the left can’t chew gum and walk at the same time. It is essentially impossible that a candidate much more progressive (and as you point out, he is not) than Obama could have been elected. If people are disappointed in Obama for reason of his basic conservatism, then they are foolish because they were not paying attention. However, Obama is. He either can be influenced by organized practical opinion from the left or he cannot. To assume that he cannot and therefore not to try as hard as possible would be even more foolish. One thing that some in the left seem to do is to offer up “great and self evident” ideas and then be angry when they are not self evident to others. Even the best of ideas have to be supported by reason and power in the political world.

  10. Max Shields said on December 14th, 2008 at 5:38pm #

    James Keye

    Your premise is that this is not an empire run by a plutocracy that determines the choices of candidates from the get go.

    From that you indicate that we should push and pull Obama from his masters.

    You are a faithful American empire enabler.

  11. giorgio said on December 14th, 2008 at 6:06pm #

    “… but I saw just now where an Iraqi news man threw his two shoes at Bush in Baghdad…”

    Good for this Iraqi’s example and leadership!
    May be Americans should take the cue and start throwing shoes at Bush when he moves around in the US, and may be, a couple of years down the line start dumping truckloads of shoes on Obama, too…while telling and reminding him ‘this is the CHANGE we believe in…’

  12. James Keye said on December 14th, 2008 at 7:19pm #

    Mr. Shields,

    Why you misread simple words plainly expressed remains unclear to me. I say quite clearly that only establishment initiates can be elected. Is it that I am not spitting and sputtering with indignation that the political structure is not taking the left’s values seriously? Is it that you have lost all perspective on political reality? If you are a bomb thrower, then throw them, but be aware of the consequences and throw them for some purpose beyond anger.

  13. Max Shields said on December 14th, 2008 at 7:27pm #

    Mr. Keye, your words: “He either can be influenced by organized practical opinion from the left or he cannot. To assume that he cannot and therefore not to try as hard as possible would be even more foolish. ”

    Perhaps sir you should read what you said. You may disagree with what I said, but I did not misread the above sentences.

    There are alternatives to this plutocracy. My point is that to not work toward that alternative in hopes that Obama can be influenced is a near crime and certainly a waste of much needed energy.

  14. James Keye said on December 14th, 2008 at 7:41pm #

    I, sir, can walk and chew gum at the same time. If it is your assumption that human values are so weak and incompetent in the face of corporate interests that to even attempt to “push and pull” the levers of power is to give in to them, then you, sir, have lost. Why is it necessary to assume that because I argue for attempting political influence, that I would not support every other attempt to bring sanity back to replace the madness? I know what I am doing to effect the changes that I believe are essential for there to be a more satisfactory future for the biosphere. So far all I have seen you do is complain that others are not near enough to your certainties.

  15. Max Shields said on December 14th, 2008 at 7:48pm #

    I would add this: the plutocracy of America are NOT going to relinquish the imperial empire. They will press and to save the empire, I think we’ll be looking at a massive war.

    The empire survived its last bout of near total collapse through a major world war, and there is every reason to believe that war will be the tool of choice. Obama will comply.

    Patriot Act/warrentless eavesdropping, Gitmo, torture, Bush criminality will all be lost in this move. Things will move fast and furious. Fear will be used, as usual, to create the fever pitch for war and killing. Since we’re in the midst, the scale will be significantly increased. The notion that we “can’t afford” to extend the US military or that we are in finanical staights will not deter these actions.

    Empire and its use of domination will not go lightly into that good night.

    Unlike some other empires who retreated and left behind (not without first torching) their colonial “possessions”.

    The media is poised to support all Obama actions. He is being hailed as the one and only ruler. There is only Obama and what HE will do. Of course behind the scenes are the handlers, but the center of power will be the exectuive branch with an African American face.

    The champion of “hope” will become the ultimate manchurian ruler. Reliance on benevolance seems remote. The so-called checks and balance are all but gone. They are only there when not needed the most. During times of crisis all the checks dissipate into thin air.

    I do hope I’m wrong.

  16. Petronius said on December 14th, 2008 at 8:55pm #

    Indeed and I would advise those few who are painfully aware of the terrible ignorance, provinciality and isolationism, with the Imperium now stumbling on wearing different masks, to read Ward Churchill’s Pacifism as Pathology from 2003 (revised edition). Reason why one should fully support the American second amendment to bear arms.

  17. Petronius said on December 14th, 2008 at 9:50pm #

    Why do you think fire arms are forbidden in metropolitan areas such as New York City ? It is not because there is any concern that the population will kill each other, we have the police for that, but because rebellions almost always start in metropolitan areas (Paris, St. Petersburg). As for my opinion on the isolationism and provinciality of Americans, I quote Alexis de Toqueville:”I know of no other country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America” and “In America, the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion, etc. etc” (de Toqueville, Democracy in America, Part I, Power Exercised by the Majority in America upon Opinion). When a populace is as much mired in official propaganda as here, one can understand the ignorance and provinciality of their views and following Thomas Jefferson, it allows for the designated powers to go unhindered about their mischief .(quote “ The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, etc.” and “The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, etc.”).

  18. tony smith said on December 15th, 2008 at 5:38am #

    Obama as Rorschach
    Progressives so desperately wanted a left-leaning president — without Clinton as a surname — that they projected their own political fantasies upon Obama. Progressives constructed Obama, with his tacit acceptance, as the progressive leader they “had been waiting for.” They also reacted swiftly to any dissenting voice that offered a complicated appraisal of Obama. For example, progressives responded with hostility when liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman began criticizing Obama’s economic and healthcare proposals and statements he made on the campaign trail. Often, the popular media along with progressives would imply that people who preferred Clinton or McCain over Obama were racists. This racist lot included Latinos who voted for Clinton during the primaries, but who later fueled Obama’s general election victories in Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado.

    Regardless of the merits of Obama as a candidate and president, an atmosphere that rejects dissent cannot sustain progress. Because the Left helped to silence inquiry regarding the details of Obama’s political commitments, while lauding him effusively and bashing his opponents, they must blame themselves for not discovering his moderate political status earlier.

    More here: http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/chicken-little-politics-moderate-obama.html

  19. Shabnam said on December 15th, 2008 at 6:36am #

    giorgio:
    the following picture proves what you have reported earlier. A journalist threw Iraqi peoples’ present at the war criminal, George
    Bush, and this photo proves the act.

    http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/12/15/62046.html

  20. Max Shields said on December 15th, 2008 at 6:58am #

    tony smith
    Reasonable analysis. The use of “bashing” opponents began in 2000 when they applied it to Ralph Nader.

    This so-called “progressives” are locked into the existing two party system paradigm which is all discussion begins and ends within the box of the imperial system. Of course, they deny an alignment with empire, but their actions belie the truth of the matter.

    This strain of “progressivism” is tainted. It is part of the myth of the once “Good America”, the progressive idealistic Jeffersonian America. The truth: no such America ever existed except on the paper where the Declaration of Independence was drafted.

    The burning desire is to believe in how “we” can influence the mild-mannered Obama. This is a fools errand, with a moral hazard. Obama, regardless of his lacing of a progressive word here and there, will act on the empire’s behalf where it is most important. Closing Gitmo while escalating the wars in the Middle East is case (at least as we understand his positions from here) in point.

    These “progressives” would purport to be “realist” (pragmatist?) who are settling for a smarter version of Bush, hoping that intelligence can find its way to a new “way forward”. Pure fantasy, as will be born out with each passing day.

  21. Petronius said on December 15th, 2008 at 7:25am #

    But Obama is in fact the weak link in the establishment’s strategy and they know it, vide their strong promotion of him (Will, O’Reilly). His assigned task is of course to keep public discontent at bay during the ‘rappel a l’ordre’ of the capitalist empire – streamlining and strenghtening it -. If however Obama stumbles in his centralizing efforts, the resulting disillusion could bring rebellion. Then would be a time to act, if only one could bring the students to the fore like in Paris in 1968. Academia at present is more reactionary in their liberalism
    than before the Vietnam war protests, but discontent is palpable. The promise of happiness by the Obama campaign may be exactly the best weapon progressives have. To expect fulfilment of any of his promises is illusionary. The reality of Obama’s administration is his weakness.

  22. Max Shields said on December 15th, 2008 at 7:51am #

    Petronius
    It does come down to the undeniable collapse. Pain at the grass-roots will not easily be appeased and rebellions could, in fact, occur.

    We don’t know how long the charade can be drawn out. These Dem progressives (and we should distinguish those who aligned with the Dems/Obama and those who never did) may become surperfluous.

    Workers rebellions, for example, have little to do with idealogy, though under the best circumstance they can be a great means of creating solidarity and social justice. I don’t look to a 1968 replay because empire and its cohorts are stronger now than ever before.

    Whether its rebellion – confrontation (unintended consequences and all) against the power which is militarily superior and was used effectively in the 60s/70s – or a movement of change which replaces the entire apparatus of empire is the question. I think the latter is the smarter alternative, though discontent through rebellion may have its place it can backfire.

    I would submit that head to head confrontation with the empire is a zero sum game.

  23. Petronius said on December 15th, 2008 at 8:09am #

    quote: “I would submit that head to head confrontation with the empire is a zero sum game”. Yes, but power lies not in violence but in refusal.
    Sabotage can take several disguises and is uncontainable by the elite…

  24. Max Shields said on December 15th, 2008 at 8:13am #

    The other option is what corporations do, unbundle their assets by selling off or ridding themselves of entities they collected (other businesses) along the way to supergrowth.

    Is this an option for the empire – a garage “sale” without the sale? Is it possible that power could be pushed down while the empire struggles with survival. It’s like Rumsfeld’s idea of the new military force, small, light, flexible. Didn’t work there, but it’s a possibility.

    Frequently a CEO will come on to be a turnaround manager. While Obama has absolutely no experience in these areas, it’s still possible that the weight of the rapid decline will demand that kind of response – letting regions/states take on more.

    A true bottom up system would allow for regions to consolidate their assets and begin to build anew releasing them from the shackles of bureaucracy. This could be a real transformation away from empire.

    But is it even conceivable that the US empire would contemplate let alone execute such an unraveling?

  25. Petronius said on December 15th, 2008 at 9:20am #

    quote: “But is it even conceivable that the US empire would contemplate let alone execute such an unraveling?” Maybe…
    and it is already being effected in Vermont (a small book appeared
    recently on their secession efforts). After all an uninformed
    public is infinitely malleable, but a suspension of belief becomes unavoidably more and more possible and that is what we need
    to count on.

  26. Petronius said on December 15th, 2008 at 10:30am #

    but then the establishment counts on potential rebellions as proven by the introduction of 20,000 man strong combat troops to be stationed within the US by 2011 in defiance of the posse comitatus act.

  27. kahar said on December 19th, 2008 at 4:31am #

    Very good article. I dont know which quote to add comment to..
    “It’s nothing new. Relying heavily on candidates’ repeated promise to restore “hope” to a populace disillusioned by corporate control, corruption..”
    Kind of a repeat of Hitler’s rise to power.. in fact the quotes you list, out of Obama’s mouth, show him to be far worse than Hitler. If people find that too strong then that’s because they are immersed in a deeply fascist, racist, zionist manipulated, unconscious and closed society that has not a clue of the realities outside or what their Hitlerian leader to be has crapped out of his mouth or the heinous crimes their leaders have engaged in the last fifty or so years. It is important to point out this comparison and to stop living in collective self-dillusion.