Comments on: The “Wait ‘Til He Gets In” Delusion

By: kahar

kahar — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:31:22 +0000

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.

By: Petronius

Petronius — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:30:48 +0000

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.

By: Petronius

Petronius — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:20:41 +0000

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.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:13:48 +0000

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?

By: Petronius

Petronius — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:09:33 +0000

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…

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:51:29 +0000

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.

By: Petronius

Petronius — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:25:00 +0000

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.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:58:47 +0000

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.

By: Shabnam

Shabnam — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:36:33 +0000

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

By: tony smith

tony smith — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:38:38 +0000

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

By: Petronius

Petronius — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:50:13 +0000

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.”).

By: Petronius

Petronius — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:55:35 +0000

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.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:48:15 +0000

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.

By: James Keye

James Keye — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:41:48 +0000

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.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:27:45 +0000

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.

By: James Keye

James Keye — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:19:36 +0000

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.

By: giorgio

giorgio — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:06:22 +0000

“… 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…’

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:38:10 +0000

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.

By: James Keye

James Keye — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:26:51 +0000

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.

By: paul street

paul street — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:23:03 +0000

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.