Cashing the Obama Check: Will It Come Back Marked “Insufficient Funds”?

Election night 2008 was over by 11 PM eastern time. Only two hours after the polls closed on the west coast, pundits called it for Barack Obama. Now that we know a black boy can indeed grow up to be president, it’s time to get over ourselves, over our wonder and amazed self-congratulation about how far we’ve come, time to look around to see where we really are.

The First Black President carries with him into the Oval Office the hopes and dreams and aspirations of many people he will never meet, but who imagine they know his heart and intentions. Although these things were not on the ballot, and were kept largely out of the discussions by the media and the candidates themselves, the tens of millions who voted for Obama did so because in the main, they want an end to the war. They want to see the military budget and the prison population reduced. They want single payer national health care. They want a more just economy and they objected strenuously to Bush’s — and Obama’s bailout of Wall Street.

Their expectations of social and economic justice at home and peace abroad are, in Dr. King’s famous language, a gigantic and long-overdue promissory note. A check. The Obama Check. Barack Obama was elected in the hopes that he could help us cash this check. That is the change his voters believed in, that’s what they expect to see, and that is how an Obama presidency will be judged by history.

Can we ever cash the Obama Check?

The day Obama takes office, there will be an incredible 1.1 million African Americans behind bars, a proportion eight times that of whites. Before the mortgage market meltdown the wealth of black families was about one eleventh that of whites. Since then, it’s fallen off a cliff. Whether we look at education, at wages, at morbidity, mortality, unemployment or mass incarceration the gaps between whites and blacks in the US are wide and still growing. With the nation’s First Black President installed, many whites will solemnly assure us that the US is not now, if it ever was, a racist society. The First Black President-elect seems to agree with them, having told us all a year before electing him that we were “90% of the way” to a non-racist society.

Will the First Black President be of any use cashing the check for real racial justice, not just for black faces in high places? The clock is already ticking, and every day is an opportunity to lead lost.

The day the First Black President is sworn in the US economy will still be, in the words of economist Michael Hudson a polite fiction, based on phantom assets, phony profits, inflated valuations, and outright fraud, a house of marked cards where even the bankers know not to trust each other. Millions of families will still face foreclosure, eviction and bankruptcy. Tens of millions more are in debt up to their necks, afflicted with ever-rising interest rates thanks to the tireless efforts of Obama’s running mate Joe Biden, sometimes known as the Senator from MasterCard.

In his first true test of presidential leadership, while still a candidate the First Black President lobbied reluctant Democrats and urged them to pass the Bush-Cheney trillion dollar no-strings-attached parting gift to Wall Street, money that could have been used to fund education, jobs, infrastructure, human needs, and debt relief for ordinary families.

Do we really expect Obama to help us cash the check on economic justice, to be an advocate of measures that lift up ordinary families? The outlook here is not bright either.

Dr. King told us more than forty years ago that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.” On the day the First Black President, supposedly the fulfillment of King’s dream, takes office, the US will be spending more on arms and the military than the rest of the planet combined. But by declaring that he would increase the Pentagon’s budget even over what Cheney and Bush spent at the expense of housing, education and whatever else, the First Black President has already stopped payment on this part of the check.

The day after the election, and the day the First Black President takes office, at least 44 million Americans will have no health insurance at all, and tens of millions more are underinsured. One third of every health care dollar spent in the US goes to maintain private insurance companies, indisputable parasites on the process of health care delivery, making the US health care system the most expensive in the world, even though it takes care of a smaller percentage of its population than any other advanced industrial country. But instead of single payer health care, the First Black President plans to borrow billions with which to pay the Obama Check directly to parasitic insurance companies, and call that “universal health care”.

The day the First Black President takes office there will be over 800 US military bases spanning the globe, more troops in Iraq than were there in 2005 or 2006, US fleets menacing Iran and intermittently bombing Somalia, and a war in Afghanistan. The First Black President will draw down troops in Iraq to send them to Afghanistan, his threats to Iran are identical to those of George Bush — though he hasn’t put them to song, as McCain did – and he does not speak of the ongoing US military involvement in the Horn of Africa. Our First Black President, every but as much as Dick Cheney, has embraced the phony “war on terror” as the organizing principle of American life.

The peace loving grandmothers who imagine they see God’s Hand on the First Black President will have time to take a longer and more careful look. There will be no peace dividend under an Obama administration. This is a debt our First Black President is unwilling even to acknowledge, much less help us collect on.

Many of the same voices who assured us that the First Black President would be a epoch-making breakthrough — who helped sell us the Obama Check — now caution us not to expect too much. He is after all, only a politician. He’s not president of the movement, he is President of All the People, including the very rich, and obliged to serve the interests of the Pentagon, of parasitic insurance companies, of soulless multinational corporations, and conniving investment bankers.

All indications are that the Obama Check is going to be a difficult one to cash. But it’s what the people voted for, and many of us do intend to collect. With the help of our First Black President, or without it.

Bruce Dixon is the managing editor of the Black Agenda Report, where this article first appeared. Read other articles by Bruce, or visit Bruce's website.

43 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Phil said on November 6th, 2008 at 11:53am #

    many of us do intend to collect. With the help of our First Black President, or without it.
    How?

  2. E. R. Bills said on November 6th, 2008 at 12:31pm #

    You and Mr. Ford still upset about brother Obama’s obliviousness to your little rant-rag, are you?

    You quote Dr. King repeatedly and yet neglect to concede Dr. King probably would have been behind Barrack Obama completely (Surely this can’t be ignored.).

    And isn’t it equally plausible to say that if your publication would have been around back then, it probably would have been criticizing Dr. King in the same fashion?

    I don’t understand why anyone serving the black agenda can so pompously snub the Jackie Robinson of 1st World Governance. Obama was smart and nimble and he wisely played the game to get to where he is. Shouldn’t folks who parade around as proponents of a black agenda support his accomplishment and give him the benefit of the doubt? Did BAR harp on Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Halle Berry and Oprah Winfrey in the same fashion when they were making their appearances on the world stage? If Obama is a sell-out, aren’t they?

    Barrack Obama wasn’t elected to further the black agenda, but on his way to furthering an American agenda, he’ll do more for African Americans than your publication ever has or ever will.

    You prattle on like Obama is simply an extension of Bush-Cheney. Surely you don’t believe that.

  3. Suthiano said on November 6th, 2008 at 1:00pm #

    Actually, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Halle Berry and Oprah Winfrey have nothing to do with a progressive black agenda. BAR reports on that agenda, and so their writers harp on Obama, as they know he will do little to further the progressive black agenda.

    If not racism, it’s at least naivety that is causing all these people to think Obama’s mixed race is actually going to be a factor in how he governs. You prattle on like democracy is championed by the actions of a few elite individuals. Surely you don’t believe that? Surely you’re a little bit more aware of how power operates? Surely you know something of the history of the United States?

    Check out Obama’s first appointment of the Zionist war-hawk Rahm Emmanuel. It reminds me of how Tiger Woods does adds for Nike, which exploits coloured people the world over.

    Good on the BAR staff for not forgetting what they know in the face of an epic propaganda machine.

  4. Doug Rogers said on November 6th, 2008 at 1:08pm #

    There’s no reason to blame Obama as a person or a politician. Instead, those of us who call ourselves leftists or progressives should be blaming ourselves. Black Agenda Report was the first voice pointing out that the progressive movement was about to moribund itself by giving unqualified support to Barack Obama.

    Today we can be joyous that a black man will be president and admiring of his skill and decency. We can even feel confident that a centrist government will be better than a right wing government. What we can’t do is pretend that the progressive movement is anything but dead as doornail. Dixon and Ford were absolutely prescient about this.

  5. Phil said on November 6th, 2008 at 1:13pm #

    Dr. King probably would have been behind Barrack Obama completely (Surely this can’t be ignored.).
    Not a chance. As a supporter of war, terrorism, racism and grossly unfair economic policies, and a steadfast opponent of the poor and those who want peace, Obama goes against everything Dr. King stood for. I can’t imagine the good MLK ever supporting him.

  6. Suthiano said on November 6th, 2008 at 1:22pm #

    Yeah, you should be blaming yourself insofar as you’re willing to take solace in the election of a new emperor. The progressive movement is “dead” because of weak souled people who think they want change, but really just want to get on with their lives regardless of which war criminals remain in office.

    “Today we can be joyous that a black man will be president and admiring of his skill and decency”

    Is Barack Obama a black man, or is that the identity you’ve projected onto him? Is his decency reflected in his indecent policy proposals? His indecent votes to continue the Iraqi occupation? His indecent support of the “bailout”, which is one of the largest robbery’s ever perpetrated?

    It is how I feared before the election. Obama is another Jimmy Carter, simply meant to diffuse any real energy that was building against power in the country (and other countries, like Canada, the UK etc.). I can’t believe how many “progressives” are too stubborn or stupid to admit as much.

  7. Max Shields said on November 6th, 2008 at 1:34pm #

    E. R. Bills
    The evidence to your claims are completely absent in Obama’s years in Washington and throught he campaign where he has shown occasions to be to the right of George W. Bush on matters of foreign affairs, particularly regarding Israel/Palestinians. But it goes far beyond that, Bills.

    I agree with Phil, MLK would be in total disagreement with these and many other positions, including health care, penal system, capital punishment and the total neglect of poverty as a mounting issue – greater than it was during MLK’s time.

    What we lack Bills, is a Martin Luther King and Malcolm X to show this transparent use of color as a poor example of authentic change.

    We lack those cogent powerful voices and so we are left with a color barrier having been crossed on white supremist/power terms.

  8. E. R. Bills said on November 6th, 2008 at 1:48pm #

    There is no quick fix to any of the problems we all want to see addressed. Most change will come incrementally if at all and it will not be achieved outside the system. The Great Society and most civil rights legislation got pushed through by machine politicians. Lincoln was no brash outsider, bucking the system. If any of you purists or your purist candidates ever got elected to political office, you would accomplish zilch because you would put your principles ahead of progress, compromise and forward thinking. Dr. King and Malcolm X are heroes to us all. It should be our sincere hope that Barack Obama accomplishes more than either. What would you do then?

    I think most of you are more comfortable sitting back with your holier-than-thou, progressive piety than getting your hands dirty in the fray. thank god Obama has more fortitude than that. stya on the sidelines and bitch–you’re certainly in plentiful company.

  9. Suthiano said on November 6th, 2008 at 2:24pm #

    Bills holds a view of history in which individual great men have done everything. In other words, he has an understanding of history equivalent to a grade 5 student who trusts everything in his text book. Lincoln freed the slaves, Washington never told a lie, John F. Kennedy believed in equal rights for all.

    My god, imagine someone with the indecency to “bitch” about an emperor who refused to visit one Mosque during his election campaign. An emperor who has suggested a “surge” for Afghanistan, where (if you are still interested in what’s going on in reality) a wedding was bombed yesterday (not the first time), killing 40 civilians. For shame on us on the left who would “sit on the sidelines” “bitching” about Emperor Obama’s unflinching acceptance of “enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests” (Nader), including Goldman Sachs. We should stop talking about Obama’s vision of “an undivided Jerusalem”, which I’m sure his new Chief of Staff agrees with, because we’re simply whining if we do.

    We must live in “the best of all possible worlds”.

    Bills, I think you should stick to reading CNN and BBC if you don’t want to hear about reality, and real concerns. Oh, and I quoted Nader (who you could have chosen to vote for), to show that we’re not all whining, lazy bums, on welfare…

  10. E. R. Bills said on November 6th, 2008 at 3:07pm #

    Suthiano:

    So obama, a man who is trying to get elected, SHOULD have visited a mosque during his election campaign?! While the fascists on the right were trying to paint him as a Muslim, an extremist. . . something to scare up the yokels even more?! And your contention is I am the naive one?!

    Nader’s great. Great for speeches, dialogue, ivory tower wish lists. But he’s not a viable candidate. I respect your protest vote. Pat yourself on the back. The hopeful few of us small “p” progressives will just have to do the best with what we’ve got in the REAL world with a viable candidate and president elect. But you big “P” progressives go ahead and thumb your nose in never-never land.

    If nader got elected, we’d fall in with you. but since you don’t have your man and might have to deal with a careful candidate in an imperfect system, you’re indignant. with fellow progressives like you, who needs republicans?

    and doug–you’re presupposing progressivism was ever alive in recent history. quite the contrary. it’s been dormant because it has no viable, visible, realistic representation. Until now. After the campaign promises, parlance, charade, now perhaps the real obama can rise–but not to quickly. Drastic measures and men are usually not effective. subtlety is our only hope.

    The best thing any of us could do is work with/through obama. it’s the best shot we’ve had in a long while.

  11. Shabnam said on November 6th, 2008 at 3:11pm #

    Obama can not be protected from criticism because he is A BLACK MAN. The stake is too high to play a victim card; however, he has not offered any major changes on foreign policy so far. He is on the road for expansion of American hegemony and empire building using force if requires. Those people who support him, especially people of color, can not fool the rest and they should be prepared to accept criticism of his Zionist policy in any shape and form.
    People must realize that the war started by Clinton administration with Zionist policy makers such as Martin Indyke, Dennis Ross, Anthony Lake and continued with others like Albright who confessed that 650,000 deaths in Iraq, many of them children, a price for the Zionist policy of ‘dual containment, designed by Martin Indyke, “was worth it.” She is Obama advisor now who said “A timetable to withdraw from Iraq is not in the interest of the US” exactly like McCain. Obama has changed his rhetoric since, like his position on Palestinian, status of Jerusalem and other critical issues important to ending the war, and now he is saying “to end the war responsibly” which is not much different from McCain position, the war monger , who said: “victory in Iraq.” Obama tells people of the world repeatedly that to accept American hegemony in the language of “American Leadership” which is very arrogant of him. He has been chosen by elite of the hegemonic west to CHANGE THE FACE OF THEIR BROKEN SYSTEM. Obama has been elected by Americans to make a fundamental change in public and foreign policy especially policy regarding Health Care, economy, Israel and ‘war on terror’ which has created invisible ‘enemy’ suited for American policy of terror and destruction. Obama has not only criticized this policy yet but also he has a tendency to expand it when he tells innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan and other Islamic countries “to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you.” Who does tear the world down? Is it your weapon of mass destruction or those innocent people who are killed by your missiles from the sky? Is it Israel’s WMD or Palestinian stones? Those who support Obama can not make people silent anymore since he has been elected and it is not going to compromise his chance for presidency. Obama can not continue the same policy with a spin. He can not change the fact that he is going to follow a Zionist policy like Clinton did. He has just offered a position to a Zionist pro Israel interest, Rahm Emmanuel, who served in Clinton administration. Is he going to offer Rashid Khalidi, professor of Middle East, a position to help and advise him on policy related to the Middle East or is he going to continue business as usual and making decision based on manufactured ‘crisis’ built on lies and deception?
    Obama must deny a role to people like Dennis Ross to protect the interest of American people in the Middle East since people like him have shown they are biased towards Palestinian cause which is harmful to the interest of the United States. Unfortunately, the future tells us our suspicions are REAL. Obama said: if you put lipstick on a pig, still is a pig. I say a slave of the Zionist policy is a slave with/without a lipstick.

  12. Hue Longer said on November 6th, 2008 at 3:15pm #

    Mr. Bills,

    No way would MLK have supported Obama and now you bring up X?

    Do you know what X would have called him? I don’t either but there is some good evidence based on his speeches that it would not have been “field negro”

  13. Suthiano said on November 6th, 2008 at 4:20pm #

    Bills, I can’t even count the number of fallacies you committed in your argument.

    Right wing fascist yokels have a limited base to appeal to, unless you think there were a large number of “undecided voters” who could be classified as such. If they are that crazy and gullible then I doubt Obama would have been able to do much to sway them. If there are that many neo-nazis on the right, then why is Obama hollering this and that about non-partisan politics and compromise. Why did Joe Biden say in the VP debate, “many of my closest friends are Republicans”.

    Where is this super right, mass movement in the states? The majority of Americans support the end to the occupation of Iraq (so do the majority of Iraqis). In fact, they voted for it in 2006, and thanks largely to one Rahm Emanuel, the Establishment had their way once again. This even whilst you small “p” progressives were calling for an end to the occupation (I think you guys want that too, right?).

    You pushed the debate to these waters with your mind reading insights into how little us “capital P progressives” have done for anyone. Our “holier than thou attitudes” and our “bitching” were cited as signs of our “indigence”.

    You ask: “with fellow progressives like you, who needs republicans?” I ask: friend, with progressives like Obama who needs republicans? I will refrain from once again listing real examples of how Obama holds policy positions that are identical to Republican ones, as these have already been stated.

    Anyway, the major fallacy throughout your posts is a straw man. No one is arguing that we won’t or shouldn’t try to push Obama, or that grass-roots groups and movements won’t or shouldn’t try to see what they can get from him, the argument is that he will only listen as much as the institutional structures, and his own values allow for (ie very little). This argument has been supported with ample evidence, and it also fits with the historical record. Your argument has no evidence (because you’re not arguing anything), and has no historical context. You are simply saying that we should be happier than we are. That my friend, is Billshit.

  14. Deadbeat said on November 6th, 2008 at 5:04pm #

    Clearly E.R. Bills has fallen into the same hyperbole trap as Rosemarie Jackowski the other day when she tried to guess that Malcolm X would not vote for Obama. However Manning Marable, who has spent 10 years writing a biography on Malcolm X on Democracy Now suggest otherwise. My response to Jackowski as well as to E.R. Bills is that it is pure conjecture and really irrelevant for 2008. The same kind of political alignments and grassroots energy does not exist today. Maybe the problems are similar but these are two different eras that require a different analysis. It is always good however to reflect on previous era in order to learn and apply strategies.

    However I wouldn’t totally dismiss E.R. Bills response. There is an excellent article on CounterPunch that I would recommend reading entitled How Obama Won.

    Spinney describes the tactical strategy that Obama employed. Learning how Obama won IMO is important on how the Left can develop and articulate its rhetoric.

    Actually I think tone of Bruce Dixon’s article has improved and he critiques Obama without all the histrionics and disdain toward the voters that both he and Ford did during the campaign. Although he finishes with the following…

    All indications are that the Obama Check is going to be a difficult one to cash. But it’s what the people voted for, and many of us do intend to collect. With the help of our First Black President, or without it.

    What the people voted for was the emptiness filled by the Obama campaign. What is needed is the development of alternative strategies. I think it makes better sense to put Obama in check than to “cash” an Obama check. Since people did get engaged in the Obama campaign, the Left needs to have an alternative in place when Obama disappoints. He has already started the “disappointments” by selection the ardent Zionist, Rham Emmanuel as chief of staff.

    Had the Left been confronting Zionism all this time rather than making excuses and had openly spoke about its influence in American Politics and especially foreign policy and the war on Iraq, the Left would be in an excellent position to make the case to the Obama voter.

    This is why I think it is time well spent for the Left to now do a postmortem of its own ineffectiveness.

  15. Suthiano said on November 6th, 2008 at 5:18pm #

    Our ineffectiveness is based on incoherence. When the right holds a value, they know the value. They preach the value. They try to make arguments to prove the historical necessity of said value.

    We are still stuck on the same elementary debates about “the lesser of two evils”. It doesn’t help that our leading intellectuals have given up any consistency in their views on the matters.

    The left is too splintered. Characters like Michael Moore (to whom I am thankful for past work), try to argue for Obama as miracle man. The problem is the right jumps on it, and makes a mockery out of our arguments. We need to put forward our strongest values and STICK TO THEM! We cannot become talking Democrat heads on CNN who make it seem like in the end “leftists” are simply rhetoricians as well. Those are our weakness: inconsistency and thus incoherence.

    After all, if we believe we’re right (and I hope we all do), then we should be able to win any debate, undercut any style that carries no substance, and generally not make the copious amount of errors we do now.

  16. Suthiano said on November 6th, 2008 at 5:22pm #

    Just to make myself a little bit more clear:

    If no one on the left was caught saying things like “okay, I admit we’re better off without Saddam in power”, or, “It’s true we don’t want to be so dependent on foreign oil”, we would be stronger as a whole. We have no hope operating within the frameworks and structures that have been set for us by those with power.

  17. Erroll said on November 6th, 2008 at 6:04pm #

    E.R. Bills states that “perhaps the real Obama can rise-but not too quickly.” I seriously doubt if the Afghans can wait too much longer for Obama’s humanity to [supposedly] rise up as their families and loved ones continue to get slaughtered by 500 lb. American bombs. Or if the Pakistanis and the Syrians can continue to wonder if Obama, the [alleged] antiwar candidate who will soon become president of this country, will decide to emulate Bush’s policy of sending American soldiers and drone missiles into their countries where its citizens will pay the price of being the victims of America’s bogus GWOT. Since Obama has achieved his goal of becoming president and since his advisers are quite hawkish, it remains to be seen if Obama can offer, to use one of Obama’s favorite words, much hope to the people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria.

  18. Al said on November 6th, 2008 at 6:26pm #

    Dr. King probably would have been behind Barrack Obama completely (Surely this can’t be ignored.).

    Dr. King probably would have been behind Barrack Obama completely (Surely this can’t be ignored.).

    Maybe, till he was elected. But MLK would have been the biggest & sharpest thorn in his side, if he did not deliver what he promised!

  19. DavidG. said on November 6th, 2008 at 6:52pm #

    If Obama was a real messiah, he’d question the whole world order (or is it disorder?).

    I mean, the idea of competing, warring nation states is old hat. It doesn’t work just like unregulated capitalism or totalitarian socialism.

    It’s amazing that most humans can’t think outside the tiny square of their own minds. We, potentially at least, could create any kind of world we want.

    All we have to do is get rid of those who are creaming off the riches for themselves or controlling the minds of the masses for their own selfish ends.

    Can you think outside the box?

    http://www.dangerouscreation.com

  20. Erroll said on November 6th, 2008 at 7:02pm #

    It would appear that those who bizarrely believe that MLK would have somehow supported the militant Obama’s rise to the presidency have not read MLK’s Beyond Vietnam speech where King pleaded that “Somehow this madness [the Vietnam War] must cease.” Or the passage in that speech where he reminded his listeners that “the greatest purveyor in the world today [is] my own government. ” In all likelihood Dr. King would have not supported a candidate who was in favor of leaving 60,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq even after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal plan would be finally completed as well as advocating that 140,000 civilian contractors, including the infamous para military organization Blackwater, remain in Iraq to terrorize the citizens of that country. Nor would Dr. King support a candidate who had advocated that American soldiers redeploy from Iraq to Afghanistan, the so-called “good war”, where they could contribute to the misery and suffering and death and destruction of the Afghan people.

    Dr. King would have undoubtedly recognized Obama for being the fraud and the charlatan that he is in order to become president of this country.

  21. Max Shields said on November 6th, 2008 at 8:25pm #

    It’s very hard to bring a MLK or Malcolm X into this century. But, certainly, if memory serves me, these were not men who cowtowed to power.

    It’s hard to imagine an Obama would have gotten to “first” base under the watchful eye of these two great leaders.

    African Americans had a sense that Obama was not the Messiah. But there’s been no real leadership to confirm those instincts. People like Wright were assassinated and lost their voice in the face of the full force of corporate power.

    BAR is the closest I think of a voice which speaks the kind of truth I heard from Dr. King and Malcolm.

    How this all plays out remains to be seen. There are opportunities if we know what we want and are willing to put the time and energy to achieve it. The gov’t will continue to move in a parallel universe. Some will take longer than others to fully realize that hope resides outside of that power sphere.

  22. E. Bills said on November 6th, 2008 at 10:21pm #

    Mr. Shields:

    MLK and Malcom X were not men who cowtowed to power? your memory doesn’t serve you. Maybe MLK wasn’t guilty of this, but Malcom cowtowed to the “honorable” Elijah much longer than he should have. He was human and a work in progress, just like O.

    Do you read what you’re writing? “Some will take longer than others to fully realize that hope resides outside of that power sphere.” I say again, the “Great Society” and the civil rights achievements of the late 60s did not happen in a governmental parallel universe or outside a traditionl power sphere. They occurred inside the system–not outside of it. Isn’t it possible that O’s works could rival those of LBJ?

    And finally, “BAR is the closest I think of a voice which speaks the kind of truth I heard from Dr. King and Malcolm?” Wouldn’t Dr. king and Malcom have been disgusted and insulted by most of the African-American hip-hop subculture, i.e., self-promotion, violence, greed, pimpin, chauvinism, babymamas, bling-bling, lewdness, superficiality, etc., etc? BAR tiptoes around this blatant incongruity, in this case pandering to the prevailing winds.

  23. Chris Knipp said on November 7th, 2008 at 12:30am #

    Dr. King told us more than forty years ago that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”

    The above sentence from this article was repeated within a few lines. Does anyone edit or proofread the writing here?

  24. JN said on November 7th, 2008 at 1:35am #

    1) There is no way of actually knowing what Martin Luther King or Malcolm X would have thought of Obama.
    2) Even if there was it would change nothing (a bit like Obama himself!)

    Having said that, King would almost certainly have opposed Obama on most of his major policies. He was not the watered-down ‘liberal’ that has been post-humously adopted by the US political establishment. He described himself as “Democratic Socialist,” actively opposed the injustices of American society, and opposed the imperial genocide against Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos.

    Is it likely then that he would support Obama? A man who professes his dedication to ‘neo-liberal’ economics, tolerates the current injustices of American society (even going so far as to deny that they exist at all), and presents himself as much an imperial war-monger as Bush or McCain?

    Obama fights only for himself. He is a shallow opportunist & a war-mongering corporate puppet who specialiseses in empty promises & dramatic pauses. He’s like the second coming of Tony Blair. Or Bill Clinton. Or John F Kennedy. Remember how they turned out?

    The fact that America finally has its first president who isn’t 100% white represents the partial success of struggles in the past. Shame it couldn’t have been someone better; someone who would have broken the mold in some other respects, like renouncing America’s supposed ‘right’ to interfere in, blockade, bomb or invade any country in the world.

    PS: Mr Bills,
    What “works” of LBJ are you referring to? The further escalation of the genocidal & pointless war against Vietnam, perhaps? Yeah, you’re right. Obama’s administration could well come to “rival” such “works.” UNLESS the people of America force him into a REAL change of policies & priorities.

    And finally, try listening to real hip hop, not the shit promoted by record companies & MTV (Same with any other type of music). The “self-promotion, violence, greed, chauvinism, lewdness & superficiality” in rap are just a reflection of the exact same things promoted in US culture more generally. Gangstas are just capitalists on a smaller scale.

  25. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 7th, 2008 at 5:21am #

    i didn’t count the number of posts which personalize events; ie, say/believe that a person or several people can change (to any degree?) longstanding US policies.
    let’s look at US expansion? had it not expanded under every prez?. and mostly by warfare?
    has US a day of peace in its twocentury-old history? does O know this?
    has he ever acknowledged it?
    damn it, i’m now personalizing events. i better say, has uncle sam (ab 2-7mn richest amers) acknowledged it?
    and promised not to wage wars for other peoples’ goodies?
    i cld go on reciting US history. in short, US is as an evil empire as any.
    it seems more brutal than most only because of its advanced weaponry.
    but differs little in kind w. other evil empires.
    but the uncle cannot be split in two nor can he be persuaded to even ease up on the butchery let alone abandon the quest for the planet or fervent/manic yen to destroy all vestiges of social care/net. thnx

  26. Eric Patton said on November 7th, 2008 at 5:48am #

    E.R. Bills writes:
    “MLK and Malcom X were not men who cowtowed to power? your memory doesn’t serve you. Maybe MLK wasn’t guilty of this, but Malcom cowtowed to the “honorable” Elijah much longer than he should have. He was human and a work in progress, just like O.”

    Equating Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad to the entire U.S. elite power structure?

    Bills is a moron.

  27. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 7th, 2008 at 6:19am #

    i’v noticed some dichotomies:
    some people split people in two. people still believe/say that s’mhow amers r exceptional or better.
    ruling class in US is full of selfpraise; thus, is exceptionalistic.
    then there r people who divide the world in West and East. or good and bad people or nations.
    some people say christianity is the only true religion; all others teach flasehoods.
    still others say, Israel or US have the right to defend selves or their interest; tacitly saying, only we decide who else possesses this uinversal.
    if we split asunder entities that cannot be split empirically, our thinking is gonna be badly skewed.
    to be, is to be related; to everything/everyone/all events. thnx
    only jesus saves, some say; nothing else wld do. thus, split asunder the wrld/knowledge into everything and nothing.
    to me, East is weaker or much weaker than the West on econo-military-diplomatic level.
    which actually is better for our planet; not worse. on a verbal level, world can be split in two, three parts, but not in reality.
    that we have spread thruout the orb may have been due to the fact that it had been East whicxh started farming.
    or, in some instances, a few girls in the East, may have given birth to even inuit.

  28. E. Bills said on November 7th, 2008 at 6:37am #

    Moron? I may be guilty as charged. You guys said no positive change happens in the traditional power sphere. I anecdotally demonstrated instances how it has. Some folks said MLK and Malcom X never cowtowed to power; I pointed out where one probably did.

    Serious, positive change in this country usually doesn’t come from the fringe. It’s easy to sit out there disconnected and cast aspersions at the status quo and the standard methods of addressing it–it’s easy to be above it and aloof. you’re cynical legends, stars (especially in your own estimations), neighsayers to be reckoned with. but how exactly does this help? it allows you to feel superior, but does it improve our causes?

    like it or not, Obama is one of us. he played the game, said the things he had to say, avoided the pitfalls he had to avoid and blended into the system. He now stands poised to really address our agenda (not just cleverly, arrogantly bitch and complain about it).

    will he? who can say. I, for one, sincerely hope so. and this possibility in and of itself gives me and a lot of folks (perhaps less articulate than you guys) a little hope.

    and one more bit of naive idiocy for the bozhidar and the rest of the cranks in the peanut gallery. you say the US is as evil an empire as any. at the end of WWII, we could have told the rest of the world that they were now US possessions/states, cranking out more A-Bombs and dropping them on anyone who chirped contrariwise. Caesar and Napoleon would have. Alexander would have. Ghengis Khan probably would have. Hitler definitely would have. Truman held up (GWB probably wouldn’t have.

    There are lesser and greater empires and evils in the world. The US has been a lesser and greater evil depending on the decade and the leadership. call me stupid, but I’d like to think we could be entering into a lesser phase. . . maybe even a break even or positive one. can’t we legitimately hope for this and work together in at least loose, hopeful concert towards such ends?

  29. Phil said on November 7th, 2008 at 8:00am #

    [Obama] played the game, said the things he had to say, avoided the pitfalls he had to avoid and blended into the system. He now stands poised to really address our agenda (not just cleverly, arrogantly bitch and complain about it).

    will he? who can say. I, for one, sincerely hope so. and this possibility in and of itself gives me and a lot of folks (perhaps less articulate than you guys) a little hope.

    Hoping against reality will get us nowhere. I’d rather that energy be directed toward building real change at a real level than trying to “pressure” a president who’s already declared himself reactionary.

  30. E. R. Bills said on November 7th, 2008 at 9:05am #

    Your mind is already made up and he’s not even president yet. You remind me of the evangelicals who had such sure expectations of Bush–he said what he had to say to get their support and then he and Rove and Cheney did what they did. The evangelical agenda was hardly served. Obama is a president-elect. Your pronouncement is pure speculation and reactionary in its own right. Mark Jan 20 on your calendar and then start tallying his report card then. We know you’ll be ready to pounce and tell me you told me so–but let’s wait until he’s let us down to proclaim his failure.

  31. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 7th, 2008 at 9:57am #

    bills,
    i do not know how many Abombs US had after it bombed the two cities.
    if it had a few prior to soviet acquisition of a bomb, US cld have bombed SSSR.
    according to US, it has the right of the first nuclear strike; ie, US wants now and wanted then to bomb any country it wished. it`s a fact that US says that.
    so, conclusion arises that US did not have enough bombs to bomb certain regions and not because uncle sam did not want to do to russians what it had done to indigenes.
    US, even if it had a bomb left to use, decided not to use it against moscow because it knew russians were also making one or even had one or more; tho, untested.
    as for O, i do not personalize any events. i collate facts, form conclusions, and suggest.
    i do not attack other people`s conclusions, ideas, suggestions, facts; i juxtapose my own.
    my conclusion is, US will continue killing and maiming people; cause more dispersals.
    suggestion is don`t vote for oneparty system which by now had waged some 180 wars and incursions for expansion or for stealing other people`s goodies.
    every US war had presaged thus far yet another war. war agianst iraq bodes another war; most likely against syria.
    by the way, O is blk and wh and a tiny cog in the wheel just like every other prez had been.
    the power is in cia, fbi, police, other spy agency, military and that is controled by ab 2-7 mn people and not just a few managers in the WH. thnx

  32. Hajja Romi said on November 7th, 2008 at 10:02am #

    Congratulations on an EXCELLENT essay.

    When candidate Obama visited Israel, he spent 45 minutes with Palestinians. He didn’t bother to visit Gaza, where a million and a half are held in the world’s largest openair prison.

    His first appointment as President-elect was Rahm Emanuel for his Chief of Staff, a man whose father was a Jewish terrorist in the Irgun Zvai Leumi, and who was part of the group that assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte in 1946. Emanuel himself has an Israeli passport, which he hides, and served in the Israeli military during the first Gulf War, possibly in Israeli military intelligence.

    In his visit to Israel, Barack Obama himself promised ALL of Jerusalem to Israel, something no US President has gone so far as to do.

    I am sure he will continue American (and Israeli) use of deadly radioactive DEPLETED URANIUM on the Muslim peoples of the Middle East, and will continue the bombing of innocent Afghani wedding parties, even over the protests of puppet Karzai.

    Even though you have said so much, I am sad to say that you have not even said everything that needs to be said.

  33. Suthiano said on November 7th, 2008 at 10:02am #

    “and one more bit of naive idiocy for the bozhidar and the rest of the cranks in the peanut gallery. you say the US is as evil an empire as any. at the end of WWII, we could have told the rest of the world that they were now US possessions/states, cranking out more A-Bombs and dropping them on anyone who chirped contrariwise. Caesar and Napoleon would have. Alexander would have. Ghengis Khan probably would have. Hitler definitely would have. Truman held up (GWB probably wouldn’t have.”

    Wow. I guess I’m one of the cranks in the peanut gallery, but your comments consistently display a lack of comprehension of history. The United States is a capitalist country, by which I mean very few people hold most of the capital (concentration of wealth/power). These “capitalists” have a big input in all decision making. By dropping atomic bombs all over the world, what would have been gained for these capitalists? Would they have new markets abroad? No, because all the potential consumers would be dead.

    In fact what we saw after WWII was a much more clever, subtle expansion of American power. For example we had the Marshall Plan, which is considered one of the U.S.’s humanitarian policies in text books, but in reality “set the stage for large amounts of private U.S. direct investment in Europe,” establishing the basis for the modern Transnational Corporations, which “prospered and expanded on overseas orders,…fueled initially by the dollars of the Marshall Plan” and protected from “negative developments” by “the umbrella of American power” (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199811–.htm).

    In the 1970s, the Trilateral Commission was established by some very wealthy and influential capitalists of U.S., Western European and Japanese extraction. Among the Americans involved you may have heard of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. The Commission immediately used their power to back Jimmy Carter, who was seen as being in the best interests for Tri-continental capitalism. Brzezinski is an important name, because he now backs Obama. This summer he wrote an article in Time magazine that is stunning in it’s audacity. Not of hope, but in the bold face lies that Brzezinski manufactures surrounding the Georgia-Russia conflict, with the cherry on the sundae being the assertion that, “we live in the post-imperial age”.

    I don’t argue because it’s fun to harass you, I argue because the ideas you’re putting forth stem from good-intentions, and you obviously have a good heart and head, but sadly the ideas asserted are naive. You rest on hypothetical statements about which historical figures would have done what in this or that situation. Contrary to your pure speculation that doesn’t take into account the historical record, history shows that all empires (and emperors) have held on to as much power as possible, by what ever means were available, while all the while trying to justify their existence as being “best for the civilized world”.

  34. bozhidar bob balkas said on November 7th, 2008 at 11:14am #

    our duty wld be not to stifle free speech. that means one does not attack other’s conclusion(s). conclusions, r not facts. but ideally, we can make conclusions after we collate at least a few salient facts or even all salient facts that pertain.
    i have a threestep paradigm that i use in mywriting:
    collate facts, conclude, and only after that suggest what ought to be done.
    unfortunately many people start their writing w. a conclclusion; build other conclusions atop the original conclusion; leaving out suggestions.
    case in point is that US cld have Abombed nations into submission if it had been as bad as i say, et al, in ’45.
    since it did not do that, it proves US is not as evil as other empires.
    but it is conclusion that US had any more bombs to use. so we need to consult historians to ascertain that US had some or many bombs. i don’t know how many or if any Abombs US had after aug ’45.
    let us suppose it had ten. let us also conclude that US cld bomb Russia since US planes cld reach it in ’45.
    but it wanted too. this last conclusion is actually a fact since US, has proclaimed its right to defend its ‘interests’.
    this right, the universal right, the right to self defense is denied by US to many lands. this is fact.
    US has also abrogated to self the right of first nuclear strike.
    yet is not bombing china or russia. is it beacuse its nobility or because china and russsia cld retaliate?
    so far i am concluding. all i have is conclusions. ok folks, help! i need facts before i conclude.
    suggestion i already had: eliminate wmd. thnx

  35. Andrew William said on November 7th, 2008 at 1:30pm #

    I can safely say that any hope I DID have with Obama in office was dashed when he selected Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.

    Bills: I understand where you are coming from, and I may have agreed with you before Obama appointed Emanuel. I see this selection as a bad omen; that Obama will keep his promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan, that the United States will continue its blind support of the ghettoization of Palestine.

  36. Hue Longer said on November 7th, 2008 at 6:06pm #

    MLK would not have done a Bill Cosby and yelled at gangsta culture without first addressing the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today….his own government.

    Bills, the deflection you chose came off as racist and it’s a common one too. There are white men behind who and what gets pushed and sold, but taking the argument there plays into what you did.

  37. Deadbeat said on November 7th, 2008 at 7:23pm #

    Reading some of the argument here are astounding to no end. Some folks just don’t have a real grasp of history. Since Max is our resident historian I’ll point out his errors.

    It’s very hard to bring a MLK or Malcolm X into this century. But, certainly, if memory serves me, these were not men who cowtowed to power.

    MLK was criticized by black radical as being too mainstream. MLK until he unequivocally came out against the Vietnam War was on a first name basis with Lyndon Johnson and worked with the power structure to get Civil Right legislation passed. “Kowtow” is a really a bogus term to use here. Max was right when he said it is hard to bring MLK & Malcolm into the 21 century after years of integration and affirmative action. Because blacks were kept out of the system in the 50’s and 60’s they had to protest outside of the system.

    It’s hard to imagine an Obama would have gotten to “first” base under the watchful eye of these two great leaders.

    It is hard to imagine since Obama was born in 1962.

    African Americans had a sense that Obama was not the Messiah. But there’s been no real leadership to confirm those instincts. People like Wright were assassinated and lost their voice in the face of the full force of corporate power.

    People like Wright was “assassinated” by the WHITE power structure therefore African American supported Obama as a reaction to the racism by the Clinton and McCain campaigns and the racism from the mainstream media. You can call it “corporate power” but blacks sees it as white supremacy.

    BAR is the closest I think of a voice which speaks the kind of truth I heard from Dr. King and Malcolm.

    WRONG! Both Ford & Dixon was in the tank to Howard Dean in 2004 therefore Ford & Dixon supported the DEMOCRATS when they saw it fit to. They didn’t call for a renewal of the antiwar movement or building up the Green Party until recently.

    Ford & Dixon both used disdainful rhetoric in order to describe Obama’s African American support. Yet in 2004 they both wrote about the limited choices that African American had and why they should support Dean. They not once in 2004 nor in 2008 suggest that blacks vote for Nader. They did favor McKinney but they were essentially suggesting to African Americans to throw their votes away. In other words they were inconsistent and duplicitous in their analysis which is clouded by their disdain for Obama who has a more progressive domestic outlook than Dean had in 2004.

    The difference between MLK and Ford & Dixon is that MLK analysis and communications were NEVER clouded by disdain.

    How this all plays out remains to be seen. There are opportunities if we know what we want and are willing to put the time and energy to achieve it. The gov’t will continue to move in a parallel universe. Some will take longer than others to fully realize that hope resides outside of that power sphere.

    Really now? What about Civil Rights? MLK operated in BOTH spheres.
    The first thing you need to do is analyze history correctly before you formulate strategies based on your faulty reading of history.

  38. Max Shields said on November 7th, 2008 at 7:31pm #

    Dead,

    Parsing my words makes you a certifiable idiot.

  39. Ramsefall said on November 8th, 2008 at 2:16pm #

    David G,

    if Obama were a messiah, which he isn’t of course, he would question the intentional disorder of the new world order. It’s only disorder in general society for the havenots, there’s plenty of order for the haves and the havemores. However, because he is a member of the class with order, he’s not going to attempt to make a suicidal move and challenge the disorder of the masses. That’s not his job as a corporate representative, his job is to maintain the status quo, not confront it.

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The elite who are in control don’t see their system as dysfunctional because it works exceptionally well for them; widening socio-economic gaps, profit from poverty, starvation and wars, control, power, etc. Why would the controlling interests want to turn the tables around? What would be their motive; social justice? That doesn’t factor in to the equation.

    Because we live in a society governed by the profit motive, those who reap the profits will remain content with their system and let the rest suffer to ensure their margin. Without a doubt, it is a sick system that panders to and exploits the weakness of the masses; i.e. lack of power. There is no such thing as a politician, a messiah, or an activist who’s going to fix these issues, but an organized uprising could be the start.

    Best to you.

  40. Ramsefall said on November 8th, 2008 at 2:42pm #

    Bills,

    you state in response to doug, “you’re presupposing progressivism was ever alive in recent history. quite the contrary. it’s been dormant because it has no viable, visible, realistic representation. ”

    I suppose it depends on what you mean by recent history, is 2003 recent enough? For the first time in our nation’s history we witnessed an anti-war movement before the war even began. I struggle to see that as dormancy, but of course we could do a hell of a lot better.

    How about this year’s election? A nation that is still divided on racial issues managed to elect the nation’s first black president…albeit the system is utterly corrupt and misrepresented. Nonetheless, does that constitute progressive death despite the false hopes placed on one man for change? It may not have been productive progressivism in accomplishing a change in politics, but it was progressive.

    While we have a long way to reach our progressive potential, to say that it is non-existent is casting a blind eye to reality.

    Best to you.

  41. Max Shields said on November 8th, 2008 at 2:59pm #

    Andrew Williams you are absolutely correct that Rahm Emanuel is more than a bad omen. He is a radical hawk, with an almost single-minded goal of Israel first. Let’s put it this way, he’s about as close to putting Lieberman in as chief of staff as you can get – and the only difference is Lieberman flirted with the Repubs, otherwise they’re one and the same.

    Chief of Staff is your “right-hand man”, he’s the one who screens, and keeps at bay what goes into the Oval Office, what gets the utmost attention and what gets little to no notice by the POTUS. Who goes in and out of the Oval Office is pretty much under the watchful eye of the Chief of Staff which is not a cabinet post and doesn’t require confirmation. Essentially, Obama’s chief of staff is an unabashed Zionist. Emanuel is aggressive in the extreme, and seems like a menacing character out of a Shakespearian drama.

    Now, what do you expect of such a chief of staff who will by a key player in Obama’s picks for SoD and SoS, etc those appointments will look like?

    We will see soon, but Obama’s first staff decisions was to pick a war hawk, pro-corporatist, Zionist Joe Biden; his second most important decision was to pick as his chief of staff Zionist war hawk Rahm Emanuel. That’s how things are lining up in the Obama administration.

    His advisors are primarily neoliberal, Dem neocons (with a dash of liberal domestic posturing on such issues as the environment and abortion). People will say, “but look he’s got Robert Reich, a pretty solid progressive economist in there too…”. That’s a joke. Reich is not exactly the cure we need, though he’s much better than the rest of the Clinton crowd; he was an invisible player with Clinton and will be with Obama. Reich is a smart guy but in a room of neoliberal radicals, he’s a mouse. In other words, he’ll play no role whatsoever.

    Ramsefall is completely right in his assessment of power. The system produces candidates. The voters, whether in primaries/caucuses or ultimately on election day, are given what the system provides: dee and dum corporate loyalists through and through.

    The liberals who think Obama could be another FDR are whistling passed the grave. He’s telegraphed where he’s at. Cognitive dissonance corrodes critical judgement. The liberal establishment and their minions are suffering deep cognitive dissonance which could last a few months or for years – it is the state of denial that will not believe what is going on right in front of their eyes as they look to Fox and Republicans to offer them what they see as the “enemy”. Meanwhile the real power marches on; whether it’s Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama…on ward Christian soldiers marching off to war in the name of the American Imperial Empire.

  42. Ramsefall said on November 8th, 2008 at 3:00pm #

    What the hell is happening on this discussion besides going in circles, throwing insults and being contradictive? How in the name of sweet baby Jesus are we ever going to make real progress in our society if we continue to bicker and fling crap at each other? Maybe we are truly screwed.

    JN,

    you state at the start of your post, “1) There is no way of actually knowing what Martin Luther King or Malcolm X would have thought of Obama.” You then respond by saying, “Having said that, King would almost certainly have opposed Obama on most of his major policies. ”

    There’s no way of knowing, but at the same time you know that MLK would have almost certainly been opposed. I know that I oppose Obama and his policies, you may know that you do, but how can you or anyone else make a supposition about what a dead guy would have thought? True, MLK was completely juxtaposed to Obama and we may try to speculate what would have happened, but what’s the sense? He’s dead!

    Can we have more fuzzy and meaningless logic, please?

    Let’s make sure we don’t set a date to get together and discuss these issues, I think some of you here might end up shooting some of the others in reaction to their disparateness.

    Regardless, best to all.

  43. Ramsefall said on November 8th, 2008 at 3:21pm #

    Max,

    First, thanks for the props.

    Second, from the discussions I’ve read, I believe you and I evaluate Obama through the same lens. When I let Obama’s pick like Emanuel, and rumored picks like Thatcher and Summers, sink in, an old saying comes to mind, “You can judge a man’s character by the company he keeps.”

    Nuff said.

    Best to you.