By Steve Fournier
Barack Obama‘s apparent descent into unreason—manifest in the nation’s renewed commitment to military adventure, creditors’ rights, and subsidized markets—is not what it seems. The remarkable dumbing-down of this seemingly rational man marks the passing of the imperial torch ignited for Ronald Reagan and kept burning by each his successors, the flame kindled by the nation’s proprietors, the one percent of us who control nearly all the wealth. These very rich men depend on a state of war, chronic indebtedness and unregulated markets to maintain their status, and they anoint our rulers and let them know what is and isn’t allowed. Presidents since Reagan have routinely engaged in logical sleight-of-hand to carry out this mandate, which runs counter to the public interest.
That’s why Obama got so exercised when a North Korean rocket fell harmlessly to earth after a test last week. If he were to acknowledge the absurdity of a state of war between the most lavishly armed force in history and this miniscule principality half a world away, he might threaten the status of the proprietors, who profit from national insecurity. Appeals to fear have been incessant from all Reagan dynasty presidents, as in Obama’s reminder, in an earlier speech, of the threat from Afghanistan and Pakistan, a threat we wouldn’t worry about but for his reminders. In that speech, Obama invoked 9/11 with all the mock conviction of his predecessor (finessing, apparently, the critical questions every logical mind in America still has about what really happened). It’s government by insecurity, in defiance of reason and in line with time-tested Reagan government practice.
Government by insecurity is not the only principle shared by Reagan and his progeny, but it’s the key to their success. The whole good-versus-evil rap has worked to distract the people from the subversion of republican government by the rich. This is why the Reagans have all been good-looking guys. Ron, himself, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama cut a pseudo-rugged figure that is just what the proprietors are looking for in a spokesman. “If I looked like that,” we’re meant to think, “Maybe I could be president. ” If you’re willing to sit on your principles and suspend logic, maybe.
In his scolding of North Korea, Obama’s illogic was compelling. “Rules must be binding,” he said. “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. ” No matter how you parse them and in whatever language you care to express them, the words in these three sentences convey nothing. Logically speaking, if it’s not binding, it’s not a rule, if it’s not punished, it’s not a violation, and if it doesn’t mean anything, it’s not a word. Obama’s expressions are tautologies—he is what he is, after all—and he follows the Reagan line in just this sort of appeal to fallacy and unreason.
Law buffs worldwide might ask whether there aren’t also rules against incinerating shepherds in their fields, dropping bombs on wedding parties, and flying unmanned, heavily armed aircraft over terrorized populations in foreign lands, practices Obama engages in, all in accordance with the Reagan ethic. Inquiring minds might wonder how long war criminals like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will be allowed to wander among us, or whether we feel the slightest embarrassment in complaining about the acts of other nations’ leaders when our own leaders have killed and displaced millions and devastated the world economy under the Reagan dynasty. Many would regard Washington, DC, and not Pyongyang, as the rational starting point for the punishment of violations. Obama seems to favor rules that disable competitors and adversaries, but, like the other Reagans, he’s a scofflaw when it comes to compliance at home.
Obama talks about “the threat” to us from people far away but he can’t mention the threat that looms when one of his pilotless bombers buzzes distant villages, able to unleash a holocaust at the press of a button by an airman at a console in Nevada. “What does America signify to people under the drones?” he can’t ask. His convictions and principles exist only as mild intestinal discomfort. Instead of doing the right thing, he worships God and pops a Tums every so often. No King, this guy. Imperial, rather. Reagan the Fifth.
Steve Fournier is contributor to HIMC and writer/editor of
Current Invective:
www.currentinvective.com
Photo credit: afagen – http://www.flickr.com/photos/afagen/3209082746/
I think it’s a mistake to think that dismissing Obama as “Reagan the Fifth” is going to convince anyone of anything. There are aspects of Obama’s program that reflect a significant shift from the direction of U.S. policy, and most working people can see that in ways that they either know will affect them or they think may affect them. That is particularly so of working people who are politically engaged through their unions or community groups.
Yes, there are huge gaps between what Obama promises and what he can deliver. U.S. imperialism cannot deliver world peace because it is an instrument of violence on behalf of the capitalist class that it serves. Domestic economic policy cannot “solve” the problems of unemployment, homelessness or poverty because capitalism depends on these things to survive, and actually needs more unemployment and more poverty now in order to lower living standards.
But I think we have to convince people of that by pointing out the real, concrete differences between what they want and what Obama is delivering . . . and I don’t think we can do that by merely reducing the discussion to the old “there’s no difference between the capitalist parties” line, because it’s just not true.
To cite just a couple of kind of obvious examples . . . the possibility that the Employee Free Choice Act might be made law is huge for working people’s ability to join unions . . . the bolstering of enforcement of wage and hour laws by the Department of Labor could have a direct impact on many low wage workers . . . the possibility that some form of comprehensive immigration reform might pass this year would potentially affect millions of working people. These are reforms that could not even be envisioned while Bush was in office.
We can’t just wish all that away or pooh-pooh it by saying it won’t happen, essentially reduced to being cynics on the sidelines. because if we’re on the side of working people we have to fight to make these things happen. And doing that will – if we’re doing a good job – put us cheek-to-jowl with plenty of good, decent people who believe that Obama will turn things around. It’s going to take a lot of patience and hard work to convince them otherwise, and Obama = Reagan seems to me to be an unworkable shortcut.
The Obama presidency up to this point has consisted of worship by blacks and kid glove treatment by most liberal whites,which has resulted in a lack of accountability. The gloves have apparently come off in the wake of the warrantless spying issue; Keith Olbermann, who has been a stauch Obama supporter, gave the president the business on his program last night.
President Obama must be held accountable by progressives in order for his administration to fulfill its promise. I’ve heard too many white liberals start off their criticism of the president with a preamble, i.e. “I think it’s great that we have a black president, but I don’t like the fact that he has recycled so many Clintonites”.
By the power vested in me as a black person, I am officially giving white liberals permission to criticize President Barack Hussein Obama without saying something nice about him first. It’s now ok for you to just say that you think he’s full of crap regarding a particular issue. Steve has done a nice job of getting the ball rolling.
Well I’m no liberal, but I do think Obama is full of crap on most if not all issues. He may at one time have been a community organizer, but even that doesn’t mean too much lately.
This is politics as usual, a republican that sets us two steps back, then a democrat that takes one step forward…that’s hardly progress in my book.
Politicians will never give us what we truly need… It’s not in their best interest.
On the practical level, the campaign for justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal is a good illustration of what I said above. At a strategy meeting this past weekend, the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal met to discuss how to respond to the recent Supreme Court decision effectively removing any hope of the judicial system freeing him. It looks like their strategy will be to focus on pressuring Attorney General Holder and President Obama to pardon Abu-Jamal based on the extensive evidence that his trial was tainted by racism.
Rather than trying to convince people that Obama really isn’t progressive (or is just like Reagan, etc.), the campaign will work to mobilize masses of people to demand that Obama do the right thing and pardon him. It’s in the context of that struggle that people will discover just what they can and can’t expect from this administration.
The value of this approach is that it starts from where people really are. There are millions of people in the U.S. and around the world who believe that Abu-Jamal is innocent and should be freed. Many, many of them also believe that Obama has an agenda for social change. The left should be challenging these folks to put the heat on Obama . . .and be prepared to explain why it is such an enormous struggle to get even this small concession from the government.
In the process, many people will see the limitations of the Obama presidency….and the left might even learn something about organizing people.
http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2009/04/mumia-abu-jamal-supporters-meet-to-seek.html
Peter, I agree that in the process of folks trying to get Obama to change/overturn Mumia’s ruling through phone calls,letter writing, and the subsequent realization that he is no better than other administrations, that it will be more effective than someone on a blog saying he’s no different. And I totally agree with you on meeting folks where they are.
However, I think what the left needs to learn about organizing people, unless it’s their own people in their own community, is that it’s NOT their place to organize all people. Folks will organize amongst themselves when they see fit and fight back stronger than any leftist group in this country ever has.
That’s not to say that the left shouldn’t support other peoples struggles, but the time has long come that the left needs to take a back seat in a lot of these struggles and stop talking and start listening.
I’m inclined to agree with you…I think…but it raises the question: Which communities does “the left” belong to, and which does it not?
It sounds like you’re defining “the left” as a static group of individuals and organizations who you can pinpoint on a map. And maybe in ordinary times that’s accurate enough.
But look at what happened in the U.S. between 1964 and 1970. Tens of thousands of people became part of “the left” in dozens and dozens of old organizations and new organizations…some local, some regional, some national. Some groups were organized along racial/ethnic lines; some were around other oppressed constituencies, like women and gay people; there were radical caucuses developing in unions and in professions (radical historians, lawyers, school teachers); and there were radical political organizations that embraced every stretch of political territory from electoral reformism to underground paramilitaries.
So I think this begs the question…in periods when people are ready to fight like hell, is it that people organize themselves ‘without’ the left, or that in organizing themselves they become the left?
Dave’s comments are strikingly similar to what Malcolm X said about the need for whites to confront racism in their own communities, as opposed to salving their consciences by “helping” blacks in the ghettoes. His point was that blacks knew all about racism & that whites needed to educate their loved ones & neighbors about the issue in order to bring about social change.
My definition of the “The Left” is white liberals, but that’s me… I do agree with Malcolm that people of color must empower themselves. White liberals or President Obama can’t save blacks, Latinos or immigrants. We must define what empowerment means to us. The CT budget / social services issue is a prime example of what Dave is talking about.
We’ll be discussing the Obama presidency tomorrow on RadioActive.