RadioActive hosts a community roundtable discussion evaluating Barack Obama’s first six months in office.

Click here to download the MP3

Click here to download the MP3

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/

The details of today’s rally in Hartford are as follows:

Friday Jan. 2
3 p.m.
Federal Building
450 Main St.,Hartford

Sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Palestinian-American Congress, the Middle East Crisis Committee.

* Call on President-elect Obama to break his silence and condemn this human rights atrocity!

* Call for an end to all US economic and military aid to Israel until it respects Palestinian human rights.

* Call for a just peace in Palestine based in part on:

Israel’s full withdrawal from land seized in 1967;

The right of return of Palestinian refugees;

An end to the segregation and second class status of Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.

Endorsed by People of Faith CT, American Friends Service Committee, A.N.S.W.E.R. CT and Socialist Action.

For more information visit:

http://faithct.net/event/2008/12/30/palestinian-rights/protest-massacre-gaza-hartford-12-3pm

From truthout.org:

The absence of a solid anti-war voice on Obama’s national security team means that US foreign policy isn’t going to change.

The assembly of Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Susan Rice and Joe Biden is a kettle of hawks with a proven track record of support for the Iraq war, militaristic interventionism, neoliberal economic policies and a worldview consistent with the foreign policy arch that stretches from George HW Bush’s time in office to the present.

More…

Not even in office yet, Obama is already asking for more (Australian) troops to be sent to Afghanistan. Senator Obama has described Afghanistan as “the war we need to win”, in contrast to Iraq, which he dubbed “the war we need to end”. I guess this is the “change we can believe in”…

full story here

The foiled plots to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama reveal more than just isolated racist fanaticism, according to James Ridgeway, author Blood in the Face: The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads and the Rise of a New White Culture.   Ridgeway cautions that there may be “more than meets the eye.”  Click here for more.

The most frustrating thing about election season is the gaping hole of political diversity in our country.   Our political process is dominated by two parties, Democrats and Republicans, which are largely indistinguishable for progressive voters critical of both occupations (remember Afghanistan?), the lack of universal healthcare, the stranglehold of corporate influence, American military empire, the ignoring or outright hostility toward our most vulnerable populations (children, the poor, the elderly), white privilege, class privilege, gender privilege and sexuality privilege, and so on.

No mainstream candidate stands to address any of these issues to the satisfaction of progressives, nor do they even claim to.  Yet, many progressives and even radicals are eager to vote for Barack Obama.  Is Obama better than McCain?  Sure.  He could conceivably usher in a “new deal” of sorts to address the economic crisis.  He would likely appoint pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court.  Certainly Obama will be a friendler face to the rest of the world than the militaristic McCain.  But remember: Bill Clinton’s charismatic “I didn’t inhale,” “I feel your pain” facade didn’t stop him from maintaining deadly sanctions in Iraq, and subsequently bombing them with no provocation or justification, not to mention the shredding of welfare, and his deregulation of the media.

Ultimately, Obama represents a party that is part of the problem, not the solution.  Corporate lobbyists and long-bought off members of his own party will have greater access to him as president than any of us.   Any real change he seeks to make will be mitigated by these two factors, at least.  He will win Connecticut because it’s a so-called blue state.  Whether he wins by one vote or 30,000 votes, the result is the same.  He gets our seven electoral votes.   This frees up Connecticut voters (in particular those who don’t want feel like “spoilers”) to do something better – to vote for minor party candidates who actually represent their political beliefs, thereby positively affecting our political diversity.  Or, to not vote at all and work for more direct democracy, beyond the largely corrupt and illegitimate electoral process we have now.

There are more than two choices to make on November 4.