Hollow Victory
We should all be happy to see the end of the Bush presidency yet that is not going to happen, not in this election. The history of American politics is a history of precedents set, that once in place never seem to go away. Every time a precedent is set it is usually another victory for the venal idiot class whom we refer to as the ruling elite. Bush has set the precedent of our asinine War on Terror , a cover for a reckless imperialism that both the Democrats and Republicans have been pursuing for years under various guises with the Democratic Party leading the way in no uncertain terms. The Democratic Party is the War Party as can be easily demonstrated by any honest look at history.
The neocons who hijacked the Republican Party are now flocking to the Obama banner, all the same bad actors who gave us the Iraq War with visions of world domination in their greedy little ape brains are returning to their point of origin the Democratic Party with Obama as the new George Bush. In fact I believe Obama may well be infinitely worse than Bush with his slick smooth talk and lies. In fact, the only thing that could stop Obama from pursuing his plans for escalating the War on Terror in Afghanistan and beginning a new war in Pakistan is if the sources of funding for our wars, China and Europe, decide to cut those funds off. All Obama has promised is that he will be smarter about pursuing war than Bush which makes Obama one of the most dangerous people on the planet. Replacing an incompetent war monger with an efficient war monger is not progress, not by any standard.
To be sure the arrogant and conceited Obama will toss his adoring flock a few crumbs from the rich man’s table but what use is that for the War on Terror is ripping the fabric of this nation apart ensuring the eventual economic demise that is already well under way. Yes, oh yes, it will be good to see George Bush leave the White House leaving a slimy snail trail behind him but I fear the victory will be a hollow one.
posted by Unknown @ 9:57 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Clearly you don't appreciate bipartisanship.
One of my many shortcomings.
But this is so damn depressing. What's to be done?
Hi Mimi, I think we are heading into unknown waters here. Public pressure in the 60’s and 70’s did do some good, for example Noam Chomsky pointed out that unlike the Vietnam War, when it was several years before people began to protest, people protested in large numbers before the Iraq War began. So there may some small comfort in that. Today I have doubts that the same kind of protests would have much affect. For one the news media won’t cover protest events or if they do they will ridicule the people involved as kooks. Secondly this country is probably too fractured for any kind of grass-roots movement to make much difference. Our leaders just plain don’t care what we think. Having said that I still believe a grass-roots movement would be well worth attempting but it is going to take lots and lots of time to change things. Perhaps Jonathan Versen and Bob of Pacifica would like to chime in here, it’s beginning to feel lonely.
I've been meaning to write about the phenomenon of Obama as the deliberate Gestalt candidate, the speaker of evocative things, who could be saying the thing you want to hear but leaves the ideas deliberately not quite expressed, just intimated so that he says 1 and 2 and let's you say three and let's you think you heard him say it.
(um, if you like three.)
It's not a brand new phenomenon, by any means. Politicians have offered sketchy solutions which may(or may not) be filled in later for many generations now, but it seems to have become more pronounced with the Obama campaign.
It's like a bit from a sitcom, or probably even from an old vaudville review in the days before tv-- I don't know.
Imagine Desi Arnaz walks into the room abruptly, saying,
"Lucy, what have you done!"
He says it in a loud voice, but his emotion is not clear.
"Uh, what have I done! Uh, what have I done?"
Her words could later be crafted as a denial, but she's playing along, to see what he's talking about, and if he's pleased, well, take credit, by all means!
I don't think Obama has "big and bold new ideas", although I don't doubt he's a very smart politician. The devil is in the details, as in so many things, and he's eagerly taking advantage of a media and a culture that is suspicious of detailed answers, eliciting a Homer Simpsonesque "Bo-Ring!" from the press, evoking the ghost of democrats past, like Al Gore 2000, who was "wonkish" and "out-of-touch", unlike the affable George Junior, who was dying to have a beer with you.
I think that is why Obama has so quickly repudiated other people whose association might allow him to be defined by them, such as when he made a point to frumpily take umbrage at the "Obama girl" video, or repudiate General Clark for criticizing McCain, notably without naming him.
The thing is, though,it's not so much that he simply wants to prevent others from defining him by proxy, but he also wants to remain undefined, the candidate you can project your hopes and dreams upon, like a bipartisan Kris Kringle,who may, someday end the war, or who may, someday, protect us from rapacious bankers...
So he may turn out to be a good president-- but you have to vote for him first. That part of the (implied) contract is surprisingly unambiguous.
I think those are all reasonable views Jonathan but I was hoping to hear something in the way of answering Mimi's question, what do we do? That is the conundrum methinks.
you're darn right, you Rob Payne you. I was working on a post to discuss Mimi's question more directly, but thought my comment had already gotten a bit long on the tooth. I will post re Mimi's comment shortly.
Post a Comment
<< Home