See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Alexander Cockburn: Obama, the first-rate Republican
Source:
Indep[endent
URL Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio ... rstrate-republican-973691.html
Published: Oct 28, 2008
Author: Alexander Cockburn
Post Date: 2008-10-28 05:55:20 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 255
Comments: 10
Is there anything the front-runner will not say to become President? No progressive cause would have a chance with him in charge As a left-winger I might be expected to be supporting Barack Obama. And indeed, in these last days I've been scraping around, trying to muster a single positive reason to encourage a vote for Obama. Please note my accent on the positive, since the candidate himself has couched his appeal in this idiom. Why vote for Obama-Biden, as opposed to against the McCain-Palin ticket? Obama invokes change. Yet never has the dead hand of the past had a "reform" candidate so firmly by the windpipe. Is it possible to confront America's problems without talking about the arms budget? The Pentagon is spending more than at any point since the end of the Second World War. In "real dollars" – an optimistic concept these days – the $635bn (£400bn) appropriated in fiscal 2007 is 5 per cent above the previous all-time high, reached in 1952. Obama wants to enlarge the armed services by 90,000. He pledges to escalate the US war in Afghanistan; to attack Pakistan's territory if it obstructs any unilateral US mission to kill Osama bin Laden; and to wage a war against terror in a hundred countries, creating a new international intelligence and law enforcement "infrastructure" to take down terrorist networks. A fresh start? Where does this differ from Bush's commitment on 20 September 2001, to an ongoing "war on terror" against "every terrorist group of global reach" and "any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism"? Obama's liberal defenders comfort themselves with the thought that "he had to say that to get elected". He didn't. After eight years of Bush, Americans are receptive to reassessing America's imperial role. Obama has shunned this opportunity. If elected, he will be a prisoner of his promise that on his watch Afghanistan will not be lost, nor the white man's burden shirked. Whatever drawdown of troops in Iraq that does take place in the event of Obama's victory will be a brief hiccup amid the blare and thunder of fresh "resolve". In the event of Obama's victory, the most immediate consequence overseas will most likely be brusque imperial reassertion. Already, Joe Biden, the shopworn poster boy for Israeli intransigence and Cold War hysteria, is yelping stridently about the new administration's "mettle" being tested in the first six months by the Russians and their surrogates. Obama is far more hawkish than McCain on Iran. After eight years of unrelenting assault on constitutional liberties by Bush and Cheney, public and judicial enthusiasm for tyranny has waned. Obama has preferred to stand with Bush and Cheney. In February, seeking a liberal profile in the primaries, Obama stood against warrantless wiretapping. His support for liberty did not survive for long. Five months later, he voted in favour and declared that "the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool". Every politician, good or bad, is an ambitious opportunist. But beneath this topsoil, the ones who make a constructive dent on history have some bedrock of fidelity to some central idea. In Obama's case, this "idea" is the ultimate distillation of identity politics: the idea of his blackness. Those who claim that if he were white he would be cantering effortlessly into the White House do not understand that without his most salient physical characteristic Obama would be seen as a second-tier senator with unimpressive credentials. As a political organiser of his own advancement, Obama is a wonder. But I have yet to identify a single uplifting intention to which he has remained constant if it has presented any risk to his progress. We could say that he has not yet had occasion to adjust his relatively decent stances on immigration and labour-law reform. And what of public funding of his campaign? Another commitment made becomes a commitment betrayed. His campaign treasury is a vast hogswallow that, if it had been amassed by a Republican, would be the topic of thunderous liberal complaint. Obama's run has been the negation of almost every decent progressive principle, with scarcely a bleat of protest from the progressives seeking to hold him to account. The Michael Moores stay silent. Obama has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He is more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain, and has been the most popular of the candidates with Washington lobbyists. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful. So no, this is not an exciting or liberating moment in America's politics. If you want a memento of what could be exciting, go to the website of the Nader-Gonzalez campaign and read its platform on popular participation and initiative. Or read the portions of Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr's platform on foreign policy and constitutional rights. The standard these days for what the left finds tolerable is awfully low. The more the left holds its tongue, the lower the standard will go. Alexander Cockburn co-edits counterpunch.org, the US left-wing website, and is a columnist for 'The Nation' and 'The First Post' (alexandercockburn@asis.com)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Afghanistan, Obama's war of choice, will be his political grave. His supporters either ignore his desire to widen that war or defend it with nonsense excuses. Lets see how many Os will send their useless kids off to that war.
You will not need an abacus for counting. You and I both know, as always war consumes the useless bitter white trash of America. They get to do the majority of the bleeding and dying.
That's right. The arrogance of the Obama left automatically excludes them and their children from war. The hypocrisy of the liberal left is equal to that of the neocon left.
I cannot understand the thinking of American voters, not the non voters, the voters and supporters of this war mongering system of government. War, more war and expanded war are part and parcel of both candidates and there is not one negative concerning this in the MSM. Supporters seem not to read or hear what is guaranteed down the road.
As a political organiser of his own advancement, Obama is a wonder. But I have yet to identify a single uplifting intention to which he has remained constant if it has presented any risk to his progress. We could say that he has not yet had occasion to adjust his relatively decent stances on immigration and labour-law reform. And what of public funding of his campaign? Another commitment made becomes a commitment betrayed. His campaign treasury is a vast hogswallow that, if it had been amassed by a Republican, would be the topic of thunderous liberal complaint. bttt
Since most have never been subjected to war I think they see it as something that happens on TV, to someone else, and if we don't continue it we might not be as comfortable.
World Socialists Suck !
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
When Obama came out of nowhere a few years ago, promoted to no end by the mass media and the DNC, I wondered who or what created him, and for what end. I'm now convinced that the Democrats saw the threat of an anti-war backlash that would give voters in the primaries cold feet when it came to the DNC's candidates of choice (Hillary, etc). So to prevent a genuine grassroots anti- war movement, Obama was used as a false flag operation. His vague rhetoric made him sound like an alternative to Hillary, and the media managed to make him look like a "grassroots" candidate in spite of endorsements by Ted Kennedy and a huge war chest that obviously didn't come from San Francisco hippies or little old ladies in Harlem. The system always has a way of dealing with the threat of grassroots revolt. Obama diffused the threat posed by the anti-war Left, as was made clear by his promises to AIPAC and his "tough talk" on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I guess Alex won't be invited to any Black House dinners.
Ahmadinejad in 2008! the Biden pick too. silly me. i thought the Obots would get it then.
Obama has shunned this opportunity. If elected, he will be a prisoner of his promise that on his watch Afghanistan will not be lost
#2. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
Lets see how many Os will send their useless kids off to that war.
#3. To: Cynicom (#2)
war consumes the useless bitter white trash of America
#4. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
#5. To: All (#0)
Every politician, good or bad, is an ambitious opportunist. But beneath this topsoil, the ones who make a constructive dent on history have some bedrock of fidelity to some central idea. In Obama's case, this "idea" is the ultimate distillation of identity politics: the idea of his blackness. Those who claim that if he were white he would be cantering effortlessly into the White House do not understand that without his most salient physical characteristic Obama would be seen as a second-tier senator with unimpressive credentials.
#6. To: Cynicom (#4)
I cannot understand the thinking of American voters, not the non voters, the voters and supporters of this war mongering system of government.
#7. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
The hypocrisy of the liberal left is equal to that of the neocon left
#8. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
(Edited)
Afghanistan, Obama's war of choice, will be his political grave. His supporters either ignore his desire to widen that war or defend it with nonsense excuses. Lets see how many Os will send their useless kids off to that war.
#9. To: Ada, christine (#0)
Obama has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines.
Everyone agrees that unanimity is hard to find.
#10. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#8)
Obama diffused the threat posed by the anti-war Left, as was made clear by his promises to AIPAC and his "tought talk" on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest