See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Making Excuses for Obama
Source:
Antiwar.com
URL Source: http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13698
Published: Oct 31, 2008
Author: Justin Raimondo
Post Date: 2008-10-31 12:31:08 by Rupert_Pupkin
Keywords: Obama, War, AIPAC
Views: 103
Comments: 6
October 31, 2008 Making Excuses for Obama The mythology of good intentions by Justin Raimondo Every time I write about Barack Obama I get a lot of letters, and the most typical goes something like this: Dear Justin, I read your column regularly, and generally agree with what you have to say, but I think you've got Barack Obama all wrong. Yes, I know, he went before AIPAC and kowtowed; he pledged to do "anything – and I mean anything" to stop Iran's nuclear program. He acts "tough" and says he's going to invade Pakistan; he gets in Russia's face. But that's all a show: you see, he has to do this stuff or else he won't get elected. Once he's safely in office, he'll do the right thing. Sincerely, John Q. Reader This is an amalgam, but true to the spirit of the many pro-Obama missives I've received. They express a sentiment that is very widespread, so much so that it doesn't seem to matter, much, what Obama says he's going to do, because, in any case, his fans and supporters will simply insist on projecting their own hopes, desires, and views onto him. This, by the way, is a feature of most all successful populist insurgent candidates: they are blank slates merely waiting to be written on by anxious voters, who know only that they are sick of what is, and pine for what ought to be. As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, in this instance – because we've certainly been through the mill these past eight years, and deserve some relief – I have to say that this attitude is profoundly irrational. After all, why shouldn't we take Obama at his word? If he says he's going to "curb Russian aggression" – you know, like one might curb one's rather-too-aggressive dog – and get up in Putin's face, is he lying? When he solemnly pledges to go after the Iranians if they insist on deterring Israel's nukes with an arsenal of their own, is he speaking in Pig-Latin? The common assumption of these letter-writers is that Obama is just trying to "pass," so to speak, as a warmonger. Once he's in office, peace will break out all over. What evidence do we have for this? None whatsoever. Now, it's true that the Obama campaign didn't really take off until he made known his antiwar views on the Iraq question, and a lot of his street cred is due to this early stance. He was against the war from the beginning – and made sure the voters of Iowa knew it. His chief rival, Hillary Clinton, took a rather more equivocal stance, and he beat her over the head with this relentlessly. This was encouraging, but hardly definitive. At the time, I warned that Obama's refusal to take war with Iran "off the table" – as the Important People invariably put it – did not bode well, and, given his development over the course of the campaign it turned out I was – unfortunately – right. It isn't just a pedantic intellectual desire for consistency, or just to give me something to write about, that motivates me to criticize the inconsistencies of ostensibly "antiwar" politicians. Ideas have consequences, as the conservatives used to say, and if Obama makes it to the White House we're sure to experience some conceptual "blowback." Obama lied – people died! How long before we see that slogan emblazoned on a placard at a rather sparsely-attended antiwar rally? But of course he didn't lie, and isn't lying now. He's telling us he wants to confront Russia and Iran. He's telling us he wants to increase a military budget already larger than the total military expenditures of all other nations combined. He says he won't hesitate to invade Pakistan – and, presumably, any nation anywhere – if we have some reason to believe Osama bin Laden and his cohorts are in the vicinity. I think he's telling the truth – and I challenge the Obamaoids, especially the ones who claim to be sick of eight years of constant warfare, to prove otherwise. If Obama is indeed giving us the real story, and if he actually implements his foreign policy proposals, we are in a world of trouble. Joe Biden rightly said that, within six months of his election, Obama would be "tested." This was generally taken to mean tested by America's enemies – al-Qaeda, the Iranians, possibly the Russkies – but I took it in quite a different way. Yes, he will be tested, and has been repeatedly tested – by the War Party. So far, he's passed with flying colors. For evidence of this, just look at all that money he's raised from some of the biggest players in the game of Empire. The high-rollers aren't placing their bets on Obama for nothing. You don't spend $45 million on a single infomercial if you're financing your campaign with small contributions. I've written about Obama's bigtime Wall Street backers at length, here. In any case, I hardly think Obama is going to abolish the very Empire that polices the world on behalf of his Wall Street backers. Nor did I ever expect him to, even when I was more favorably inclined to his candidacy. Back in those halcyon days, afflicted as I was by an irrational exuberance due to rising antiwar sentiment, I did expect he wouldn't get us into any fresh wars, even if he didn't quite wind up the ones we're already fighting. I'm afraid, however, I was quite wrong, In this regard, an interesting bit of reporting appeared in last week's [Oct. 22] New York Times, where we learn: "Mr. Obama, the candidate who has expressed far more willingness to sit down and negotiate with the Iranians, said in an e-mail message passed on by an aide that in any final deal he would not allow Iran to produce uranium on Iranian soil, the same hard-line view enunciated by the Bush administration." The writer, David Sanger, goes on to point out that the stereotypes of warmonger and peacenik in this race are not only off, they are way off: "Consider the delicate issue of Pakistan, where it is Mr. Obama who has been far more willing than Mr. McCain to threaten sending in American troops on ground raids. Mr. McCain, by contrast, argues that Pakistan must control its territory. ‘I don't think the American people today are ready to commit troops to Waziristan,' he said, months before Mr. Bush signed secret orders this summer authorizing ground raids in Pakistan, including the violent sanctuaries of North and South Waziristan." Interesting – not that it means McCain is the real peacenik, just that Obama is, potentially, even more reckless than Mad John. Don't let that calm demeanor fool you. President Obama is no hyperventilating arm-waving interventionist, for sure, but that's just a question of style. He'll no doubt cultivate his own signature brand: Zen interventionism, if you will. What's unnerving, however, is that Obama's foreign policy views have gone largely unarticulated, except in the most general terms. He's a man of mystery, a characteristic that lets his supporters project their own views onto him, and yet this failure to be more forthcoming is what I find particularly ominous. As Sanger reports: "Mr. McCain, now the Republican nominee, agreed to an interview during the primary campaign. Obama aides answered questions at length, but Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, citing the pressures of time in the campaign, declined requests dating to June to be interviewed in detail on how he would handle potential confrontations beyond Iraq that could face the next president." During that interminable infomercial, a total of less than two minutes was devoted to the issue of war and peace. And those two minutes were filled with renewed vows to increase the military budget – with the added fillip of "curbing Russian aggression." This should comfort all those "Obama-cons," alleged conservatives who are jumping on the bandwagon now that his election seems imminent – because we seem to be going back in time, back to the "good old days" of the cold war. In Obama World, the Russians are coming -- again! Soon we'll be hearing dire warnings that if we don't stop them in South Ossetia, before you know it they'll be in South Carolina. Hollywood – a bastion of Obama-mania – will do a remake of Red Dawn. Schoolchildren will be subjected to "duck and cover" sessions, and Fox News will do an updated revival of "I Led Three Lives." Okay, enough with Obama, because it's not really about him, personally, or even politically. People need hope: they need to know that they aren't, ultimately, powerless, that they can make an impact on what we do as a nation -- that is, what the government does in our name. They not only like to believe it, they have to believe it, because to not believe it is to fall victim to despair. It is the democratic faith, which one devoutly hopes is not a pretty fiction. Yet the electoral process is rigged, in this country: the system permits only two political parties. All others must overcome enormous obstacles to achieve ballot status. This give the War Party maximum elbow room to manipulate the political process behind the scenes, and allows them to exercise their dictatorship in a "democratic" fashion. The two-party monopoly gives the War Party a strategic advantage: it merely has to split itself in two, amoeba-like, so that both officially-recognized "major" parties" simply become the "right" and "left" wings of a single party – the War Party. This limits the political options of the peace movement, and makes it harder to have an impact even at the primary level: the gigantism of the system, with its two monolithic party organizations, is biased against insurgents. It is also more amenable to the advantages of money, large sums of it, which Obama has had access to throughout this campaign. Political action is fine, and necessary, but there are other, more important tasks for those who want to bring about a real change in American foreign policy – by which I mean a complete turnaround. Such ambition requires a longer view. America has been an emerging empire for the past half century or so, and now that we're the semi-official world's policeman – the "hyperpower," as the French put it – a good many Americans are beginning to question the value and the morality of playing such a role. The Iraq war, however popular it appeared to be at first, is today asunpopular than the President who started it, he whose polls have hit historic lows. The next President will have to contend with a war-weary public, with very little patience for new interventions. But – and I hate to tell you this, but somebody has to -- the politics of fear and deception have not been patented by the Republicans. Look for the Democrats to add their own ingredient to this bipartisan recipe for overseas disasters: the politics of guilt. White liberal guilt, to be sure. We'll be smack dab in the middle of Africa's feuding tribes faster than you can say "Samantha Power." And that's the best case scenario. In the worst case, the Dennis Ross faction of Obama's emerging foreign policy movers and shakers will maneuver us into a confrontation with Iran, and relations with Russia will deteriorate to a new low as NATO escalates its eastward expansion. In any case, those who are working to effect a fundamental change in American foreign policy have a duty to take Obama at his word -- hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.
Poster Comment: They express a sentiment that is very widespread, so much so that it doesn't seem to matter, much, what Obama says he's going to do, because, in any case, his fans and supporters will simply insist on projecting their own hopes, desires, and views onto him. The mindset of an Obamaite, in a nutshell. They're so sold on their Messiah that they convince themselves that he "really doesn't mean" what he says. Or they just pretend that he never says any of those things that should have been nails in his political coffin, at least as far voters hoping for sane foreign policy were concerned.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#0)
I can't imagine they'll nut up like Justin did and admit it. They'll likely be marching for the 'man' by then and embracing anything and everything !
"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
Submitted for your consideration.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I've already pondered that point, as I am not so easily manipulated as you seem to think I am. I disagree with Obama of some points, but he has the tools talent and passion to go into this job with the motivation and ethical good sense to preform his duties as president that unites this country, and to do this in a good way that honors the full spectrum of opinion and belief systems that exist in this country. I am aware that much a president's success depends on who is in the administration and how well they preform as a team, but looking at how well he built, conducted and ran his team working for him in this campaign, he has removed all my doubts that he is unworthy of being given a shot at the job. I also have watched McCain, and he alarms and frightens me. But not enough so I'd reflexively support Obama if I honestly thought he could not excell at the job of President of the United States. I don't think I am going to get everything I want from him these next few years, as he is going to appoint Republicans in his Administration and try to build unity and social cohesiveness as his central notion. I see your sentiments as an overreaction and based on emotion over riding rationality. Let's see how it goes as his administration develops. I am sure I am the one who is right here, not you naysayers.
Upon what basis do you reach that conclusion? His repeated assertions and comments which are, at very best, ambiguous? And how is that so? His legendary frankness? 5 to 1, or better, in campaign donations from the Oligarchy (Wall Street, Big Pharma, and the Oiligarchs)? In other words "the usual suspects". How does returning known criminals to positions of responsibility build "social cohesiveness" (whatever that is)? This inspires confidence how? Your evaluation of my thought processes is based on what evidence? My evaluation is based on factual, quantifiable, data which is in the public domain for anyone to evaluate. Do not presume to project your thought processes over mine.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Nothing like the lament of a jilted amour. Funny.
Likewise, I'm sure. I have to go now to work on the telephones to remind people to get their ballots in the mail or to a drop box. Have a good day, be back when I have time.
Obama lied – people died! How long before we see that slogan emblazoned on a placard at a rather sparsely-attended antiwar rally?
#2. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
This is an amalgam, but true to the spirit of the many pro-Obama missives I've received. They express a sentiment that is very widespread, so much so that it doesn't seem to matter, much, what Obama says he's going to do, because, in any case, his fans and supporters will simply insist on projecting their own hopes, desires, and views onto him. This, by the way, is a feature of most all successful populist insurgent candidates: they are blank slates merely waiting to be written on by anxious voters, who know only that they are sick of what is, and pine for what ought to be.
#3. To: Original_Intent (#2)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#3)
...but he has the tools talent and passion to go into this job with the motivation and ethical good sense...
...he has removed all my doubts that he is unworthy of being given a shot at the job.
I don't think I am going to get everything I want from him these next few years, as he is going to appoint Republicans in his Administration and try to build unity and social cohesiveness as his central notion.
I see your sentiments as an overreaction and based on emotion over riding rationality.
#5. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#0)
#6. To: Original_Intent (#4)
(Edited)
"Do not presume to project your thought processes over mine."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest