Change we can believe in

[bigbadwolf]

I don't know why people feel duped. Were you expecting revolution? A tumultuous period of unprecedented social upheaval?

Nope, neither of these things. This thread is just a big "I told you so" to all those nincompoops on this forum who were singing his praises. The messiah was going to turn water into wine, cause the blind to see, restore the lame to a full use of their legs, cause the tiger and the lamb to become fast friends (or at least curb the carnivorous appetite of the tiger), and so on.

Or largely more of the same, with a slightly different focus and priorities. Bit more healthcare and a bit less war would make a world of difference domestically and internationally.

What makes you think anything has changed beyond rhetoric and style?

 

[bigbadwolf]

However, I do realize that he needs experienced people in his cabinet ...

Sure. Experience, continuity, pragmatism, soundness of judgment, reaching out across the aisle, building a consensus.

and let's face it, if he were to go too far one way or another - left or right, even less might be accomplished. After the Clinton and Bush years, President-elect Obama is indeed a change.

Yep, his name and skin color are indeed change -- and just about all the change we're going to get.

 

[bigbadwolf]

A hilarious essay by Glen Ford at Counterpunch:

There are lots of political appointments to go before Obama's roster is complete, but the heavy lifting is done. The ideological pillars of America's first Black presidency have been planted wholly within the parameters of governance allowed by big capital and the imperial military. Obama's "transition" is more accurately seen as a "continuity" of rule by the lords of finance capital and their protective screen of warriors and spies. The Obama regime, still incomplete, already reeks of thieves and war criminals.

The supremely talented actor/state senator's capacity for obfuscation; his refusal to take a firm position on any subject of real controversy; his transparently false denials of fealty to the corporate Democratic Leadership Council, which had publicly claimed him - all this should have marked Obama as bad news for Black America. But his was a fatally attractive package, like the shiny little cluster bomblets that kids pick up in places like Afghanistan.

 

[jp]

This thread is just a big "I told you so"

You're not really in a position to say that. At the moment people are hysterical because they voted in someone who stood for change. And someone who wasn't an old white man from a long standing political elite. That was fairly remarkable.

Obama hasn't done much yet. Time will tell if he deserves his plaudits, or whether the change he promised manifests.

 

[bigbadwolf]

You're not really in a position to say that.

Many people will still be saying this after six months (gotta give the man a chance; it's still early days). And after a year. And after two years (well, at least he's trying; change takes time). No shortage of self-deluding apologists in the USA. But the writing on the wall is clear, and has been clear for months as commentators like Glen Ford and Ralph Nader have been consistently and carefully explaining.

Part of the problem is lack of an informed and critical political and policy debate among ordinary Americans, and succumbing to the siren song of "personality" propaganda. But it does not matter that Obama is black or is more articulate than GWB if his policies are more or less the same and he is a marionette manipulated by the same oligarchic cabal of crooks. But -- *shrug* -- people don't learn. I feel a sense of deja vu: there was the same feeling of exuberance after the victories of Carter and Clinton. The Democrats consistently sail under a false flag, and this is only possible because of tens of millions of ignorant and self-deluding Americans.

 

[bigbadwolf]

More on the falseness of the mocha messiah in this essay at dissidentvoice:

It seems that Obama flat out lied about taking away the giant Bush tax cuts for the megarrich, and also hopes to withdrawal his proposal to tax oil companies on the insane profits they’ve recently enjoyed at the expense of everyone else. He may still follow through on plans to cut taxes for the “middle class” (at a time when the US faces it’s greatest deficits and need for public investment ever), but keep in mind that when leading Democrats talk about the middle class, they mean people who make $250,000-$100,000 per year.

Obama opposes universal healthcare (aka “single payer”) , which is supported by most Americans and is successfully used by most developed nations to provide healthcare to all their citizens at a fraction of the cost of what Americans spend per person each year.

 

[RWS]

I very much appreciate BigBad's excerpts and commentary, and not only regarding Barack Obama. But I don't share any commentator's disappointment in altered "promises" from the president-to-be: as BigBad, I've doubted the man's ability to deliver on his promises, let alone to fulfill fervent hopes pegged to him without substantive cause.

I of course wish any American president to succeed and for all Americans to benefit from governmental action (or inaction) during his administration. How, though, can any government give its citizens (I almost typed "subjects" -- Diocletian, anyone?) increased benefits without either broadly increased taxation, significantly restricted liberties, or both? As any student either of history or of human nature already knows: it can't.

So, then, did Obama lie? Probably; perhaps he simply was carried away by his own enthusiasms and his marked lack of experience. Either way, we voters should certainly have known better than to expect other than what we've now begun to receive.

 

[bigbadwolf]

So, then, did Obama lie? Probably; perhaps he simply was carried away by his own enthusiasms and his marked lack of experience. Either way, we voters should certainly have know better than to expect other than what we've now begun to receive.

A politician has to lie -- that's his craft. He's dealing with a credulous and ignorant electorate that doesn't want to be confused with facts and arguments and that has unrealistic expectations of what a politician can deliver (which is usually nothing). The problem with Obama, among so many other defects, is that there's nothing behind the cliches and slogans. He has no clear insight into what is happening economically. This is a weak, diffident, and ignorant man who has been elected president at a period of crisis for both the USA and the world at large. Because of what he is, because of the party he comes from, and because of the nature of the status quo in the USA, no "leadership" and initiative of any kind can be expected from his administration -- only knee-jerk reactions as events unfold. His appointees reflect his ignorance and diffidence as well as all the IOUs he accumulated by way of campaign contributions and other favors on the road to the White House.

 

[jp]

Many people will still be saying this after six months (gotta give the man a chance; it's still early days). And after a year. And after two years (well, at least he's trying; change takes time). No shortage of self-deluding apologists in the USA.

How long do you think change takes?
How easy do you think it is to affect genuine change using the mechanisms available to a president?

I'll share your cynicism up to a point. I'm not expecting miracles. But your criticisms sound too nihilistic for me. "Genuine" change happens slowly. Look back through history, how things have moved along in the last 50 years in the US, Europe, Latin America - anywhere you want. No genuine change there? No leadership decisions which helped bring about genuine change?

I'm not really sure what your complaint is or who you are angry at.
Obama? The whole political system and everyone involved?

 

[bigbadwolf]

How long do you think change takes?
How easy do you think it is to affect genuine change using the mechanisms available to a president?

The change is coming from the outside -- economic crisis and military reversals. An ossified political and financial establishment, intent on preserving as much of the status quo as it can, is reacting to it as best it can (i.e., with instruments that got it into this situation in the first place). But the change is not coming from fresh new ideas and energy.

I'll share your cynicism up to a point. I'm not expecting miracles. But your criticisms sound too nihilistic for me. "Genuine" change happens slowly. Look back through history, how things have moved along in the last 50 years in the US, Europe, Latin America - anywhere you want. No genuine change there? No leadership decisions which helped bring about genuine change?

"Change" is part of the dynamic of the universe. It happens even despite the attempts of ruling classes to arrest it. How much change has occurred in Argentina? And has it been for the better? And how much credit does the political leadership deserve for what positive developments may have occurred (if any)?

I'm not really sure what your complaint is or who you are angry at.
Obama? The whole political system and everyone involved?

Cynical, yes; angry, no. A political system where a befuddled electorate can periodically vote for two indistinguishable candidates beholden to the same interests and campaigning on slogans and personality -- this cannot deliver change. This is but a facade. The real decisions are being made elsewhere. And the real change is coming from elsewhere -- not from hack politicians who are but marionettes