Change we can believe in

[bigbadwolf]

Call me cynical, but I doubt that many intelligent men or women ever believed much of what Obama said. At least in this state (I write from southern New England), voting for him was the point in itself: showing oneself to be benignly racist ("gotta hav a black pres'dent!"), anti-Republican and anti-Bush ("McCain's just an older Bush!"), while allowing the charade of the corrupt and corrupting social-welfare state to continue another eight years.

The problem is that when limousine liberals and champagne socialists say "anyone but Bush," what happens is that everything remains the same -- except for the presence of Bush. The problem has never been Bush per se (though admittedly he's the worse president in history); it's an ossified political establishment run by the rich which governs as a corrupt war-mongering global empire. But this can never be owned up to. Hence the vague and feel-good talk about hope and change from this false prophet, this mocha messiah, this utter charlatan.

The country lives in a state of denial. It is now going into a depression that will rival (if not exceed) the Great Depression but nary a mention of this in any mainstream media.

 

[sergio]

It's not just that the US is run by the "rich" - special interests play a role, especially in foreign affairs. As for Obama, some Americans are STILL deluding themselves into believing that there will be real change. Today I spoke to one such individual who shut me up when I begged to differ. It's hard to admit being conned but that's exactly what has happened. Those who supported Ron Paul or even Ralph Nader supported real change however these candidates were marginalized by Democrats, Republicans and the Establishment media.

 

[bigbadwolf]

James Petras on the mocha messiah at dissidentvoice:

For reasons completely foreign to the emotional ejaculations of his boosters, it is a historic moment: witness the abysmal gap between his ‘populist’ campaign demagoguery and his long-standing and deepening carnal relations with the most retrograde political figures, power brokers and billionaire real estate and financial backers.

What was evident from even a cursory analysis of his key campaign advisers and public commitments to Wall Street speculators, civilian militarists, zealous Zionists and corporate lawyers was hidden from the electorate by Obama’s people friendly imagery and smooth, eloquent deliverance of a message of ‘hope’. He effectively gained the confidence, dollars and votes of tens of millions of voters by promising ‘change’ (implying higher taxes for the rich, ending the Iraq war and national health care reform) when in fact his campaign advisers (and subsequent strategic appointments) pointed to a continuation of the economic and military policies of the Bush Administration.

Within 3 weeks of his election he appointed all the political dregs who brought on the unending wars of the past two decades, the economic policy makers responsible for the financial crash and the deepening recession castigating tens of millions of Americans today and for the foreseeable future. We can affirm that the election of Obama does indeed mark a historic moment in American history: The victory of the greatest con man and his accomplices and backers in recent history.

Obama is the trademark name of a network of confidence people. They are a well-organized gang of prominent political operative, money raisers, mass media hustlers, real estate moguls and academic pimps. They are joined and abetted by the elected officials and hacks of the Democratic Party. Like the virtuoso performer, Obama projected the image and followed the script.


... There is not a single member of his economic team, down to the lowest level of appointees, who represents or has defended the interests of the wage or salaried classes (or for that matter the large and small manufacturers from the devastated ‘productive’ industrial economy).

 

[Moxon]

A friend of mine frequents the blog of one such rich, white American 20ish female resident in BA (I don't know if she is a Limousine liberal or a champagne socialist) for the purposes of amusement, but during the election campaign her departures from reality became too obtuse to digest. It came to a head after yet another shameless praise song, this time a gushing comparison with some familiar names, kind of the literary equivalent of those ubiquitous souvenir shop snowdomes where the names Kennedy, King and Obama are the snowflakes swirling around and looking pretty and the rest of the words are the liquid; amorphous, entropic and superfluous except in their duty to suspend those swirling flakes to the wonderment of similarly duped faux progressives, in response I ... erm ... I mean my friend, proffered this:

Here's a list of countries (or former countries) off the top of my head: The Philippines, Cuba, Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Panama, Grenada, Puerto Rico, D R Congo, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Angola, Sudan, Greece, British Guyana, Pakistan, Syria

Any idea what connects them? Here's a clue: it involves the nation which currently has 90% of all foreign military bases on earth, and the term 'military intervention'

It never ceases to amaze me how little Americans know about these and other examples and how they have only just become aware of some animosity towards their country in the last few years. What happened in the last 8 years was merely an extension of what was practised under previous administrations, a quantitative change, perhaps (though many would argue even against this) but qualitative? Hardly. This is a recurring pattern from way back and unlikely to change. The same jingoism is propagated in different packaging.

Here are some nice words: Defence industrial base - that's a euphemism for high-tech industry. Where in the constitution does it say that electing a president somewhat browner than usual automatically dissolves the military industrial complex and its associated interests? How many of the 1000+ military bases on foreign soil will be closed? How much of the post war structure of financial regulation (the demolition of which led to various financial crises worldwide including the current one) will be restored? And the similarly demolished architecture of international justice? (reparations anyone? Nicaragua?) I thought not.
...

The response predictably failed to address anything raised and instead a familiar straw was produced as a flotation device (the why do they/you hate us/me mantra) - this level of indefatigable denial is sadly all too common - it seems there will forever be enough sand to accommodate the scarcely used craniums of such people.

 

[bigbadwolf]

A tongue-in-cheek account of what can be expected from the Obama presidency by Mickey Z. here:

Okay, so maybe St. Barack is a tad less progressive than we imagined but you have to admit he’s brilliant and eloquent and half-black.

In fact, I’m willing to go out on a limb right now and boldly predict that by the year 2011, the number of US combat troops in Iraq will have decreased by at least 10-15%.

The whole essay accurately reflects the world-view of a limousine liberal (or champagne socialist).

Why I particularly detest the Democrats is that they sail under a false flag. With the Republicans you know what you're going to get -- but their flag is openly the skull-and-crossbones ("law and order," "a robust foreign policy"). Not with the Democrats, who are also pirates.

 

[Moxon]

and now the clarion call 'give the man a chance' - this will make the amiable transition complete and the administration indistinguishable from the last to any aliens watching from outer space not inebriated by party marketing histrionics. You will need hundreds of thousands of people on the streets for his every departure from the sales pitch you were duped into believing for any change to be possible.

 

[jvwh3b]

While I have unwavering support for Barack Obama, I am not too pleased with some of his nominees thus far. However, I do realize that he needs experienced people in his cabinet 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.

 

[jp]

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

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.

 

[Moxon]

Whether people feel duped or not is of no consequence to me. The fact is they were duped, a cursory review of the levels of hysteria, back slapping, self congratulation, exultant babbling (and collective amnesia) on these pages and others, totally incommensurate with the 'change' that was being ushered in can lead one to no other conclusion. They were not passive mortals in the process either but participated in much of the duping themselves by attaching hopes concrete or otherwise to the vague rhetoric of their master.

 

[RWS]

It's never been different in my lifetime, Moxon; and I was born more than fifty years ago.