The Fall of Obama
The man who seized the White House by fomenting a mood of irrational expectation is now facing the bitter price exacted by reality. The reality is that there can be no "good" American president. It's an impossible hand to play. Obama is close to being finished.
The nation's first black president promised change, at the precise moment no single man—even if endowed with the communicative powers of Franklin Roosevelt, the politic mastery of Lyndon Johnson and the brazen agility of Bill Clinton—could turn the tide that has been carrying America to disaster for 30 years.
Americans this summer are frightened. More than 100,000 of them file for bankruptcy every month. Three million homeowners face foreclosure this year. Add them to the 2.8 million who were foreclosed in 2009, Obama's first year in office. Nearly 7 million have been without jobs in the last year for six months or longer. By the time you tot up the people who have given up looking for work or the people on part time, the total is heading toward 20 million.
Fearful people are irrational. So are racists. Obama is the target of insane charges. A hefty percentage of Americans believe that he is a socialist, a charge as ludicrous as accusing the Archbishop of Canterbury of being a closet Druid. Obama reveres the capitalist system. He admires the apex predators of Wall Street who showered his campaign treasury with millions of dollars. The frightful catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico stemmed directly from the green light he and his Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, gave to BP.
It is not Obama's fault that for 30 years, America's policy under Reagan, both Bushes and Bill Clinton has been to export jobs permanently to the Third World. The jobs that Americans now desperately seek are no longer here in the homeland and never will be. They're in China, Taiwan, Vietnam, India and Indonesia.
No stimulus program giving money to cement contractors to fix potholes along the federal interstate highway system is going to bring those jobs back. Highly trained tool and die workers, the aristocrats of the manufacturing sector, are flipping hamburgers—at best—for $7.50 an hour because U.S. corporations sent their jobs to Guangzhou, with the approval of politicians flush with the money of the "free trade" lobby.
It is not Obama's fault that across 30 years more and more money has floated up to the apex of the social pyramid till America is heading back to where it was in the 1880s, a nation of tramps and millionaires. It's not his fault that every tax break, every regulation, every judicial decision tilts toward business and the rich. That was the neo-liberal America conjured into malign vitality back in the mid-1970s.
But it is Obama's fault that he did not understand this, that always, from the get-go, he flattered Americans with paeans to their greatness, without adequate warning of the political and corporate corruption destroying America and the resistance he would face if he really fought against the prevailing arrangements that were destroying America. He offered them a free and easy pass to a better future, and now they see that the promise was empty.
It's Obama's fault, too, that as a communicator, he cannot inspire and rally the nation from its fears. From his earliest years, he has schooled himself not to be excitable, not to be an angry black man who would be alarming to his white friends at Harvard and his later corporate patrons. Self-control was his passport to the guardians of the system who were desperate to find a symbolic leader to restore America's credibility in the world after the disasters of the Bush era. He is too cool.
So now, Americans in increasing numbers have lost confidence in him. For the first time, in the polls, negative assessments outnumber the positive. He no longer commands trust. His support is drifting down to 40 percent. The straddle that allowed him to flatter corporate chieftains at the same time as blue-collar workers now seems like the most vapid opportunism. The casual campaign pledge to wipe out al-Qaida in Afghanistan is now being cashed out in a disastrous campaign viewed with dismay by a majority of Americans.
The polls portend disaster. It now looks as though the Republicans may well recapture not only the House, but conceivably the Senate. The public mood is so contrarian that even though polls show that voters think the Democrats may well have better solutions on the economy than Republicans, they will vote against incumbent Democrats in the midterm elections next fall. They just want to throw the bums out.
Obama has sought out Bill Clinton to advise him in this desperate hour. If Clinton is frank, he will remind Obama that his own hopes for a progressive first term were destroyed by the failure of his health reform in the spring of 1993. By August of that year, he was importing a Republican, David Gergen, to run the White House.
Obama had his window of opportunity last year, when he could have made jobs and financial reform his prime objectives. That's what Americans hoped for. Mesmerized by economic advisers who were creatures of the banks, he instead plunged into the Sargasso Sea of "health reform," wasted the better part of a year and ended up with something that pleases no one.
What can save Obama now? It's hard even to identify a straw he can grasp at. It's awfully early in the game to say it, but as Marlene Dietrich said to Orson Welles in "Touch of Evil," "Your future is all used up."
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
Thank you for this, Mr. Cockburn. We Americans are indeed being betrayed, but it's not just the "liberal" Democrats, and it's not just the country club Republicans -- it's the entire rotten big-business/big-government system that's selling us out. That's why we have to save ourselves, because no one in DC is going to do it for us. But we're not going to save ourselves until we grasp the predicament we're in.
And you've summed it up very neatly.
Certain ideas that "respectable" Americans cannot hold are:
* There is a difference between right and wrong, between good and evil, and between truth and falsehood.
* No matter how much daily life has changed since America’s founding, human nature remains just as dangerous as ever, especially when it comes to wielding power.
* The federal government possesses only the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Any exercise of non-enumerated powers is unconstitutional.
* The state governments possess plenary powers and may do anything that the Constitution does not specifically forbid.
* A judicial opinion cannot change the Constitution; rather, a judicial opinion changes how courts will behave in adjudicating disputes. Only an amendment or a convention among the states can change the Constitution.
* America was founded as a refuge from the rest of the world, so America should not try to emulate the rest of the world.
* America is not an empty vessel to accommodate foreign cultures. America has a culture of its own, and it is worth preserving.
* Re-distributing wealth through government action is not charitable. It is contemptible. True charity consists of voluntarily giving what is yours.
* Every American should be highly familiar with American history, and not just from the past fifty years.
* Animals have no greater rights against humans than animals have against each other. This is because rights necessitate responsibilities, and we do not hold animals responsible for their actions.
* Earth has flourished through calamities far worse than mankind’s brief tenure, and Earth will flourish for a long time to come. Governments may not curtail or destroy our inalienable rights to preserve a particular notion of how Earth should be.
* Free markets are a proven success and have raised our standard of living beyond what kings used to enjoy. Central planning is a proven failure, and the more planning there is, the worse our condition becomes. Even if central planning worked, it is immoral and destroys our inalienable right to pursue happiness as each of us sees fit.
* The vast majority of those who fought for the South during the Civil War did so to repel an invasion of their home, and there is nothing improper in commemorating their heroism.
* Men and women have unique abilities. There are things men can do better than women can, and there are things women can do better than men can. This is why men and women complement each other.
* Religion is not merely a set of beliefs to be harbored in secret. It is a way of life, and those who practice it are entitled to do so in public. If you disagree with religion, you are free to reject it.
* The Declaration of Independence announces timeless principles, especially when observing that we may alter or abolish any government that becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
* Government is a necessary evil at best, and an intolerable one at worst.
(from Just Who Are The Extremists, Anyway?
July 14, 2010
by Attorney Wilton Strickland)
Since "we" can't hold these ideas as true 'less we be pushed to the fringe of polite society, the cancer and rot that have resulted are now destroying the gift the founders left us; a constitutional republic. It matters not who is POTUS, for all are flawed, but it is Boobus Americanus that have allowed this to happen. It's not the fool that leads but rather the fools that allow it.
The author may be a leftist, a foreigner, and of dubious character but his description of the American situation is a bullseye.
What??? Obama not an angry black man? Please. His entire existance is centered on racial anger. Look who he surrounds himself with (hint: Jerrett, Holder).
Cockburn, like so many contributors to these yarns, are so myopic in their dislike of the republicans that they do all they can to justify King Obama's actions. Sorry y'all, he's as bad as those previous excuses for chief executive Lil' Cockburn mentioned. Republican, democrat, who cares? Rotten one and all.
I always took Cockburn for a bit of a poseur, but he's spot on here. Add a tirade about liberal internationalist interventionism, and you've got Obama dead to rights.
Spot on Mr. Cockburn. Although a Republican resurgence is nothing for Americans to look forward to, as deluded as they have been for the last 25 years.
I myself look forward to the day that the "mean white people" start assassinating radical white capitalists and their kin. One can only hope...
I wouldn't underestimate Obama's political skill. Like Bush the Father, he suffers from the "vision thing". He sees the presidency as a sports trophy. Winning it is everything. What you do with it once you've got it, he doesn't know. But he is utterly ruthless and I would guess that all he wants is to be re-elected in 2012. That's the "trophy"! Already, he should never have got to the White House in the first place. The basic Israel Lobby plan was to put a liberal Democrat in the White House in 2008, have him undo the mess that Bush the Son made by ending the wars, then burst the financial bubble over his head in the run-up to the 2012 election, blame him for the ensuing mess and put a conservative business Republican in his place (for example, Bush the Holy Ghost, Jeb). Already, Obama shafted the Lobby by beating their chosen candidate, Hillary, in the primaries and now, he's delaying the end of the wars. He can't stop the Lobby bursting the financial bubble (the famous "double dip") but his counter weapon is to bring the troops home at the same time. Ordinary people won't understand the economic gobbledegook, but they will understand smiling soldiers with children in their arms. The unravelling that the end of the wars will provoke will not be visible until after the election. If a Republican is elected, he, not Obama, will be blamed for the ensuing debacle and may well lose in 2016! Obama is basically saying "re-elect me and I, a lame duck, will take the blame. You can then have your Republican in 2016".
In addition, blacks, and many white liberals, will vote for him no matter what, just so that the first "black" president isn't a one-termer. Similarly, some people to the left of the centre will vote for him simply because the alternative is a Republican. That will be exacerbated if Mamma Grizzly is the Republican candidate! Palin as a third party candidate against a Republican "bluenose" would be perfect for Obama. Or even Palin with a Tea Party candidate against her, accusing her of selling out to the Republican establishment. In the interim, a Republican congress would actually suit him, since he could blame all his failures on it and the inherent Bluenose/Redneck split in the Reaganite coalition, reflected in the Tea Party, would come to the fore.
As the French say, don't sell the bear's hide until you've killed him!
Obama reveres the capitalist system
Question for the economists here: Can an economic system be both capitalist and corporatist?
"Fearful people are irrational. So are racists."
Well, not exactly. Living and working in the New America, I get the strange feeling that I'm standing in a casino where the dealers stack the deck with no effort to be sly about their deceit. At the dice table the rocks are clearly loaded, and the roulette wheel is obviously controlled by the croupier's foot. But the punters ignore reality as they continue to throw away their fortunes (as well as their traditions) for a payout which will never materialize.
And considering the first black president thing -- I'd like to point out that he's white on his lunatic mother's side.
Mr. Toddard, capitalism (I guess) simply means activities run by capital. I am not sure, since I am only a layman, and economists themselves keep shifting meanings of words.
And everything is run on capital. Even government. Especially government.
And when there is this system of government and business and working hand-in-hand, with government interfering in business with industrial policy and business interfering with government with lobbying - that is corporatism. And that corporatism did come up under a capitalist system.
And when there is the system of having to raise money from capital markets and keep attracting businesses to get more tax revenues to fund lavish social programs, it is still capitalism.
It wouldn't be a free market (which has only existed in New Zealand, Switzerland, and Hong Kong).
It wouldn't be socialism either. Socialism is akin to how gorillas live in the mountains of Congo - no private property ownership and the having all the jungle under their uninhibited use. Gorillas also exist in very tiny groups, so socialism is probably not possible in any human society larger than twenty people.
So Cockburn's comment, "Obama reveres the capitalist system" is no different from saying, "Obama reveres the system under which he is President and under which he became a lecturer and a Senator." Capitalism is really just a portmanteau word for all of current human existence as it is. It's neither bad, nor good, but just is.
Wow! When did Sam Webb start editing Chronicles!
Mr. Sanjay,
After trying to read the economic literature for 25 years, my simplemindedness always brings me back to the definition of capitalism put forth by that old loony of the paranoid right, Robert Welch: there is only capitalism and it comes in one of two forms: monopolistic, or free market. I think this is a swell definition and it lines up with how Nock and others defined government, the state, and the sorry nature of human beings.
I am also reminded of what Lord Salisbury once said: "Laissez-faire is fine, but it's supposed to work both ways."
He made this statement while consenting to pass regulations on the conditions of coal miners. The coal mining companies were given the message that they could not demand government protections and coddling, and then claim the free market when it came to opposing minor concessions for workers.
This sort of British understanding of the both-ways method continued till quite late, as I saw in a recent article in The Economist. When Hong Kong was formed, a monopoly was made by government on all land, and then distributed to close allies of government - creating an ultimate robber baron's paradise. But in the 1960s, Cowperthwaite was made secretary. He made sure to armtwist these landowners by taxing land (and that was the only tax). The man however refused industrial subsidies, protectionism, industrial policy, cheap land, and everything. He privatized the entire city and choked on his own bureaucrats' power as far as possible. The only time he ever intervened again was when a few hotels demanded government promotion of tourism. He reluctantly agreed, and then taxed those hotels back to hell to get back the money, and refused all future petitioners, while also leaving hotels alone afterwards forever.
That's how it all works - you do neither pro-worker/anti-business nor pro-business/anti-worker. You just don't favour anyone or disfavour anyone. That's true free market and it was genuinely practiced once. Yes, it does actually happen!
Now, US and Western Europe are all pro-welfarism, pro-intervention, pro-corporatism, and pro-warfare. They are the worst combinations of everything.
Regarding Alexander Cockburn's nationality, he became an American citizen last year.
He is still a foreigner---like Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright
#10 P.S. " Capitalism is really just a portmanteau word for all of current human existence as it is."
I'll decline a ride in your bathysphere, but will play Hatter to your Alice, and respond in kind- "Why is a raven like a writing desk?"
A good portmanteau word for capitalism has already been coined- banksterism.
If in fact you define capitalism as 'current human existence", you certainly "make a word do a lot of work" and I just hope that like Humpty Dumpty , you pay it extra.
Now if you mean that capitalism , like an opened portanteau has two compartments, or two sides, I agree- one for the rich the other for the poor.
RE:Cockburn; commentors #2 &3
Amen, Amen, and Amen
Although there is a lot of wisdom in the Cockburn piece, and I agree that Obama is not a socialist ideologue, Obama does approve of socialistic machinations to achieve power and money. Thus Obama was happy to take over GM and give some of it to his UAW allies at the expense of GM stockholders and bondholders, a class of people he despises. On the other hand, Obama expects to make a lot of money in the "private sector" once he is out of power and he and his beloved Michelle will pay lawyers handsomely to keep the taxman away from his loot. He does not like socialism when it is after his money.
In addition, Obama, whether he comprends it or not, acts as a Gramscian Marxist in that he, like most modern liberals, despises Western Civilization and thrills at its dissolution.
"But it is Obama’s fault that he did not understand this, that always, from the get-go, he flattered Americans with paeans to their greatness...."
What planet have you been on?
All that talk of whether Obama is a socialist or not is just a rehash of similar discussions happening about various leaders across the world.
Spain's Zapatero and France's Sarkozy regularly condemn laissez-faire capitalism, the new money-making society, the nouveau riche class of businessmen, and their status as creators of crises.
Yet, Zapatero and Sarkozy court the very billionaires they condemn and scapegoat, gladly take campaign/party funding from them, have their friends benefit from positions in those very private sector corporations that are the epitome of big capitalism, and make sure to aid them when they can. Spain has multinational corporations that kill even American competition on their own turf, and France has more Fortune 500 companies than any other European nation. Zapatero and Sarkozy know that theirs are capitalist nations and those big corporations keep their people wealthy and not impoverished.
Obama does exactly what they do.
It's a racket played by every political leader in the world. Condemn businessmen in public, but reassure them in private. Truth is that anti-business and pro-business legislations go hand in hand. Choke and regulate businesses to keep public happy with some regulations but shower them with special privileges to keep businesses happy too, lest they leave the country.
And when free marketers condemn both, everybody hates them.
Cockburn is so far out of touch with reality that it is pointless to try to correct that here.
I will just note that Bush II (despite what faults he had as President) appointed two Supreme Court Justices who are inclined to make decisions based on the intent of the Constitution. They preserved (for a while at least) the Second Amendment. Obama has appointed two justices who are inclined to make decisions subjectively. These appointments were not flukes by Obama. By his own admission he dislikes the Constitution.
If the Second Amendment case had come before the Court with these new members, the individual right to bear arms would be no more.
In every case that comes before the Court after next year, we will see destruction of Constitutional principles. That will go on for a long time after we are all dead.