And if you only read two things today…
…read BenSix’s roundup of why Obama’s not the messiah. He might just be a very naughty boy. There’s no mention of Henry Kissinger yet but give it time.
Posted on November 8th, 2008 at 8:26am under US Politics
| Related posts... • Gordon Brown: a retrospective • Suspect Nation • 100 days |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 12 Comments |
He comes the dirge of the mardy arses…
No one said he was the messiah.
So this is how it’s going to be now Bush has gone, doesn’t take long does it before the pot-shots are taken.
*sigh*
So the accusations of Obama’s betrayal of the left have begun. I am surprised it has taken this long. Expect more of the same.
Jesus Christ. Do you know anything about American politics? Have you seen how the system has operated in the last forty years? For the last time: Barack. Obama. Is. Not. On. The. Left. He’s a centrist democrat which is something very, very different. How can he betray the left when he hasn’t made any promise much beyond ‘yes we can’?
Please explain to me what’s so great about Obama. Please. Try to be more detailed and meaningful than ‘change’. Maybe start with his support of the death penalty (in specific instances he even supports it for crimes other than murder) and his quoting approvingly of Henry Kissinger. How about him taking money from the nuclear industry and then rewriting legislation in its favour? Explain the cold war hawks amongst his advisers. He was for a handgun ban in Washington DC and then he wasn’t. What about his ambiguous stance on the separation of church and state? Expanding the military. He’s against late term abortions in mental health grounds. How do we accommodate all that from a liberal-left perspective beyond it being brilliant that a third of America’s electorate voted for a black man? I’d really like to know.
Oh, and what Dave H said.
This represents a coherent argument Daniel?
It’s not about taking pot shots it’s about looking the facts in the face and dealing with reality.
The sin of team Bush is that they were too up front and overt about the use of arbitrary US power. The elites who act as Guardians of what is and is not acceptable “democratic” parameters prefer, as Chomsky amongst others have described it, to keep it in their back pocket and be less blatant about the misuse of power on the basis of what they see as legitimate US exceptionalism.
Obama, indeed any Democrat, is in power only to clear up the mess of team Bush and the neo-cons. Certainly, there will be some change – but that change will only be within very tight and narrow parameters. Any sort of meaningful change is not on the agenda, even if Obama wanted it.
The hierarchical political system exists for those who seek to further themselves within that system. Yes, talent plays its part, but its always down to money and politics. To get to the top requires a constant battle at every level with others without putting a foot wrong. You build allies, make compromises and enemies to such an extent that once you get there you are so constrained that any deviation outside of narrow confines results in others waiting in the wings to replace you doing just that. [acknowledgment to writer Peter F Hamilton 'The Dreaming Void']
Sure there is power and control – but only to a certain extent. In a mature society meaningful change represents instability. Power to effect meaningful change is illusionary. As such Barak Obama is is as much constrained as anyone in such a system.
Now we can either look at this as though we were team Bush castigating those they decry as being from the “reality based community” or we can look at it from the basis of reality.
The question then remains just which view represnts that of a mardy arse?
Again, Joe misses the point. It’s simplistic to argue a case based exclusively on labelling those who put forward any view you disagree with as though this represents any form of meaningful rebuttal.
Rick Wolff over at MR Zine
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/wolff061108.html
puts the situation into perspective with a critique of the seemingly ever-repetitive “policy” solution arguments to crisis between Conservatives and Liberals that has been going on since before most of us and our parents were born (and I’m 54).
Sometimes it feels like being Frank Owen trying to reason with the painters ad decorators in Treseels Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.
I haven’t projected some kind of demoniacal perception of the man, I’ve just reeled off a few things that he supports and a few people that are advising him.
Thanks for the link Justin,
Ben
The most important thing about Obama is that his supporters beat McCain’s supporters. Anything else is a bonus.
Exactly.
So the accusations of Obama’s betrayal of the left have begun. I am surprised it has taken this long. Expect more of the same.
No, what have begun are the accusations (or predictions) of the accusations of Obama’s betrayal of the left. See also here and here.
Some of us on “the left” are optimistic, enthusiastic even, about Obama. Others, like Ben and Justin, have been more sceptical. There are honest debates going on about what we should expect, about how high our expectations should be. The only people banging on about “betrayal” though are people like you, yet the point is presumably to portray us as cynical.
Hello mardy bastards that frequent here!
Dave and Justin, I wasn’t attempting to offer a coherent argument, I was voicing my despair with a whole raft of blogs (for whom I have a great deal of respect and enjoy reading in a sometimes perverse way) I’ve read of late; that can’t help but constantly peddle the same, remorselessly cynical, pessimistic line that smacks of a failure to be able to write anything other than negative, pot-shot taking at whomever happens to be in power.
It leads one to think that nothing will ever be good enough, because if it was the blogging material would dry up and god forbid if there was nowt to whinge about.
Questioning minds yes, attack dogs biting anything no.
And I’ll explain what is so great about Obama, because he might just roll back some of the conservative overreach of torture, rendition, international law and pre-empive war. The achievement alone of a mixed race man becoming leader of a nation that didn’t give black people the vote some 45 years ago is in a word exceptional itself, it goes some way to restoring the idea of America once again being an ally of which we can be proud, a reminder of just what a great country it is.
Obama is also ’so great’ becuase he is not McCain, Palin, Bush or Clinton, because he is intelligent, becuase he can debate without resorting to crass tactics, because he knows more than us, because he seems to have a sense of genuine right and wrong, or diplomacy and of reason.
Small victories perhaps but victories non the less.
He is not perfect, many of policies are not to everyone’s tastes but once in power I’m sure we’ll see something good, something better. I’m not lowering the bar, I’m remaining focused on the positive rather than trotting out the same old negative nonsense.
If you always do what you always do, you’ll always get what you always get.
Perhaps, in spite of all the cynicism, change will occur, in a small way but change it will be and these small steps take us somewhere else.
Unless of course, Dave and Justin have any better solutions?
One mans cynicism is another mans realism and vice versa.
Interesting way in which “what ‘might’ happen” is couched. “Roll back some of the overreach on….. etc. etc. Not stop it altogether – just rein it back a bit. I’m at a loss to push a fag paper between that and:
“Certainly, there will be some change – but that change will only be within very tight and narrow parameters. Any sort of meaningful change is not on the agenda, even if Obama wanted it.”
The news about the two vetoes today is clearly good news. However, I’d argue that it falls under the parameters described above – both by myself and Daniel.
Pre-emptive war will not be an agenda item period because its been part of formal US policy and practice for well over a hundred years based on the doctrine of US (power) exceptionalism where the principle is OK for but not for others. The only subtle difference being that some administrations are more covert and less up front about it than others.
It might also be a more convincing argument to focus on what Obama is rather than what, or who, he is not. Reading that part of the response engenders the thought about kettles and pots.
Finally, focusing on “solutions” is a hard systems approach which has severe limitations in a soft systems context – which is what this broadly represents. Sure you have to commence with a systemic approach and recognise the constraints and inertia for individual and group actors involved.
However, we need to be talking in terms of working towards desired and optimal outcomes (and defining them). The way too many people have gone off about this elcection and what they think it means (and I mean outside of this little blog) there is more than a hint of flushing the critical faculties down the drain in favour of an approach on the basis of some sort of faith in the second coming (& I’m not referring to porno films).
I still think that positivity can go a long way, rather than waiting for things to go wrong.
We can but hope.