I'm looking to write an article aimed at progressives in my area (a non-swing state) who remain loyal to the Democratic Party, despite the fact Obama has been a tremendous disappointment in terms of fulfilling even their modest, center-left aims.
Anyway, I essentially want to compose a laundry list of Obama's most atrocious acts, both foreign and domestic. What would you include?
Wouldn't it be kind of difficult to critique the health care bill without seeming callous and nit-picky? If it were one of the main thrusts, many could easily say that it's the best he could do with the mental opposition...of course, I'm still trying to figure out the state-wide health care Mass. passed 5 years ago and if the federal option will supersede it. Frankly, reading about the muslim socialist anti-christ caricature that my fellow americans have conjured up has blinded me to whatever it is he's been doing for the last couple years, so don't listen to me.
Extension of war on terror to Yemen, increased drone attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
His most atrocious act was his election campaign though.
Wouldn't it be kind of difficult to critique the health care bill without seeming callous and nit-picky? If it were one of the main thrusts, many could easily say that it's the best he could do with the mental opposition...of course, I'm still trying to figure out the state-wide health care Mass. passed 5 years ago and if the federal option will supersede it. Frankly, reading about the muslim socialist anti-christ caricature that my fellow americans have conjured up has blinded me to whatever it is he's been doing for the last couple years, so don't listen to me.
I've found the best way to tackle the health-care issue is to take the position that it's precisely what all the large manufacturing firms wanted. In 2004, the National Manufacturers Association cited the rising cost of health care as one of the primary factors in the loss of these firms competitiveness abroad. No wonder Obama was the darling of business during his campaign!
In other words, the passage of health care was a necessary component to US imperialism. It doesn't actually change the livelihoods of the working class, it simply puts off the cost of maintaining US hegemony directly onto labor.
The question of the opposition to the passage of health care is an interesting one to me. Clearly, the type of health care legislation that was passed was in the interest of national capital--and yet there were elements of capital opposed to it. The bourgeois state seems quite dysfunctional as of late.
Honestly I think if anyone isn't already disillusioned with Obama at this point, they're probably a lost cause...
Honestly I think if anyone isn't already disillusioned with Obama at this point, they're probably a lost cause...
Some people just don't pay attention.
Obama's Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Giethner both worked against the Audit the Fed amendment, Obama is defending the banks.
There is also this interesting executive order:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2010executive_order.pdf
I find this interesting that the U.S. has to make a "Council of Governors" for national security when we have the most sophisticated military and intelligence agencies that have satellites orbiting our planet at all hours of the day? Seems completely unnecessary.
The Financial Reform Bill should be convincing if this happens: 1) The Audit the Fed amendment gets support and has strong language, and Obama vetos the bill, or, 2)Audit the Fed language is weak and Obama signs it into law.
every single thing on this thread, and the surveillance business.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002722-38.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/21/hatfill/index.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/nsa_dismissal/
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/obama-administration-invokes-state-secrets-privilegeagain.html
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/11/what-obama-can-and-should-do-stop-telecom-immunity (old now. spoiler: he failed on all counts.)
i could go on.
First of all I wouldn't call Obama's actions "crimes". His administration is simply carrying out the needs of US capitalism, i.e., defend its economy, attack its working class and defend the imperialist interests of the US.
I believe that Obama was elected for two reasons: the first was the need for the US to appear to adjust its imperialist policy in order to make it appear less confrontational and more willing to cooperate with its allies and push democracy.
The second reason was that what happened in New Orleans nearly five years ago threated to have a devastating effect on the illusion of democracy amongst the working class and the poorest elements.
On the first question, that of imperialism, the policy of the US under Obama would fulfill Rumsfeld's wildest dreams (and he's not gone very far away from the interests of US imperialism). Pre-emptive strikes are even more firmly on the table as are covert actions across the Middle East, East Asia and the Horn of Africa. Incursions into Iranian territory (going on under Bush) have been given the stamp of approval. The continuity with the imperialist policy of the Bush administration is further emphasised by the current "surge" of US forces and Israel continues to play the US card with more or less impunity. As for increased cooperation with its allies, the administration has recently lambasted its "allies" of India, Turkey, Brazil and humiliated the recently overwhelmingly elected Japanese prime minister while embracing the most corrupt gangster regimes. These are not so much "crimes" as the realities of the world's biggest imperialism and there is complete continuity, with some changes of tone and changes of deployments here and there, with the previous administration (and the administration before that).
On the second question, I have no doubt that intelligent elements of the US bourgeoisie saw how important it was to revive the democratic myth and that having a black man in the White House would go a long way to strengthening the grip of the ruling class.
Youtube: Obama Deception
Youtube: Obama Deception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)
Eh, this is the director, not sure I want to bother.
ArmchairAnarchy wrote:
Youtube: Obama Deceptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)
Eh, this is the director, not sure I want to bother.
fuck sake comrade outlaw. Alex Jones is a counter revolutionary conspiracy theory wankface, what you doing buying his video?
Buying - Youtube: Obama Deception
It's a sound analysis into the motivations and goals of the American bourgeoisie (the ruling elite of the age).
Edit: Though i do admit Alex Jone's is abit of a cunt.
Edit: Though i do admit Alex Jone's is abit of a cunt.
Cunt isn't quite the word I'd use. 'Lunatic', 'nutjob', 'fantasist' etc are better words. He thinks Noam Chomsky is in the New World Order.. in fact, anyone who bangs on about 'the New World Order' is clearly a giant man-mental..
And according to some of my conspiracy minded friends, Alex Jones is also part of the NWO.
change the words "new world order" to "bourgeoisie" and shit starts sounding awfulling fucking similar comrade.
Edit: he probably is spreading disinformation but you're naive in thinking anybody they didn't pick would make it through.
I've tried, but I literally have no idea how to respond to your post.. 
The bourgeoisie aren't supposed to sit in big rooms plotting the assassination of 'Rowdy' Roddy Piper.. and shit, is Alex Jones part of the New World Order as well? They've got everyone! The question you've got to ask yourself is: have they got libcom?
I've tried, but I literally have no idea how to respond to your post..;)
offcourse they have, have you never heard of a user called weeler?
First of all I wouldn't call Obama's actions "crimes". His administration is simply carrying out the needs of US capitalism, i.e., defend its economy, attack its working class and defend the imperialist interests of the US.
Yes! yes, yes (except, I'm wouldn't use the term Imperialism).
I mean, If someone believes in voting at all, why shouldn't they vote for Obama? or Palin or whover?
Wouldn't it be kind of difficult to critique the health care bill without seeming callous and nit-picky? I
Why not it wouldn't it? I'm old, unsured, not on welfare. I'm the obvious target audience. It doesn't give me crap. It was written by the insurance companies to get more people to pay for their services. It promises that in the future, you'll be able to go the website to compare which insurance policy you'll have to buy. There was no "botch" in that fuckin bill. It was not a mistake that it was written by the ex-vp of Wellpoint any more than it was a mistake the Mines and Mineral Bureau let BP blow any well test it wanted. And contrary to some claims, I believe the bill leaves insurance company free to disallow pre-existing conditions - I'd be happy to be proven wrong (seriously!). Michael Moore, of all people, said that capitalism got the policy it wanted. Why would that be a "botch"?
Obama is just the current supervisor of Capital's conveyor belt. The most obvious is thing how he continued the crisis intervention of Bush in an identical fashion. War, environmental devastation, and other massive bureaucratic initiatives just roll out of the processes of the permanent corporate-integrated government.
There's no reason to wean anyone away from Obama in particular if they aren't being weaned away from the entire edifice. The Mines and Mineral Bureau, co-perpetrator of Gulf debacle, would have run identically under Obama, Bush or Ralph Nader.
Conflating Ralph Nader, Barack Obama and George Bush is a stretch. For sure, they're all to the right of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin. But there's a difference between, say, the foreign policy of Bush's first term and that of Obama's. Similarly there would be a difference between the domestic policies of Obama and Nader.
Even where there is not a significant difference between their positions, the office of president of the United States is so powerful that minute differences have vast implications for the lives of millions if not billions of people.
Conflating Ralph Nader, Barack Obama and George Bush is a stretch.
Documentation? Evidence?
Sure, the fuckin' progressives have a fuckin' emotional attachment to fuckin' Obama but it just shows how fuckin' attached to capitalist social relations they are.
I don't accept classifications of right and left. As Gilles Dauve said, the left is the left wing of capital. Now, the left is even more clearly the left-wing of capital than ever before in fact.
Even where there is not a significant difference between their positions, the office of president of the United States is so powerful that minute differences have vast implications for the lives of millions if not billions of people.
You my friend may want to wander about thinking about the minute effects that different edicts of capital can have on the passive masses. After that, I suggest you wander the Gulf of Mexico cleaning the oily birds one by one.
Seriously, there are lots of people trying to do good in this world. True story - last Christmas I made contact with a cousin of mine after twenty years. She was ... an execute at BP. But she seemed like an absolutely, totally sincere environmentalist. She believed the company was doing what it could and she did what she could. There are lots and lots of well intentioned people working under Bush, Obama or whoever. The edifice of capital is destroying the fuckin' planet but not for lack of good intentions, not for lack of people trying to steer the ship the right way (and yes, I know the ill-intentions that went into the spill, into Bush policy. The assholes step when it's necessary to drill for oil or invade countries but this necessity comes from Capital itself, which Obama and anyone allowed into the halls of power must swallow).
We can't care about steering ship. We've got to sink this ship. That's it.
Fuck the progressives. A friend on facebook just wrote that spill would convince those believing in lobby that it's a farce. Well, if the doesn't convince them, nothing will. But I happen to know ... nothing will ...
What RedHughs said.
Even where there is not a significant difference between their positions, the office of president of the United States is so powerful that minute differences have vast implications for the lives of millions if not billions of people.
I've heard this touted from Chomsky, Zinn and other radical liberals. However, this simply is not true. It's not even a blanket equalization of the different factions because, obviously, there are divisions within the bourgeoisie. None of these factions represent anything other than death and destruction for humanity. There is no prettier face of capitalism, no lesser of two evils--even the most cursory glance at the policies instituted under so called "progressive" candidates will expose the lies of such arguments. The working class shares no commonality with any faction of the bourgeoisie, and any call to support one against the other only further reinforces the mystification that some element is actually, genuinely, "progressive." For the purposes of radical politics, these differences are trivia--perhaps useful in a propaganda sense ("Look at how hypocritical these politicians are!") but meaningless in the context of actual material conditions of the working class.
There's plenty of information on this thread already documenting the poisonous burdens imposed upon the working class by "Mr. Progressive" himself. What is the point of constantly clinging onto some abstract liberal pipe dream?
Quote:
Conflating Ralph Nader, Barack Obama and George Bush is a stretch.Documentation? Evidence?
As much of a hawk as Obama has turned out to be, I doubt he would have invaded Iraq. Similarly, I think Nader's healthcare bill would have been superior to Obama's giveaway to the insurance industry. These examples might seem irrelevant from the perspective of a future socialist society, but tell that to the families of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and the millions of American workers in desperate need of medical coverage.
The rest of your post appears to be empty rhetoric and anecdotes. I'm not sure how to respond to it except by saying that for the most part, you're preaching to the choir. That doesn't mean we can't recognize differences between the three politicos you mention.
These examples might seem irrelevant from the perspective of a future socialist society
Nah, its more that's irrelevant from the perspective of it just being rhetoric of those in opposition. Obama's health care promises looked great til he had to actually had to do it.. would Nadar have stood up to big business any better? Sure, Bush's foreign policy was awful but it served a purpose (serving American capital's interest in the Middle East).. would Obama have gone against the wishes of American capital.. judging from how the health reform went, I'd say no..
The opposing parties always manage to promise fantastic things.. in the UK, the Liberal Democrats promised to cut tuition fees for university entirely. I guess even they never thought they'd actually end up in government..
So yeah, its unfair to say we're opposing progressive politicians on the basis of them not creating libertarian communism.. it's that even today they don't improve our lives. Perhaps you like the heart in cleaning oily birds one by one, but for me, when I see the mess going on at the same time I think it barely matters that they bothered..
Quote:
These examples might seem irrelevant from the perspective of a future socialist societyNah, its more that's irrelevant from the perspective of it just being rhetoric of those in opposition. Obama's health care promises looked great til he had to actually had to do it.. would Nadar have stood up to big business any better? Sure, Bush's foreign policy was awful but it served a purpose (serving American capital's interest in the Middle East).. would Obama have gone against the wishes of American capital.. judging from how the health reform went, I'd say no..
I know a structural critique of capitalism doesn't like to account for individual influence, but Obama, or anyone really, would be hard pressed to do as much damage as Bush did in his first term. Even if Obama wanted to invade Iraq, which I don't believe he did, I think his political record shows he doesn't have the stomach for such blatantly unilateral and internationally illegal action.
And yes, I think Nader would stand up to Big Business better. Whether his bill would pass through Congress or if he would be elected in the first place are completely different questions.
The site of the Dhaka factory collapse is now cleared; new concessions and reforms are announced. Some further reflections...
Iain McKay reviews Nunzio Pernicone's book Carlo Tresca: Portrait of a Rebel.
An article about transit, it's relationship to work and capitalism, and an exploration of a revolutionary anti-capitalist orientation towards transit struggles.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the 'report' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
-increased military presence in Afghanistan
-botched healthcare bill
It's kind of difficult to tell though, since Obama has generally made good use of plausible deniability (no wonder he's such a Reagan fan) to the point where it's hard to tell whether he's done anything at all in 2 years of being president.