 |
Worldview Blogby A Concerned Citizenback to the Worldview Menu |
|
|
Worldview Blogby A Concerned Citizenback to the Worldview Menu |
|
31 Dec 07: Pakistani Nukes 22 Dec 07: Our Constitution is Threatened 20 Dec 07: Uri Avnery: The Gaza Hell Hole 19 Dec 07: Bill Moyers: Buying the War 18 Dec 07: Liberals and Ron Paul 04 Dec 07: NIE Report Plays Down Iran Threat 01 Dec 07: Endless War and American Politics 28 Nov 07: Why Not To Bomb Iran 26 Nov 07: The Democrats and Iraq |
Presidential Campaign Blather 01 January 2008 Every time the US presidential election rolls around, I develop the same disgust for democracy as felt by Plato. We have a global meltdown staring us in the face, and all we get is a lot of worthless blather. I provide some videos below. Most of Hillary's interview last Sunday on This Week was about 'experience', and most of Obama's interview on Meet the Press was about 'change' and a 'new vision'. What vague, empty, feel-good, worthless, blatherous terms! It makes me sick! Especially since it seems that most of the public is fooled by the rhetoric. That is what the marketing experts are telling the candidates, based on their research. Just ask P.T. Barnum.
Hillary on This Week The only time Hillary broached a serious topic was with respect to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Such clear-cut cases of inhumanity are horrible but quite rare. The bigger question is whether the pretense of humanitarian concern gets us embroiled, again and again, in policies that are one-sided, self-serving, and murderous, such as our bombing of Serbia in April of 1999, carried out by Bill and Hillary Clinton (yes Hillary too). As Herman explains, the Serbs committed atrocities, but so did the breakaway terrorist KLA against whom they were fighting. Yet we took sides and bombed innocent civilians, in part to appease the Muslim world and to thwart our old rivals the Russians. (It is uncanny how the establishment press took their cue to demonize the Serbs exclusively.) Then there were the unanticipated consequences, such as the terrible refugee crisis, which never seem to come up during the optimistic and self-righteous prewar briefings (see also here and here). All of our mostly disastrous post-WWII foreign policy has been based on alleged humanitarian concerns, which means that the very idea must be treated with extreme caution. It is usually a rhetorical fig-leaf for brutal US meddling in other parts of the world. It's a fact that Hillary voted to give George W. Bush a blank check to invade Iraq based on false WMD evidence, and that evidence was known by the IAEA and others to be false prior to the invasion. This has been conclusively demonstrated in the Moyers documentary discussed here. The truth was available to the public, and certainly to her staff, prior to the invasion, and so she has no excuse for her vote. She stuck her finger to the wind, detected patriotic fervor, and voted for the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history. And she did it again in recent months when she voted to declare the Iranian guards a terrorist organization, which would have given Bush all the pretext he needed to attack Iran, if he had not been defused by the fortuitous NIE. (And don't be fooled, an attack on Iran might still happen!) It is ludicrous that we are even mentioning 'experience' when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Experience should immediately disqualify her. Not to mention recent news articles exposing her as the candidate with the most money from the Military Industrial Complex, even when Republicans are factored in!
Obama on Meet The Press Obama's interview was slightly more substantive, though the vacuous 'change' rhetoric makes me cringe. What scares me about him is his reckless opportunism. In particular, his offhand comments that he might pre-emptively strike Iran or Pakistan eliminated him as a mature candidate, as far as I am concerned. He can talk the talk to an antiwar audience when he wishes, but his JFK rhetoric is alarming. Many idiot Democrats still consider JFK as an ideal Democrat: liberal on social policy but determined to defend America and human rights everywhere. Sure, it sounds good in principle, and it fools the public again and again. But in fact, it was JFK, followed by LBJ, who got us into the Vietnam morass. It was also JFK who exploited a non-existent missile gap with the USSR. With Democrats like that, who needs Republican warmongers? But it's really all part of the longstanding bipartisan establishment policy in favor of US imperialism. There is only a difference of nuance between the mainstream of both parties. If Obama is trying to please the establishment, as I suspect he is, then he might as well be a Republican. The simple truth is that Ron Paul is the only serious antiwar candidate. And he is the only candidate who sincerely believes that the root problem of US foreign policy is precisely the lure of interventionism. I may disagree with him on social policy, but as I discussed in another recent article, mass murder is the most important social issue. And let us not forget that other huge issue of preserving the Constitution, currently under assault by our radical administration, with the cowardly compliance of the Democrats. Once again, Ron Paul's sincerity and determination cannot be denied (unless we are inclined to be cynical about all politicians and throw in the towel). I will most likely vote for him, if given the chance, notwithstanding that it troubles me to screw the poor.
John Edwards This leaves John Edwards. He has actually apologized for his Iraq war vote, and he is clearly a populist on social issues. I have been wondering about his sincerity, but George Kenney at Electric Politics has endorsed him, so I will keep an eye on him and give him the benefit of the doubt. I will post more on him here as I learn more. Note that he could help the Democrats take the South, that perennial stumbling block to civilized government in this country. (Note: I just viewed the Edwards videos below, and he does seem like the best Democratic candidate, though not as trustworthy as Ron Paul.)
Videos
Articles
Hillary rises from the dead in New Hampshire UPDATE (09 Jan 08): After Obama scored a big win in Iowa, the pundits were predicting that Hillary was dead. Polls showed a big lead for Obama in New Hampshire, but, to everyone's surprise, Hillary pulled off a narrow victory. Some are saying that women gave her the edge, and that they turned to her after she nearly cried in a widely circulated video taken after Iowa. If this is true, I must honestly express my disdain for those women. Is this what we want in a president? Imagine, the fate of the world may depend on such nonsense. You foolish and irresponsible women! Methinks you've been watching too much Oprah and not reading enough Antiwar.com! (Of course, this is no worse than all the men who think war is a video game.) Anyhow, those tears were probably fake, coming from Hillary. More to the point, most women claim to be antiwar but don't seem to have a clue that Hillary is a major hawk. This makes me despair for democracy. (By the way, the polls suggest that people may not be entirely honest when they say they'll vote for a black candidate — something called the Bradley Effect.) Others point to an older electorate in New Hampshire, which wanted to go with the party, the machine, the establishment, experience, whatever... Doesn't this older crowd remember Vietnam? Isn't New Hampshire supposed to be a blue state? Again, I shake my head. And again, let me be frank. I wish Hillary had been destroyed by now. Not just eliminated but destroyed, politically, so she can rise no more. One thing the conservatives got right about the Clintons: they are fake, calculating, ruthless, unprincipled, corrupt, you name it. It was triangulator Bill Clinton who sold America to Wall Street and who bombed the Serbs when the Monica affair was getting too hot. And who believes Hillary would have become a Senator without her husband as a launching pad? (One must, however, feel sympathy for the humiliation she must have felt from the Monica fallout.) On the other hand, the Horse Race blog points to socio-economic factors in Hillary's win, which could be relevant to the entire nation. Hillary scored better with traditional Democrats, less educated, less affluent, working, union, older... Darn, these are the people who should gravitate to Edwards, if only they were a little bit informed. Thankfully, our corporate media has ensured that won't happen. This also means that the war issue probably only matters deeply to the more educated and affluent. I suppose they're the ones with the leisure to become informed and to care if our foreign policy is responsible for mass murder, which is the only truthful description of an unjustified war, like the one in Iraq. (And many of these educated and affluent Americans are hawkish Republicans. Sorry, third-worlders. The numbers that matter just aren't in your favor.) I was annoyed at Obama's vagueness, as well as some bellicose comments he has made on foreign policy, but I do warm to his mature and sophisticated persona. How unusual in an American politician! That is particularly important in a president. I don't think he would ever relish war, like a typical Republican, but he might be pressured into it if he is a weak president. Edwards speaks closer to my progressive instincts, but I am beginning to worry that he may be a spoiler to Obama and give the nomination to Hillary. An election with Hillary vs. McCain would be a hawk's dream and a catastrophe for the nation and world. It's beginning to look that way. But let me end on an optimistic note. I agree with those who say that if Obama has to fight his way to the nomination, then he will have dispelled some of his neophyte aura and earned the right to be our fearless leader. So far, his concession speech in New Hampshire suggests he has the 'class' we have come to expect from him. (There's got to be a better word!) And many progressives may now be thinking of switching from Edwards to Obama to thwart Hillary. I am, and that may be good for Obama. Don't cackle yet, Hillary.
Some comments on the pundits UPDATE (09 Jan 08): Alex Cockburn thinks that Edwards' populism is phony. I respect Cockburn, so I'll take that 'under advisement'. On the other hand, if the Bradley Effect is real, then perhaps a bit of realpolitik would suggest that Edwards is the most electable candidate acceptable to progressives. Cockburn also suggests that Ron Paul should run as an independent now. Sounds reasonable, since Paul will never make it in the GOP, but this could give the Republicans a victory in the general election, as he draws antiwar voters from the Democrats. Remember: McCain is more hawkish than Bush! Jeff Fecke's misogyny backlash charge is nonsense, as far as I am concerned. If Hillary were honest, antiwar and truly progressive, she'd be my hero. But to tell the truth, there is something about her personality that grates. Other women with a similar personality can call it 'misogyny', but that won't make them any more appealing and agreeable. Obama has faced racial prejudice, yet remains affable and charms everyone. As for the notion that men can get away with righteous anger, but women cannot, it all depends on whether you have a personality worthy of respect in the first place. If you are known to be an honorable and mature person, then your occasional and appropriate anger will be taken with respect. But neither Clinton has honor or integrity. I just re-watched the famous touchy-feely video on Fecke's blog post, and it seems totally fake to me, a clear product of political calculation. And I feel the same disgust when a Bill Clinton or a Richard Nixon plays that game. (Remember the Checkers speech?) How come the disdain of so many American women for those two men isn't considered misandry? Notice the Guardian video, which doesn't flatter the Obama team. I'm warming to him primarily on character, rather than substance, so he'd better not turn out to be cocky, if he wins. I'll admit that Obama's 'You're likeable enough' to Hillary was ungracious and even nasty. But read a woman, Camille Paglia, tear Hillary apart with psychoanalysis and make her sound quite unfit for high office. It's clear that many women simply don't understand Hillary and are fooled by some superficial imagery. As often happens, the world waits while its fate is determined by the petty identity politics of uninformed Americans.
Triangulation may save Hillary UPDATE (10 Jan 08): Triangulation skills inherited from Bill may help Hillary. The following articles show that Hillary is scoring with Wall Street as well as with blue collar voters. Quite impressive! A good way to get lots of money as well as lots of votes. According to Scheiber, she scores with blue collar workers, because she's 'paid her dues'. Seniority counts for a lot with such people, who feel threatened by younger upstarts and anybody who rocks the system. Too bad they don't quite grasp how Bill Clinton curried favor with Wall Street and Big Business by embracing NAFTA and ruthless global trade. And Hillary will no doubt repeat this, while perhaps keeping her less informed voters with rhetoric and symbolism. Now if I call those voters fools, I'll be an elitist! This reminds me of how the Republicans trick low-income rural Americans into voting against their economic interest by pushing the buttons of patriotism and race. Why be a progressive? It's a losing game. Oh, that's right, to stop war. War is sufficiently horrible that one must at least try to play the losing game.
George Kenney on why Edwards should stay in UPDATE (11 Jan 08): George Kenney says something I did not know, while interviewing Charlie Peters of the Washington Monthly. Edwards should stay in the race, says Kenney, if Hillary is to be defeated (which Kenney and I both want). The Democrats have something called 'superdelegates', drawn from the party establishment, who would tilt a divided Hillary-Obama nomination in favor of Hillary, unless Edwards has enough votes to throw to Obama. Kenney also suggests an Obama-Edwards ticket, which sounds good to me. (But Justin Raimondo has a point: neither Obama nor Edwards are talking much about the impending war with Iran. I guess it's easier to just let these things happen and criticize later.)
Obama looks better than Hillary UPDATE (12 Jan 08): Yes, Alan Bock is right. Obama has no substance, which strongly suggests he's some kind of (gasp!) politician in it for the power. (Could that be why he lost in New Hampshire?) Still, he's much better than Hillary, as far as I can tell. (But George Kenney says we don't have to choose, yet.) Bock also raises an interesting question regarding antiwar 'fringe' candidates, on both the left and the right. Why do they always remain on the fringe? Is it because the media anoints them as 'fringe' and the voters lose hope? This might make sense in a general election, when there are usually only two realistic choices. However, early in the primary, it can't hurt to tell the pollsters what you believe. It would seem the American public isn't really against war, though this conclusion presupposes that it is informed in a basic way, which is apparently not the case. Kelley Beaucar Vlahos points out that, though there are some war skeptics on the Obama team, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, there is nobody who wholeheartedly rejects the evil of pre-emptive war, which is the bigger issue. Hillary's team by contrast, contains the same Democratic insiders who took sides in a civil war and bombed the Serbs, such as Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger and Richard Holbrooke. These characters have clearly said that American power can be used to democratize the world, which makes them scarcely different from George W. Bush, except for wrapping their policy in more liberal-sounding language. Vlahos points out that, thanks to our intervention, there is now a Muslim insurgency in the Balkans, which hardly gets talked about. This reminds me of what we did in Afghanistan with the Taliban. Not only is pre-emptive war as immoral as, say, Pearl Harbor, but we rarely think ahead to the unanticipated consequences (e.g. Sunni vs. Shia in Iraq). Another good point: Remember crazy John McCain saying we could be in Iraq for a hundred years and no problem? He meant no problem for us (which is debatable). There is never any thought to what the locals would think of such an occupation. It's a 'pathological' weakness of American foreign policy, as Bock puts it. Speaking of McCain, I should probably say a word or two about the Republicans. I have already expressed my enthusiasm (with doubts) for Ron Paul in another article, so I leave him aside. Giuliani and McCain are unabashed militarists, as far as I am concerned. When have they said a single word against the foolishness of the Iraq war? Their foreign policy seems to be to bomb Iraq and Iran and all other 'terrorists' nonstop until we 'win'. Who says we don't have jihadis? I agree with most of America that Mitt Romney is as fake as, well, Hillary. I must confess a bit of fondness for Huckabee (or Hucklebee as I call him), notwithstanding his reactionary religious views. He has dared to voice a bit of populism, and I love to see that drive the Republican establishment crazy. This populism may lead him to concentrate on domestic matters (he did call Bush's foreign policy 'arrogant'). And I'm thinking maybe Fred Thompson might not be such a bad president, despite his hawkish talk, if he's too lazy to start a war! I liked him on Law & Order. I could see myself voting for him and maybe Huckabee against Hillary. I doubt the chance of war would be any greater. (But what about Supreme Court judges?) Of course, none of these Republicans, except Paul, displays any knowledge of how other countries view us, nor any desire to learn. I would expect Obama to have acquired some of that along the way, given his unusual personal history, so there may be a bit of 'substance' to him after all. (Oh gosh! Maybe I should read the candidate's website before babbling. It seems that Huckabee has bought into the neocon propaganda regarding 'global Islamic fascism'. I guess 'fond' is no longer the right word.) By the way, none of the candidates are addressing the rogue black holes that are wandering through our galazy, like cosmic terrorists, devouring everything in their path. We don't need the IAEA or an NIE to tell us how bad these guys are.
Back to the Home Page
|
