 |
Worldview Blogby A Concerned Citizenback to the Worldview Menu |
|
|
Worldview Blogby A Concerned Citizenback to the Worldview Menu |
|
08 Mar 08: Obama should shout: Hillary = War + NAFTA 01 Mar 08: Michael Moore, Sicko and the USA 20 Feb 08: Obama Can Win on National Security 09 Feb 08: How McCain Might Win 08 Feb 08: Obama is much better than Hillary or McCain 02 Feb 08: Some Thoughts on the Distribution of Wealth 01 Feb 08: Global Warming Hype 31 Jan 08: Norman Finkelstein and Academic Freedom 29 Jan 08: Free Speech is Threatened 28 Jan 08: How Bill Clinton Betrayed the Democrats 14 Jan 08: Horror in the Congo 13 Jan 08: Presidential Frontrunners and Human Rights 01 Jan 08: Presidential Campaign Blather 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 |
More Presidential Campaign Follies 17 March 2008 American presidential campaigns can be a disillusioning experience to those who are idealistic about democracy. Often, the most important and pressing realities are ignored, while the discussion verges on imbecility. Serious criticism of government iniquity is generally absent, especially in the realm of foreign policy and of so-called free trade, and the public seems clueless. No matter who wins, the establishment perpetuates its misdeeds, unimpeded. Of course, campaign propaganda has a lot to do with it, but another chief culprit is our astonishingly derelict mainstream media, which is a whole topic in itself. Suffice it to say that those who have access to foreign news realize that our mainstream press often acts like a kind of self-imposed Pravda for the bipartisan establishment, represented by Hillary Clinton in the case of the Democrats.
Pro-NAFTA Hillary Popular with Working-Class For example, Hillary seems to be popular with poorer working-class voters who are angry that they have lost their jobs to NAFTA. How can this be, considering that it was her husband who promoted and passed NAFTA when he was president? Bill Clinton rode into office on a wave of cheap populist rhetoric and then sold out to his 'free trade' Wall Street buddies like Michael Rubin. This so-called 'neoliberalism' has meant little more than union-busting, by pitting American workers against third-world workers whose cost of living is far lower — without giving the latter the benefit of union power. The treason is so transparent that one would think the Clinton name would be despised by all working-class Americans, but the opposite seems to be the case. I can only attribute this to the failure of the mainstream media to adequately inform average Americans. No doubt this is because the mainstream media is part of the establishment and has swallowed the neoliberal ideology, line, hook and sinker. In essence, it represents the interests of the rich and not of the country as a whole. (One might ask, though, why the union leaders have not been more informative to their members. Have they also been seduced into the establishment?) Obama, whose views on trade are more ambiguous than on the war, nevertheless has no NAFTA stain on his record, but paradoxically he is doing well primarily with more upscale and educated Democrats. Indeed, education plays a key role here. It enables one to circumvent the mainstream media and acquire information from alternative sources, such as the internet. This is not so easy, if you have not been trained to think critically, as the net is full of garbage. Hence, Obama probably just appears as a novice, as well as an unknown quantity, to uninformed working-class Americans, whereas Hillary comes off as a party stalwart, simply because she and her husband have been around so long. Unfortunately, these working-class people don't yet understand that this is a party that has sold out to Big Business and become a somewhat lighter version of the Republicans. Also, a bit of racism may play a role, as many of the working-class whites are the same 'Scots-Irish' rural 'rednecks' who have been so successfully exploited by the Republicans in the South. To this, one must add that the Clintons are simply dirty fighters, which probably also appeals to these less-educated and less-genteel folks.
Anti-War Americans for McCain!!! Then there is the shocking paradox that many antiwar Americans may vote for warmongering insaniac John McCain — the same man who has vowed to stay in Iraq 1000 years if that is the price of victory! Apparently, these folks are so terrified of the 'terrorist threat' that they want a 'strong man' at the helm, even if the last 'strong man' produced the disaster in Iraq. Let us never forget the power of propaganda to stir up fear. The Bush lies linking Saddam to Osama were never plausible in the first place and have been thoroughly discredited — including by a recent Pentagon study. Yet, prior to the invasion, and thanks to the bully pulpit and supine media, as documented by Bill Moyers, President Bush had 70-80% of Americans believing that the war in Iraq was to go after Osama. No doubt, there is still much confusion in the minds of many Americans. For instance, there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq until after we invaded, and even that presence has been marginal. Yet the administration has cynically used that small presence, which we created, to justify the war. Again, there may be a bit of racism in all this, in that many Americans probably lump all the Muslims into one big unshaven, wild-eyed blur of human bombs. Let us remember the vile demonization of Japanese during World War II, unmatched by any comparable demonization of Germans. Needless to say, McCain has never questioned the deceptive premises of the war, only the execution. This more than qualifies him as a 'warmonger', which doesn't stop the supposedly informed press from fawning over him. (It should be mentioned that as many as a million innocent Iraqis have died as a consequence of our illegal and unjustified invasion.) This leads us to the question of blowback. It is entirely reasonable, and even patriotic, to take the position of a Chalmers Johnson and argue that the terrorism of 9/11 is largely due to our military presence in the Middle East, as well as to our knee-jerk support for the slow but determined Israeli strangulation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Reagan supported death squads in Nicaragua against a trivial 'Communist threat', but we expect the Muslims to simply accept our mucking around in their part of the world. After all, we are the good guys always saving the world from evil! Thus, it is a taboo to discuss blowback on the presidential campaign trail. This has gotten Obama into some hot water, as his pastor has made precisely such 'chickens coming home to roost' remarks, in so many words, regarding 9/11. In no way does this mean that the people in the twin towers 'deserved' their fate, only that such a horror should not come as such a surprise. After all, we have dropped countless tons of bombs on innocent foreigners, always justified by the pursuit of 'national interests'. Does foreign life count for nothing to Americans? Sometimes it seems that way. The death toll from 9/11, horrible as it was, should be compared to the hundreds of thousands of innocents who have died, directly or indirectly, as a result of American interventionism. This is simply the truth, but our patriotism, enhanced by media delinquency, evidently does not allow us to discuss this in an honest and rational way, at least not during political campaigns. And of course, politicians as unscrupulous as the Clintons are quite pleased to exploit this against Obama, just as they have callously exploited the race card. I worry that Obama may take a big hit from this, as a pastor's opinions, garbled in translation by our irresponsible press, will be taken seriously by the pious American public. So much folly in our presidential campaign! No doubt, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I'll finish the article by writing updates, as they occur to me ...
Obama's Preacher is Mad at U.S., Angers U.S. I haven't really been following the controversy involving the allegedly 'incendiary' remarks made by Obama's preacher, Reverend Wright. However, since the right-wing media has made hay of it, it may become an important factor in the election, so I'll say a few words. As I understand it, Wright has made comments along the lines that 9/11 was 'the chickens coming home to roost', that America is run by 'rich, white men', and that blacks are disproportionately imprisoned. He has also accused the US government of selling drugs to blacks and of creating the HIV virus to infect blacks. He has been quoted as saying things like 'God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme'. We can dismiss the drug peddling and HIV virus allegations, though there have indeed been bizarre stories in the mainstream press involving the CIA and drugs in the inner city. I have already responded above to the 9/11 remarks, which are no different than Chalmers Johnson's blowback theme. Our interventionism abroad has provoked hatred and terrorism against us. We would feel the same if others did this to us. This does not mean that I hate and blame Americans, only the policy of our leaders. However, when I consider how many 'antiwar' Americans might vote for McCain, as discussed above, I am reluctant to let the public off scot-free. Americans may be deceived by the mainstream media, but they have also shown little regard for the foreign life we have killed. They should also have been more skeptical when Bush linked Osama and Saddam. Haven't they learned by now that politicians lie? Was there anti-Muslim prejudice involved in their willingness to be fooled? Regarding the black race in America, any decent person with a basic knowledge of American history can understand the anger of a black minister like a Wright, or a Jesse Jackson, or even a Farrakhan. However, I don't believe that the solution is special treatment for blacks. This undermines democracy and promotes resentment and backlash. Rather, I want the government to give a helping hand to all those who need it, based on economic rather than racial status. And it is certainly the case that blacks have been screwed by our fanatical and ill-conceived drug war, with many nonviolent offenders cruelly thrown into prison. This amounts to a crime against humanity, in my opinion. Now it is entirely true that America is run by 'rich, white men', with the help of an obsequious and compliant press. What Rev. Wright, in his righteous anger, doesn't take into account is that many whites in America suffer from this too, along with countless people in the other countries with which we have meddled. This is a further reason not to divide ordinary Americans with preferential treatment for blacks. Rather, ordinary Americans must unite to move politics to the left. As for the 'God damn America' remark, this is not really any different than the ancient prophets calling the Divine Wrath down on a sinful Israel. It may not be the kindest and gentlest solution, but it definitely has a precedent in the Bible! Of course, the best solution is not to hate anyone but to try to enlighten everyone. The next best solution is to damn only those who perpetuate the crimes of the establishment, like McCain and Hillary and their supporters. However, this presupposes an informed public, which we have seen does not exist. Nevertheless, I am inclined to damn those who support McCain, no matter how uninformed they might be, since he is so transparently militaristic. The problem is that we are seduced into militarism by simply assuming that we are the good guys and that our cause is just. All we have to do is utter the magic mantras 'freedom' and 'democracy', as we invade others and wreak havoc in their land. And of course, patriotism is the first refuge of scoundrels, as those who do not support some war are branded as hating their country and hating the troops. This kind of idiocy only works because of the raw animal instincts that permeate many of the right-leaning sectors of our society. You can call it human nature, but frankly history suggests that Europeans have been particularly inclined towards militarism and imperialism, always wrapped in a deceptive cloak of morality, Christian or otherwise. Some self-styled 'conservatives' have freed themselves from this psychological pathology, but most have not. Hence, the surprisingly and distressingly strong support for McCain.
Obama's Speech UPDATE (18 Mar 08): Obama just gave a 'historic speech', in which he repudiates the 'incendiary language' of Rev. Wright! As I scan his speech for specifics, I find nothing on foreign policy and a whole lot on racism. First, let's review foreign policy. The YouTubes below indicate that Wright's harshest outbursts include statements such as 'We're the same as Osama' and 'God damn America'. I have already explained how it is correct to view 9/11 as 'blowback' for our interventionist foreign policy, in which we have bombed and killed untold thousands of foreigners in pursuit of our 'national interests', often cloaked in the language of ideology. This does not mean that those in the twin towers deserved their fate, but it does mean that we must honestly examine our foreign policy. If we don't, then we do deserve divine punishment. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to talk honestly about foreign policy in the public arena in this country, precisely because it is so easy to distort words, as we have just seen. Are we the 'same as Osama'? No, not all Americans, but surely those who favor unjustified and illegal wars of choice, based on lies. Not only is the general public often incapable of making this distinction, but a great many Americans, especially in the establishment, actually want this kind of a foreign policy. What is most sad is that many conservative and influential Jews have joined the empire, since it helps Israel's smaller imperialistic ambitions. So even those who have suffered injustice will oppress when they have the upper hand. Obama knows what a losing issue this is, and he steers clear in his speech. One wonders if anything short of an economic depression can tame us. Come to think of it, the Great Depression didn't stop us from fighting World War II. On the contrary, it is widely believed to have brought us out of it! As for the racism issue, I have made my views known. Blacks have suffered a great deal of injustice, but government help should be given to all poor people in a color-blind way. And let us not forget that many blacks are now middle-class. Thus, all the talk about 'racism' seems to me like a huge distraction and waste of time. There should be welfare for the deserving poor; our draconian drug laws should be made humane; laws against discrimination should be enforced; and so on. But we don't need a lot of bathos over racism per se. Unfortunately, Obama dwells on this topic, even if it is with a hopeful and uniting message. Perhaps he thinks it is a lot safer than speaking the truth about US foreign policy. As usual, his character comes across as very decent, uplifting and inspiring. Perhaps he is a brilliant actor who has fooled even so cynical a person as myself, but I still think he would make a good president, far better than the other two miscreants. This whole controversy is ridiculous, but I wouldn't be surprised if it sinks Obama. I can hear Hillary's evil cackle, even as I write these words. What will I do if I have to choose between evil Hillary and the more evil McCain? Right now, I am inclined not to vote, even though one could argue that such a refusal would also be evil, in that it helps to raise the probability of war from 90% to 100%. There is a curse over us. No need to invoke divine damnation.
Note: On March 22nd, the full video of Rev. Wright's sermon surfaced, putting the (in)famous speech in context. Not surprisingly, it turns out that only the angriest parts of the sermon were culled by the right-wing propaganda mongrels. Indeed, most of the speech is calm and thoughtful, sounding Christian themes of compassion, peace and horror of violence. (This is not to be confused with the right-wing desecration of Christianity, which is more accurately described as worship of Mars.) Anyway, as I have said, I have no problem with Wright's references to Hiroshima or his anger at American militarism. His mistake was to damn all of America, rather than just the bipartisan War Party. Andrew Sullivan, in his namby-pamby way, assures us that Wright is 'no Chomsky' but represents a certain 'version' of Christianity. That would be the true version, Andrew. And what's wrong with Chomsky anyway? And by the way, did you know that it is slander to claim that Chomsky 'hates America', you nitwit purveyor of establishment cliches? Still, we must encourage Sullivan, since he is some kind of 'conservative' who doesn't quite want to be a troglodyte.
Raimondo on Obama UPDATE (20 Mar 08): Justin Raimondo makes a good point on Antiwar Radio. How come nobody is going after McCain's preacher John Hagee? He is openly anti-Catholic. Yet the press avoids him. Why? Raimondo says it's because Hagee is pro-Israel, and the Israel lobby and establishment press are protecting him. Sounds plausible to me. Plus Hagee supports the Empire. The general theme of Raimondo's talk is that Obama, despite indications of being a 'liberal interventionist', seems to be a decent guy whose first instinct is to talk to adversaries, rather than bomb them. That's pretty much how I feel. Radio host Scott Horton insists Obama might be a pawn of the CFR and other liberal interventionists, but Raimondo points out that Obama's leftist base seem quite solidly antiwar. Raimondo cares little about political labels; his top priority is preventing war. I am quite sympathetic to this point of view. Very few wars are truly necessary or justified. Also, Raimondo reminds us that Obama is very popular, precisely because of his antiwar stance. Seventy percent of the country opposes the war, and the neocon warmongers fear an Obama victory. Hence, Rush Limbaugh's curious support for Hillary Clinton. (However, despite the supposed 70% of antiwar Americans, I would point to the polls showing McCain and Obama even, as mentioned previously. An ominous sign, indeed! More on this in a moment.) Regarding Iran, Raimondo reminds us of Obama's response to Hillary's recent scaremongering '3 AM phone call' ad. He accused Hillary of saber-rattling by voting to declare as terrorists the Iranian National Guards, giving a virtual blank check to Bush to bomb Iran. This indicates that Obama wants to resolve the situation through diplomacy, and he is moving in an increasingly antiwar direction, along with his base. I hope so. The longer we stay in Iran, the more likely a border incident will precipitate a war with Iran. Then they talk about McCain. Horton makes a comment that I think may explain McCain's curious popularity, despite so many Americans being opposed to the war. A lot of people come up to Horton and ask, 'What about this McCain guy? He seems like a straight-shooter?' That's it! The public doesn't really understand that McCain is a warmonger, but they've heard ad nauseum from the fawning press that he is a 'straight-shooter'. Is this because the fawning establishment press really supports the empire and is trying to pull a fast one on the public and slip McCain in through the back door? (Then again, white males may simply like McCain because he's a white male. Notice in the Rasmussen poll below that Obama attracts only 36% of the white vote. White males may also prefer an aggressive foreign policy.) Raimondo goes on to remind us that, unlike George Bush, whose brain was an 'empty chalice' waiting to be filled by well-positioned neocons, McCain has definite, firmly-held ideas regarding foreign policy, that are quite aggressive and go beyond the Middle East. For example, he has been a longtime foe of Russia, and we can expect him to stir up a lot of trouble with a nation that is still the largest in terms of land mass and is rich in natural resources and educated people. Russia is also full of disputes along its long border, and McCain would no doubt restart the Cold War. Let us not forget that Russia still has nuclear weapons — thousands of them! Moreover, our imperious policy has filled Russians with resentment, which is rising. Putin says so explicitly, but we respond by extending NATO up to Russia's throat and placing threatening missiles in Eastern Europe. In a word, McCain is Bush on steroids! Hillary is not much better, as she would most likely fan the flames of war in Iran, in order to please her hawkish Zionist base. Can we hope that the faltering economy will dampen America's enthusiasm for foreign adventures, regardless of who wins? Not really, if we remember that it was World War II that finally pulled us out of the Great Depression, as I commented earlier. Hmmm. Perhaps I should vote for Hillary over McCain, under the premise that she is incrementally less of a gonzo hawk? I cannot bear the thought! I pray that the preacher flap doesn't sink Obama.
Back to the Home Page
|
