In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: “The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it.” What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.
The foregone nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, “marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history”, is a product of the new delusion. Actually, it just seems new. Truly exciting and historic moments have been fabricated around US presidential campaigns for as long as I can recall, generating what can only be described as bullshit on a grand scale. Race, gender, appearance, body language, rictal spouses and offspring, even bursts of tragic grandeur, are all subsumed by marketing and “image-making”, now magnified by “virtual” technology. Thanks to an undemocratic electoral college system (or, in Bush’s case, tampered voting machines) only those who both control and obey the system can win. This has been the case since the truly historic and exciting victory of Harry Truman, the liberal Democrat said to be a humble man of the people, who went on to show how tough he was by obliterating two cities with the atomic bomb.
Understanding Obama as a likely president of the United States is not possible without understanding the demands of an essentially unchanged system of power: in effect a great media game. For example, since I compared Obama with Robert Kennedy in these pages, he has made two important statements, the implications of which have not been allowed to intrude on the celebrations. The first was at the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the Zionist lobby, which, as Ian Williams has pointed out, “will get you accused of anti-Semitism if you quote its own website about its power”. Obama had already offered his genuflection, but on 4 June went further. He promised to support an “undivided Jerusalem” as Israel’s capital. Not a single government on earth supports the Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem, including the Bush regime, which recognises the UN resolution designating Jerusalem an international city.
His second statement, largely ignored, was made in Miami on 23 May. Speaking to the expatriate Cuban community – which over the years has faithfully produced terrorists, assassins and drug runners for US administrations – Obama promised to continue a 47-year crippling embargo on Cuba that has been declared illegal by the UN year after year.
Again, Obama went further than Bush. He said the United States had “lost Latin America”. He described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua as a “vacuum” to be filled. He raised the nonsense of Iranian influence in Latin America, and he endorsed Colombia’s “right to strike terrorists who seek safe-havens across its borders”. Translated, this means the “right” of a regime, whose president and leading politicians are linked to death squads, to invade its neighbours on behalf of Washington. He also endorsed the so-called Merida Initiative, which Amnesty International and others have condemned as the US bringing the “Colombian solution” to Mexico. He did not stop there. “We must press further south as well,” he said. Not even Bush has said that.
It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama’s difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The “truly exciting and historic moment in US history” will only occur when the game itself is challenged.
www.johnpilger.com
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
The user who created this comment no longer exists.
Update
By Hesch, Rick at Jun 18, 2008 05:07 AM
Not that this diverts one iota from Mr. Pilger\'s argument, but Amy Goodman, on Democracy Now, pointed out that Obama revised his statement on Jerusalem after the presentation to AIPAC. He later said it had to be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Reply this comment
Freudian-Slips & Other Attractive Nonconscious Apparel
By Borda, Joey at Jun 17, 2008 18:30 PM
Eric, I believe JP was speaking more broadly than simply the liberal left ignoring Obama’s statement in Miami. As an Obama scrutinizer I missed hearing about that one myself.
I am hoping that Obama’s public political dumbing-down act as he is being forced to move even more rightward against neo-Neanderthal McCain turns out to be just that once elected. After all, who would’ve expected to see Hillary dumbly downing shots and beers pandering for more of her “people?”
More importantly, since I myself am a fellator I can hardly regard your assessment of a liberal left as being too busy fellating a particularly sharp or insightful criticism. Unless it’s sour grapes for your having missed out on being one of the fellated.
At worst (best?) it would seem an awfully weak and misapplied insult. I am radical left, and applied to me fellator is a compliment, a high compliment indeed.
May I suggest the approbation “self-hating” fellator as perhaps more stinging and appropriate?!
If indeed you’re wearing a Freudian-slip, or Freudian-briefs, there is no harm in letting more of it show. I know I for one look forward to seeing it.
:)
Reply this comment
Gutter-mouth/mind
By Martin, Michael at Jun 16, 2008 20:10 PM
Eric, Eric, Eric...
Are you Freudian-slipping?
Reply this comment
Colour of his skin...
By Nissenbaum, Dan at Jun 15, 2008 18:46 PM
"However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters"
I think this is well said. It does, for example, imply that Obama benefits from being black, as well as being disadvantaged. However, Pilger\'s comment was made in a very careful context, to avoid the absurdity of Geraldine Ferraro\'s self-serving, classist as well as racist comment some months ago that Obama wouldn\'t be where he was if he wasn\'t black.
I am grateful when I see people on the left confront issues of race and gender in a more meaningful way, without the oversimplified, but rhetorically safe and easy, approach that one can never utter a word that non-whites, or women, sometimes benefit from being non-white, or being a woman, without being racist or sexist. The reality of the interplay of class with racism and sexism is so profound, and so often ignored, that the entire discussion is often devoid of much integrity.
Even in the times of slavery, were it somehow possible for a black person to have run for President, for example, (or a woman), I suspect there would be a significant minority of people who would have given extra support, just because he was black (or that she was a woman) in a time of great racism (and sexism). In such a case, the black person would need to exhibit the proper attributes of the ruling class. Not everybody in 1840 was a racist, if that implies an unwillingness to take a black person seriously if the black person did not seem threatening - even slave-owners would probably have seen no contradiction. Does this mean racism did not exist in 1840?
Today, there is a very large percentage of women who have been elevated into a privileged class. The glass ceiling and pay disparities in the world of the privileged corporate class continue to disadvantage women - but what, exactly, does it mean to be disadvantaged in the ability to obtain equality in an illegitimate sector of society? A much smaller percentage of black people have also been elevated into the privileged class, and face tremendous hurdles even there. But sexism and racism today are very strong, especially among the poor and the socially disadvanted.
Times have changed since 1840, since the days of Jim Crow, and the interplay of race and gender with class are more complicated today than they ever have been in this country, in my opinion. It is important to confront the interplay of class with race and gender, and avoid simple platitudes that blacks never benefit from the color of their skin or that women never benefit from their gender. Such platitudes are as equally racist and sexist as the statement that the northern Native Americans lived in an ideal culture is prejudiced. They are as equally racist or sexist as the opposite comment - that such-and-such a black person or such-and-such a woman wouldn\'t be there if he/she wasn\'t a black or a woman.
I am grateful for John Pilger\'s analysis, which did not suffer from the trap of oversimplicity that I\'m afraid has afflicted a large part of the Left today - the reactionary Left. I see this reactionary Left prominently on web sites such as AlterNet.org.
Dan Nissenbaum
Reply this comment