Korean Job Discussion Forums

[bacasper]

Alexander Cockburn: Obama, the first-rate Republican

Is there anything the front-runner will not say to become President? No progressive cause would have a chance with him in charge.

Sunday, 26 October 2008

As a left-winger I might be expected to be supporting Barack Obama. And indeed, in these last days I've been scraping around, trying to muster a single positive reason to encourage a vote for Obama. Please note my accent on the positive, since the candidate himself has couched his appeal in this idiom. Why vote for Obama-Biden, as opposed to against the McCain-Palin ticket?


Obama invokes change. Yet never has the dead hand of the past had a "reform" candidate so firmly by the windpipe. Is it possible to confront America's problems without talking about the arms budget? The Pentagon is spending more than at any point since the end of the Second World War. In "real dollars" � an optimistic concept these days � the $635bn (�400bn) appropriated in fiscal 2007 is 5 per cent above the previous all-time high, reached in 1952. Obama wants to enlarge the armed services by 90,000. He pledges to escalate the US war in Afghanistan; to attack Pakistan's territory if it obstructs any unilateral US mission to kill Osama bin Laden; and to wage a war against terror in a hundred countries, creating a new international intelligence and law enforcement "infrastructure" to take down terrorist networks. A fresh start? Where does this differ from Bush's commitment on 20 September 2001, to an ongoing "war on terror" against "every terrorist group of global reach" and "any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism"?

Obama's liberal defenders comfort themselves with the thought that "he had to say that to get elected". He didn't. After eight years of Bush, Americans are receptive to reassessing America's imperial role. Obama has shunned this opportunity. If elected, he will be a prisoner of his promise that on his watch Afghanistan will not be lost, nor the white man's burden shirked.

Whatever drawdown of troops in Iraq that does take place in the event of Obama's victory will be a brief hiccup amid the blare and thunder of fresh "resolve". In the event of Obama's victory, the most immediate consequence overseas will most likely be brusque imperial reassertion. Already, Joe Biden, the shopworn poster boy for Israeli intransigence and Cold War hysteria, is yelping stridently about the new administration's "mettle" being tested in the first six months by the Russians and their surrogates. Obama is far more hawkish than McCain on Iran.

After eight years of unrelenting assault on constitutional liberties by Bush and Cheney, public and judicial enthusiasm for tyranny has waned. Obama has preferred to stand with Bush and Cheney. In February, seeking a liberal profile in the primaries, Obama stood against warrantless wiretapping. His support for liberty did not survive for long. Five months later, he voted in favour and declared that "the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool".

Every politician, good or bad, is an ambitious opportunist. But beneath this topsoil, the ones who make a constructive dent on history have some bedrock of fidelity to some central idea. In Obama's case, this "idea" is the ultimate distillation of identity politics: the idea of his blackness. Those who claim that if he were white he would be cantering effortlessly into the White House do not understand that without his most salient physical characteristic Obama would be seen as a second-tier senator with unimpressive credentials.

As a political organiser of his own advancement, Obama is a wonder. But I have yet to identify a single uplifting intention to which he has remained constant if it has presented any risk to his progress. We could say that he has not yet had occasion to adjust his relatively decent stances on immigration and labour-law reform. And what of public funding of his campaign? Another commitment made becomes a commitment betrayed. His campaign treasury is a vast hogswallow that, if it had been amassed by a Republican, would be the topic of thunderous liberal complaint.

Obama's run has been the negation of almost every decent progressive principle, with scarcely a bleat of protest from the progressives seeking to hold him to account. The Michael Moores stay silent. Obama has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He is more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain, and has been the most popular of the candidates with Washington lobbyists. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful.

So no, this is not an exciting or liberating moment in America's politics. If you want a memento of what could be exciting, go to the website of the Nader-Gonzalez campaign and read its platform on popular participation and initiative. Or read the portions of Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr's platform on foreign policy and constitutional rights. The standard these days for what the left finds tolerable is awfully low. The more the left holds its tongue, the lower the standard will go.

[On the other hand]

I do admire Cockburn, in that he is actually one leftist who puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to the theory that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. A lot of leftists claim to believe that, but then turn around and get all hysterical when the Republcans win. Even though they're the ones who were telling us that it didn't matter who won because both parties are the same.

But not Cockburn. He claims to believe that both parties are the same, and actually manages to remain quite non-chalant in the face of Republican victories. He's even gone so far as to argue that a second term of Ford would have been more progressive than what Carter delivered during his term in office. And, unlike a lot of leftists, Cockburn actually understands what right-wing libertarianism is all about, and that it has certain commonalities with the left...

[NoExplode]

[On the other hand]

[Ya-ta Boy]

Obama is less ideological than the writer wants. Who cares? A lot of people are tired of the politics of division from the right and Obama's strategy of being pragmatic in order to take power from them is working.

OTOH, I think you are being overly optimistic in thinking that the culture wars are over. Remember '04 (when there was no financial meltdown)? There were endless numbers of editorial/opinion pieces about how surprised Democrats were that blue collar people were not voting their pocket book. Those days could come back if the economy improves.

[Gopher]

I told you so. He is not even elected yet. And I told you so. Only downhill from here for him.

[pkang0202]

All Presidents will come to the center. No matter how far right or left they start, they always come center.

Yes, even George W Bush has come very far since 2000.

[Adventurer]

I can understand those who say that the Democrats and the Republicans are relatively the same. That may be true of the Republicans who are not so really culturally conservative. However, I would say there are major differences between the two parties, and it is not only in the domain of culture. The GOP focuses more on military spending, cuts to the wealthy of the country, and the Democrats focus more on assisting the middle class and they don't focus so much on increasing funding to the military.
Both parties haven't done much for the lower class, working class. We will see if that changes with the next president.

I would definitely rather have a person who will do at least a little more for the middle class than what the GOP has done. The middle class represent the largest group in America. Everyone, of course, is important. However, in a democracy, you should focus on the majority, and there is not enough of a focus on the majority and their needs by both parties. In a sense, both parties have not promoted economic democracy, because of the use of anti-communism as a cover to deny people more opportunity in society. I think that's a major criticism of many people on the Left.

[ddeubel]

Interesting article, thanks for posting. I had the same epiphany about 8-9 months ago.... Obama more and more seems a YES man and I don't like that in any politician. Leadership means much more than this...

DD
http://eflclassroom.ning.com

[On the other hand]

[Gopher]

Yes, I can concede that. I am not referring to all who stand to the left or on the left but rather mostly to those leftists who howl. M. Moore, for example, who has endorsed B. Obama. He represents the centerpiece of what I am waiting for. Also, closer to home, some on this messageboard. But I shall have to give them time to perform as expected, On the Other Hand.

[bacasper]

[Gopher]

[agentX]

[Nowhere Man]