 |
|||
|
|
|
 To Each His Own ObamaPosted on Jan 22, 2009President Barack Obama intends to use conservative values for progressive ends. He will cast extreme individualism as an infantile approach to politics that must be supplanted by a more adult sense of personal and collective responsibility. He will honor government’s role in our democracy and not degrade it. He wants America to lead the world, but as much by example as by force. And in trying to do all these things he will confuse a lot of people. One of the wondrous aspects of Obama’s inaugural address is the extent to which those on the left and those on the right both claimed our new president as their own. Many conservatives were eager to argue that Obama is destined to disappoint his friends on the left because the president who now wields power will be far more careful than the candidate who deployed rhetoric so ecstatically. Their evidence included Obama’s stout defense of old-fashioned values—“honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism.” Advertisement But note the nature of that list: “tolerance and curiosity” in particular are values notoriously associated with the adventurous, with those who seek out the new and the novel. “Hard work” and “fair play” have long been invoked by egalitarians on behalf of those who are the salt of the earth. And Obama told us straight out the ends toward which he was conscripting the old virtues: “They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.” The emphasis on progress pervaded what was in many ways a radical speech. Obama clearly broke with the conservative past, more recently associated with George W. Bush and more distantly with Ronald Reagan. As he has done so often, Obama pronounced debates about the size of government as irrelevant. What matters is “whether it works.” Quietly but purposefully, he was overturning the Reagan revolution. He announced the repeal of the Bush-Cheney approach to domestic security with these words: “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” And while celebrating America’s power, he broke with the past again by saying “that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.” Finally, American presidents rarely ask explicitly whether “the market is a force for good or ill.” Obama acknowledged its “power to generate wealth and expand freedom” but warned that without regulation the market could “spin out of control.” He also counseled against rampant inequality, insisting that “the nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” What makes Obama a radical, albeit of the careful and deliberate variety, is his effort to reverse the two kinds of extreme individualism that have permeated the American political soul for perhaps four decades. He sets his face against the expressive individualism of the 1960s that defined “do your own thing” as the highest form of freedom. On the contrary, Obama speaks of responsibilities, of doing things for others, even of that classic bourgeois obligation, “a parent’s willingness to nurture a child.” But he also rejects the economic individualism that took root in the 1980s. He specifically listed “the greed and irresponsibility on the part of some” as a cause for our economic distress. He discounted “the pleasures of riches and fame.” He spoke of Americans not as consumers but as citizens. His references to freedom were glowing, but he emphasized far more our “duties” to preserve it than the rights it conveys. This communitarian vision fits poorly with “the stale political arguments” between liberals and conservatives that Obama condemned, because they are really arguments between these two varieties of individualism. Their quarrel has been fierce not only because of how the two sides differ, but also because they share so many assumptions. Family feuds and civil wars can be especially brutal. For now, each side in the old debate can enlist aspects of Obama’s rhetoric in their polemics against the other. But in associating our recent past with “childish things,” in insisting that greatness is “never a given” and always “must be earned,” Obama is challenging the very basis of their conflict. It is a worthy fight. It will also be a hard fight to win because rights are so much easier to talk about than duties, and freedom’s gifts are always more prized than its obligations. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
Acts of Love
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By KDelphi, September 3, 2009 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
John Coffin—good post. Thanks
Report thisBy John Coffin, September 3, 2009 at 10:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama has not ended the ongoing occupation of Iraq, nor will he ever do so. Obama has also killed the main component of EFCA. Obama supports sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama opposes war crimes trials for US officials for waging an unjust war based on lies in order to take over Iraq, as if waging an aggressive war was something that should just be buried or forgotten. Obama is continuing the policy of “extraordinary renditions” that is outsourcing our governments torture to third countries. The only difference between Obama’s administration and the Bush administration is that with Obama you have a man who is smarter than the smirking chimp who was the last president. The fact that people think Obama is a “liberal” or an “extreme liberal” (whatever that means), or that Obama is a “socialist”. If Obama is a socialist then so was Otto Von Bismarck. Bismarck, was the founder of all modern Social Security programs, national health insurance and the worlds first Anti-Socialist laws. That’s right those programs were invented first by an arch-conservative Prussian junker.
Obama is a CENTRIST, which means of course that he occupies a political “center”, which means nothing. The terms right and left come out of the French Revolution, where the right sat on the right side as you entered the parliament building…and the left sat on the left side. The terms today don’t mean much. Even the Communist Parties of the world have embraced market economics for the last thirty years. The CPUSA opposed Richard Nixon’s impeachment. Even the left has moved to noticeably to the right.
The only political difference I can see in action between O’bombem and Bush, is that Obama can speak in a complete sentence. Presumably to the trogs out there, this indicates an extreme leftist. US foreign policy never changes regardless of what president is in power. Foreign policy is conducted by the State Department bureaucracy, which aside from the occassional organization purge tends to shelter the same people regardless of the party in power. The Pentagon calls the shots telling civilian authority how much troops they will need to lose the war in Afghanistan.
Fundamentally, both the “liberals” and “conservatives” seek to make the existing order more stable. So in this sense they are all conservative.
Palin is a right-winger, George McGovern and Kennedy were liberals, Obama is a centrist and a clintonian “new democrat”. Clinton’s political genius was to steal right-wing budget cutting initiatives like “ending welfare as we know it”. The right hated Clinton because Clinton robbed the right of its own programmatic ideas. That’s the sort of “liberal” Obama is. As a centrist he will concede to the right-wing and ignore his voting base. Obama’s voting base wanted national health care, an end to the war, and “extraordinary rendition” and EFCA. Obama’s voting base will never see any of those things happen.
We all, as voting citizens, conservative or liberal or whatever, have been treated like chumps in so called “democratic elections” where our candidates are sold to us by the same PR people who advertise toothpaste.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, January 30, 2009 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment
Chomsky says he’s an anarchist but he often seems more like a good ol’ social democrat to me.
So far, Obama seems quite conservative: the economic legislation goes back to the ideas of the New Deal, and the foreign policy continues the global imperialism begun in the 1940s and continued earnestly ever since. I don’t think we’ll see anything new unless and until things get a lot worse. E. J. Dionne sees Obama’s accession as a rejection of the “individualism”, i.e. freedom, in the movements of the ‘60s and the onset of the Reagan years. (Not the first to draw this connection.) Perhaps he’s right and we’ll soon see a resurgence of faith, discipline, order and community spirit in some sort of progressive fascism. History loves irony.
Report thisBy KDelphi, January 29, 2009 at 11:25 am Link to this comment
I’m more confused than ever, and its only 2:30!!
; ) (I hate these little things)
Report thisBy Folktruther, January 28, 2009 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment
Conservative Yankee—We are so confused about terme
because we are confused about concepts. And both confusions occur because we are in the midst of an historical ideological realignment. What was at one time the right wing position is now left and onnversely.
For example, New Deal Dems considered the American government a Good Thing to serve the population, but since it has been captured by neolibcons radical progresives are starting to oppose govenment, an historical conservative policy, but for different reasons.
Anti-Semitism was traditionally a right wing policy but now anti-Zionsm is a left policy. That is why the accusation is so effective against the left.
Anarcissie, I don’t know about the left consisting of 38TDers and Noam Chomsky. I have reservations about Chomsky.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, January 28, 2009 at 6:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
By KDelphi, January 27 at 3:47 pm #
You are correct that , I have no idea where true conservatives have gone, but,maybe if you could give me your definition? There are very few true liberals, either.
The idea of “bipartisanship” is flawed, in that, the US tends to think that there are “two points of view”—right and left. In most countries , there are many more voices at the table. Liberal, Democratic, Conservative, Labor, Green, Torrey? etc.
I don’t know if the old definitions hold for anything anymore. To some folks all one must do to be a “liberal” is to support a woman’s right to choose, BUT when I was a boy (long long ago) that wopuld have been a conservative position (in New England anyway) because “conservatives” believed in keeping their noses OUT of other people’s business. Now, on the down side, if the guy next door was beating the shit out of his wife, dog and children, THAT would be none of a conservative’s business either.
I always believed that “liberal” was “left/moderate” and “conservative” was “right/moderate” on a clock face that would be 11 O’clock for liberals, and 1 O’clock for conservatives. 6 O’clock was reserved for “reactionaries” and “Troglidites” and one could reach this position by either going too far right, or too far left. It is the point where anarchy takes root. Some Christian fundementalists are there, The KKK is there, the Nazis were there, and the weather underground were there. As a society the “conservatives and liberals seem to be moving further right so now the self identified “liberals” occupy the 1 o’clock spot once held by conservatives, and the current “conservatives” have past the 3 O’clock mark. They are no longer content to stay OUT of the affairs of othes, they spend money faster than the old liberals, and they are attempting to inflict their creedo on all regardless of culture.
BUT
Society has seen this before in ancient Rome, in Spain, and in Germany…. We need some balance, and the Obama wing of the Democratic party is not it!
Report thisBy Anarcissie, January 27, 2009 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment
There are very few classical conservatives around. About the most conservative political group left, people who believe in the goodness of the established order and the possibility of the virtuous state and so forth, are the more “liberal” Democrats. They want to keep what’s left of the New Deal, restrain the rapacious capitalists, implement a kinder, gentler, more collegial imperialism, and all that.
However, in the U.S. anyway, conservative usually means “rightist.” Here’s I’m using the traditional idea of the Right: the side of order, authority, hierarchy, the military virtues, as opposed to the Left, the side of peace, freedom, and equality. There are lots of rightists—religious rightists, neo-cons, social conservatives, business-interest rightists, even libertarian rightists, which is something of a contradiction in terms, but that’s what they call themselves. The Democrats, Obama among them, are the moderate, conservative Right and the Republicans are, by and large, the radical Right. The consensus, at least among those who lead and manage mainstream political parties, is that we have way too much peace, freedom and equality, and something ought to be done about it—conservatively (Democrats) or radically (Republicans).
The Left consists of the 38 people who write on TruthDig and Noam Chomsky.
Report thisBy KDelphi, January 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment
Anarcissie—Well said. I would agree.
Conservative Yankee—well, we’re back to definitions. If you are a “yellow dog” (which I was almost certain was an early name for Blue Dogs—-but no matter), or a true conservative, Obama is probably a “liberal”. To a Socialist, Obama is a conservative (wavering moderate—he is looking better lately, if he doestn let non-partisanship fool him)
It is time for some liberal policies, some funding or programs, and some cuts in the military budget.(along with a drastic reduction in the number of troops, and, military bases, around the world) We have had ENOUGH, neo-con crap.
You are correct that , I have no idea where true conservatives have gone, but,maybe if you could give me your definition? There are very few true liberals, either.
The idea of “bipartisanship” is flawed, in that, the US tends to think that there are “two points of view”—right and left. In most countries , there are many more voices at the table. Liberal, Democratic, Conservative, Labor, Green, Torrey? etc.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, January 27, 2009 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment
Patriotism (caring for one’s country and, usually, the people who inhabit it) and nationalism (caring for one’s “nation”) are, I imagine, extensions, perhaps pathological extensions, of the our genetic disposition to be attached to our family, clan, or troop. (Once evolving primates got the better of their natural environment by inventing complex social orders and weapons, their main problem was each other, and those troops which could command just the right amount of altruistic heroism in their constituents would be the ones that survived and passed their genes along to us. Certainly no troop could survive long without some self-sacrifice.)
Fascism is usually associated with nationalism, but I imagine one could base it on almost any classification of human beings which made possible the kind of total control fascism promotes. I think you could have fascist states where the organizing principle was not nationality but religion. I won’t name any names.
I think a lot of people get great satisfaction out of patriotism, just as they do out of some other isms. You get a license to believe that you’re better than other people and have a right, if not a duty, to do the others harm—something that is likely to appeal strongly to most trooping primates.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, January 27, 2009 at 6:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
By KDelphi, January 23 at 10:26 am #
“Obama is a conservative. Maybe a Blue Dog if he lived in the South.”
I disagree that Obama is “conservative” in fact we have almost NO conservatives left. Bush sure was no conservative, nor is any other crooked pol who wishes to rob our great grandchildren of the life we enjoyed.
ALSO
“Blue Dogs” are Northern Republicans who vote “liberal” on social issues (a rapidly vanishing breed, Grassly, Snowe, and Collins come to mind. You probably meant “yellow Dogs” BUT they were the party of segregation in the old south.
“Yellow dogs” because the saying was: “I’d sooner vote for a yellow dog, than support a Republican (when they were the party of intregration). I guess that breed is extinct too!
Report thisBy KDelphi, January 26, 2009 at 10:54 pm Link to this comment
We may have different definitons of “patriotism”. I think of it as being very similar to nationalism. That would be similar to fascism.
I believe that the the US is just “chock full” of “patriotism”, and, it dost seem to have gotten us anywhere, except, having the biggest military budget and war crimes machine in the world. Nationalism leads to war.
It is phony patriotism, to send poor people to war (most of them are), and, keep trying to get out of paying for it (taxes) also. The rich are really screwing us on this one, and all that Dems seem to want is a $500 tax cut. Dumb.
We deserve more collectivism than that.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, January 26, 2009 at 10:16 am Link to this comment
All right—but if collectivism equals socialism, as above, then we may have no word for the popular belief that individuals are or should be subordinate to the communities they are part of. Or maybe we do—communitarianism? I have often enjoyed suggesting the capitalism is a form of collectivization—the individual is certainly subordinated to the collectivity—but obviously it isn’t if democratic socialism is implied.
It was Dr. Samuel Johnson, a conservative, who said that patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels. He did not mean that all patriots were scoundrels, but that patriotism appealed to scoundrels as a refuge. He himself was quite patriotic and was probably merely being cranky.
For me, fascism is a specific proposal about organizing a totalitarian society. Under some circumstances (Lexington, Massachusetts, April 19, 1775, for instance) you could find even apparent liberals behaving in a rather patriotic manner, so I don’t think we can equate patriotism with fascism.
Report thisBy KDelphi, January 26, 2009 at 12:41 am Link to this comment
“Patriotism” (nationalism) same/same? close…) is notr collectivism, becuase it deals with “country” and the symbols for it, not class. I would be in favor of a msas collectivism of the underclasses and “minority grups” of the wrold.
Perhaps patriotism is fascism. I know that someone said it was the last refuge of scoundrals, but I cannot remember whom.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, January 25, 2009 at 7:40 am Link to this comment
How is patriotism not collectivistic? Or fascism, for that matter?
Report thisBy KDelphi, January 24, 2009 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment
Alot less “patriotism”, alot more world “collectivism”—-they are practially polar opposites.
” Mr. Obama is an objective progressive collectivist. The Democratic Party is now progressively collectivist” (what is your definition of an objective progressive collectivist)
Can you give me a couple of examples (where the Dem Party practices this type of “collectivism”—the Bailout? More tax cuts??) Unless you mean that the duopoly works to progressively collect taxes from the working classes to distribute between the duopoly parties.
We may “all be Americans” but i can guaran-fricking-tee you that Newy Gingrich’s American is not one you would want to live in. Neither is John Beohner’s—-he is one city over from me. Neither is Orin Hatch’s, Zach Wamp’s.
Where in the world did the Dems get the idea that, when you win all three branches by a landslide, you have to “give”—-the time would be now. Use it or lose it.
Report thisBy F3dB3aR, January 24, 2009 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment
The problem is that we have been using the wrong terminology. We have been speaking about our common interests and concerns in an inappropriate manner. Mr. Obama understands this, Mr. Obama is an objective progressive collectivist. The Democratic Party is now progressively collectivist. The policies and politics of the Republican Party has been that of a rugged individualism and border line fascism on the part of its white majority, which has led us to the point where our economy is in shambles and are people are divided. Thank God he won the election and is in The White House!!!
To unify the country, Barack Obama understands that there is value in appealing to those “conservative” values because it can help achieve progressive ends needed to save the nation. But to move past the stale debates of the past we have to change the way we talk about the issues that have divided us the most us and brings us all together because we are ALL Americans.
Report thisBy wildflower, January 23, 2009 at 10:51 am Link to this comment
Fine assessment, DJ. But if Obama wants America to lead the world by example, it seems to me that we still have a lot more politicians to dump. Realistically, how many politicians do you know in Washington that actually believe in honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism? You’re right though. It is a worthy fight.
Report thisBy KDelphi, January 23, 2009 at 10:26 am Link to this comment
Looking at the polls (for now) it is not terribly important to just keep saying how great Obama is.
It is certainly easier
So what…the majority thinks he is. Time will tell.
A profesor i saw on c-span, today (I missed some of it) was explainng the appeal of Obamas’ “blank slate”—and I think it makes sesne. He is “whatever you think he is or want him to be”. If you want to buy that. If you are looking for a “one-person govt”
I just dont happen to think that the govt can continue its corporate state, not changing our “lifestyles” ,fighting a “vasst netrwork of hate”—and survive.
It is not “all about Obama”—for either side. And, ITW, if you dont stop implying that anyone that disagrees with Obama is a conservative, you will soon realize that yu are mistaken. There are conservatives who come here. There they are.I think that you just think its a trickly little insult.
Well, if there were any true conservatives left, they would be better than a bunch of Blue Dogs and neo-liberals.
Obama is a conservative. Maybe a Blue Dog if he lived in the South.
Report thisBy sal3, January 23, 2009 at 8:01 am Link to this comment
Reading the comments here produces an anxiety-producing mix of hope and despair in me. Hope because of evidence that in some of us the spark of bedrock American values is being fanned to a blaze to light the way to a happy future. Despair comes from evidence that so many are still captives of and deluded by a morally bankrupt regime and they are drawing conclusions led by it’s propaganda machine rather than historical truth and bedrock American values.
I’ve been a history and news buff most of my life and registered, voting Republican for over 50 years. I have now joined the Democrats after years of anguish and activism beginning with the pardon of Richard Nixon. That’s the inception of the malignancy attacking Citizen confidence in Constitutional Accountability, Equal Justice and Equal Protection. That’s the point where Citizen cynicism and apathy began to be exploited by well funded “conservative” (corporatist*) focus groups, think tanks and PAC’s.
To achieve real insight to what we’re dealing with here it is necessary to get familiar with the basics of “Root Cause” or “Prime Cause” Analysis techniques. Thus equipped, review just a handful of issues threatening our democracy today. With some practice, it soon becomes evident that the bulk of the blizzard of problems plaguing Americans today are rooted in just a few Root Causes. The most insidious of them is the Corporatist* infiltration of our American democratic process. Eisenhower alluded to it but the message was lost on a citizenry in recovery from the trauma from debilitating war.
The bottom line for me is that I’ll have to endure the anguish resulting from deluded hate mongers, cynics and wannabe pundits and keep on trucking with thoughts and actions firmly rooted in our Founding Documents and the truths evident my my experiences of history. Obama’s operating philosophy seems to be doing the same and that’s why, even at my advanced age, I am newly inspired and active in support of him.
Report this( * ) “corporatist”; Google or Wikipedia for a good understanding of this important and very apt term
By Leefeller, January 23, 2009 at 7:57 am Link to this comment
Saying something did not happen because someone said they did something postulates and insane argument. I suggest we were not attacked after 911 because Bush had his direct line to his god, when the pope was not busy talking to his god, or could it be thre was a conference call to the same god?
Now, things can be comprised to not happen by actions done, to prove they may not have happened anyway is like saying we were never attacked by the Russians because of our strong resistance? Maybe the Russians did not want to attack us, how does one know? It is in the comprising and the happening, what was done or not done may have nothing to do with it.
So for those believers out their, supposed action taken, happening or not, then result for the grand conclusion does not cut it. Nope, cannot buy it folks.
Report thisBy felicity, January 23, 2009 at 7:00 am Link to this comment
ThinkUBush - I can’t answer the particulars you asked - in other words I’m too lazy to look them up. Some of what you asked are hypotheticals which of course don’t have answers - which is why they’re called hypotheticals.
The over-all question can be looked at this way. Suppose the US was heavily fortified and there was no terrorist attack. Then suppose the US was not fortified and there was no terrorist attack. Each is certainly possible but you can’t have two completely different answers to the same question - why weren’t we attacked - which means the question is pointless.
I get the feeling that, bottom line, you admire some qualities in Bush and think he’s been falsely maligned in some instances, particularly around his handling of terrorism. Whether his methods were right or wrong, it’s impossible to know for sure so they eventually fall into the category of opinion, which is not right or wrong - and why it’s called an opinion. (Hope your eyes haven’t glazed over by now cause this answer is beyond too long.)
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, January 22, 2009 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment
My suggestion to President Obama is that he ignore the right-wing-nuts, OOPS!![/B, I meant LEFT-wing-nuts here at Truthdig and pursue a sane policy based on what he has just stated: A peace plan that is fair to both side—Israeli and Palestinian.
In fact, if he wants to lead successfully, he’ll ignore pretty much everything on this website, and won’t lead us into Socialism, Marxism or the ultra-left’s right-wing ideas (funny how they aren’t much different).
I’m already impressed with this guy. Unlike the folks here, President Obama is clearly grounded in reality, not fantasies induced by dreams based on Marxism.
Report thisBy screamingpalm, January 22, 2009 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment
By TAO Walker, January 22 at 2:34 pm #
Not surprisingly, this “charm offensive” seems to be working quite as expected, witness the overwhelming CONsensus among theamericanpeople that: “Job ONE is fixing the (stupid) economy.”
——————————————————————————-
TAO Walker, so true… so many other issues and causes that need attention, but tending to the selfish greed of this society becomes the priority. Another priority can be looked at as one of selfishness as well, looking at thnkubush’s posts. A desire to feel artificially safe from the desperations of a “terrorist” attack, putting one’s feeling of a false sense of security above the free will of liberty in a society. I guess there’s something to be said about bravery in modern times.
Off Topic:
I have recently realized that I am shamefully lacking in knowledge about American Indian heritage. My limited studies of it does give me a good thirst for more understanding and I have always had a keen interest in it. I have started looking at Dakota philosophy and admire its generosity (assuming what I have read is correct).
Some believe people should learn to speak English if they live in America, and many of those who say that know less about American Indian culture than I (which should be required more than speaking a language imo).
Report thisBy Folktruther, January 22, 2009 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment
Yeah, TAO, I agree. Obama is a public relations con. Hell, he is only black skin deep, raised by a White free spirited mother, and a banker grandmother. White here is a cultural designation, not a biological one. Obama is an embodied public relations stunt.
Not to take anything away from the genuine cultural and political progress of having a non-White in authority. But history sidles forward sideways, like a crab. A little progress in a whole lot of low animality.
It’s true that Dionne is among the worst of the pseudo-progressive truthers but there are very occasionally journalists who can be respected. Pilger, for example, is honest and courageous, and Seymor Hirsh has done good stuff which has entered the mainstream truth.
But in general, you’re right. If there is any argument for dumping the whole mess, you made it. It’s really dispiriting to see people conned so easily. But this has been the historical norm.
Report thisBy ThnkUBush, January 22, 2009 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment
felicity,
I have one other question.
Let us imagine the United States had seen another 9/11 style of attack in the past 7 1/2 years. In your opinion in whom would Bush critics place their blame? Bush himself? Cheney? Rumsfield, Rice, Homeland security?
Where would TruthDig readers place their blame? All of the above in my opinion.
Turn that question on it’s head now.
Report thisIn my opinion there is simply nothing on this earth that will allow these same people to lend credit for preventing such attacks. Most here will continue to vehemently deny anyone working on the problem in the past 7 years deserves credit. It seems petty and small, I know, but, there you have it.
By TAO Walker, January 22, 2009 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment
The mass-media’s well-orchestrated virtual deification of Barack Obama is fully expected, by those presently perpetrating it with such panache, to succeed in the same way (if to a much greater and more portentious degree) as do all of its self-serving exercises in CELEBRITY-generation….and for precisely the same reasons. The artificially (and intended-to-be perpetually) infantile americanpublic just eats this shit up. This particular “personality/product” is obviously meant to have immense cross-over appeal and “marketability” on a “global” scale, too.
Reduce any already CONfused and CONfined population to a mewling mob of passive “CONsumers,” feed its CONtrived appetites on an unending (if highly toxic, in so many ways) “diet” of cheap-thrills and sickening industrial waste products, CONspire to CONstruct CONditions in which the junkies become terrified that their drugs-of-choice might become hard to get or cut-off altogether, then introduce a modern “messiah” and CONvince the suckers he’s just The-Man who can keep the “goodies” coming….if maybe at a CONsiderably higher-price and a CONsistently lower quality and a CONveniently more CONtrolled “supply.” Not surprisingly, this “charm offensive” seems to be working quite as expected, witness the overwhelming CONsensus among theamericanpeople that: “Job ONE is fixing the (stupid) economy.”
E.J. Dionne might be fairly taken-to-task for the banal and cliched shallowness of his “analysis” here, but he sure as hell knows exactly which “side” his own relatively-thick (and so-far probably reliably “daily”) slice of “bread” is buffered-on. Those who eat-drink-and-make-merry by serving the vested-intersts of the plutoligarchy can be counted-on by the rest of us to at least give us occasionally some indication of what those privateering interests are. Asking more of them only betrays the beseechers’ own quaint naivete….and perhaps wistful longing for an earlier age when “journalists” were more Mark Twain- or H.L Mencken- or Sinclair Lewis-like in the sharpness of both their perceptions and their pens. Them days are GONE, Sisters and Brothers.
Some are expressing their hope-filled belief (or maybe faith-based hope) that, even if the new U.S. president is probably the most thoroughly (and artfully) “packaged” politician seen so-far, there is still underneath all the glitter and glam a genuine person with “authentic” experience and down-to-earth “values.” They might even be right. Even if the yearning of the “huddled masses” somehow penetrates the palisade of papered professional experts implanted to keep the wrapping intact, however, and elicits from their “savior” a resonating urge to escape the CONfines of their mutual (if today much differently “furnished”) captivity, they’ll all have a lot of fast growing-up to do if it’s to come to anything but another flash-in-the-pan of fools-gold, in a long line of allamerican get-rich-quick schemes.
To again borrow (loosely) from The Bard, “The fault, tame two-leggeds, lies not in your make-believe “STARS,” but in your even more artificial “selves.” Everybody best get-a-grip here.
Hokahey!
Report thisBy ThnkUBush, January 22, 2009 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment
felicity,
Can you tell me how many documented attempts there have been to attack inside the United States in the past 7 1/2 years? And then wow many were successful?
Are you aware of the number of attempts vs successful attacks against American Embassies and interests around the globe in the past 7 1/2 years?
I believe your premise is flawed. There is indeed a way to measure such matters. It’s been done for thousands of years.
Prior to 2000 the United States treated these attacks as a law enforcement matter while, at the same time, bin Laden was declaring war on the West and specifically the United States.
In 1996 Saddam Hussein released a global communique calling on “All Good Arab Brothers to attack American Interests” around the world (this prompted the U.S. Congress to pass legislation to remove Hussein from Iraq, and in his stead, work to grow a democratic government in Iraq in 1998).
Then there are the Iranians who, and DO NOT let anyone convince you differently, have attacked both Arab and American interests around the globe for many decades.
Questions:
How many successful attacks did the United States see between the years 1992 and 2000? How many between 2000 to today?
In the end which U.S. policy succeeded in preventing the most attacks in and outside the United States? Which policy actually appears to have saved more American lives?
Hint: 9/11 was planned during most of the Clinton years and carried out in the first few months of the Bush years. Both presidents heard all the same warnings.
By all accounts today Usama bin Laden and Zawahiri have lost “operational control” over what they started. How did that happen? Do you believe they simply gave up? Or did something prevent these people from carrying out their plans? You tell me.
Report thisBy troublesum, January 22, 2009 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment
Playing both sides against the middle is called triangulation and Obama learned all about it from Clinton. Dionne is trying to make it sound virtuous and new.
Report thisBy troublesum, January 22, 2009 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment
Every column by Dionne is about getting progressives to support conservative causes. Why is he here? Progressives aren’t confused; he is.
Report thisBy P. T., January 22, 2009 at 11:37 am Link to this comment
With all politicians, don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do.
We won’t have to speculate anymore about what Obama’s policies will be. We’ll get to actually see.
Report thisBy mud, January 22, 2009 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
AS if we aren’t all completely confused, scared and traumatized already by the last 12 years of republican/democratic strides towards totalitarianism.
Report thisBy Folktruther, January 22, 2009 at 10:33 am Link to this comment
Dionne is a fake progressive whose career is based on inducing progressives to support conservative leaders and policies. Here he tries to deceive rnak and file progresswives that Obama is using conservative values to promote progressive policies. This Orwellian statement is exactly the opposite of the truth.
Obama is using progressive rhetoric to continue conservative polices. This morning according to the mainstream media, Obama abolished Guantonomo and torture. Utter bullshit. He may eventually close Gitmos, since it is a symbol for US torture, and CIA torture prisons. He is restricting the CIA to following the Military Handbook.
But the military handbook, written by the Bushites, permits torture, as a number of truthers have pointed out. He excludes following the Geneva Conventions which is the statutory law of the US. He states nothing about the MILITARY prisons and the torture they indulge in. Nor the handing off of captives to client-states to be tortured by them, the so-called Rendition Program. And he merely suspends the CIA torture program, a president can re-instate it at any time.
Both Bush and Obama states that American doens’t torture. Yes, the American power system does, including the torure of American citizens. And Obama will continue the torture program under the quise of stopping it. Exactly the opposite of Dionne’s position, whose task is to obfuscate the simple truth.
Report thisBy felicity, January 22, 2009 at 9:47 am Link to this comment
ThinkUBush - you must have missed the in-depth study done a few years back that resulted in the following: You and yours have LESS of a chance of getting killed by a terrorist bomb, or rampaging airplane, than you and yours have of getting killed by a meteorite - with or without draconian domestic safe-guards.
Your argument that (Truman) and Bush prevented an attack on American soil because there wasn’t one is kind of fallacious. It’s pretty hard, actually impossible to prove something didn’t happen because it didn’t happen.
Report thisBy Ed Harges, January 22, 2009 at 9:33 am Link to this comment
Dionne, what the hell is “progressive” in any sense whatsoever about endorsing Israel’s vicious slaughter in Gaza?
Report thisBy felicity, January 22, 2009 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
Throughout his campaign and in his inaugural speech, Obama has indirectly but assuredly admonished the American people to make it safe for their politicians to do the right thing.
In fact, I can’t remember a president - and I’ve been through a double-digit bunch of them - who so challenged the public to face the fact that in the end the public writes the play and sets the scene in which the politician will ultimately be forced to act.
Report thisBy Shift, January 22, 2009 at 9:10 am Link to this comment
E.J., now is Obama’s Gaza opportunity. Will he use the value of honesty to speak out against the Isreeli slaughter in Gaza?
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175024/tony_karon_obama_s_gaza_opportunity
Report thisBy coloradokarl, January 22, 2009 at 9:08 am Link to this comment
As I comment on various blogs I always try to read the other comments, sometimes over and over. I feel the information will keep me from being stagnate in my thought. Sometimes Thoughts make so much sense to me I sway a little farther than I should but I come back to MY senses. I am starting to get a good feeling about Obama. Just as the “conservatives” grew Government Obama just may shrink our bloated monster. The salary cap and lobbying restrictions he has imposed are a VERY GOOD 1st step.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, January 22, 2009 at 8:42 am Link to this comment
Why, liberalism practically invented the Individual.
Report thisBy KDelphi, January 22, 2009 at 8:20 am Link to this comment
E.J. Dionne—Is this really what you hear “liberals” complaining about??
“Their evidence included Obama’s stout defense of old-fashioned values—“honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism.”
I didnt even think of that—it has been on practically every president’s lips since Washington, in one form or another. It is the old protestant work ethic. And, in a time when jobs are so scarce—is bs!—I was much more concerned about his continuance of the “war on terror”, the comment that, he “wouldnt apologise for our lifestyle and would defend it”,(well, not him personally, I guess—the troops and civilians who happen to get in the way of our “lifestyle”), that partisanship is a “childish thing” (some things are right and some are wrong, E.J.—they are not morelly equivalent to me)
“Finally, American presidents rarely ask explicitly whether “the market is a force for good or ill.”
He did not ASK this—he stated that it was “not a question anymore”.
“This communitarian vision fits poorly with “the stale political arguments” between liberals and conservatives that Obama condemned, because they are really arguments between these two varieties of individualism”
I could not disagree more. TRUE liberalism (which we have not seen since, maybe, Carter, who did all the right things and got blamed for them), has very little to do twith “individualism”, and, you can hardly be more individualistic than “letting rich people spend more of their own money” in a crappy tax cut.
THNKUBush—Obama is wrong now. Bush was always wrong. Obama may have a chance to get it right. Bush never will. I hope the ghosts haunt him to his grave.
Report thisBy Leefeller, January 22, 2009 at 7:28 am Link to this comment
Ah! The enlightening smell of elephant dung.
Report thisBy Little Brother, January 22, 2009 at 6:29 am Link to this comment
Obama seems a bit of a prig, and the sanctimonious “work ethic” cant doesn’t help.
He’s all Superego. Can he transform 21st Century Amerika into one vast Jamestown Colony?
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, January 22, 2009 at 6:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thankyoubush:
An old northeasterner once opined:
“Those who would sacrifice their liberty, for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security.”
Franklin also said:
“The Republic will fail when people find they can vote themselves money.”
While I agree with you that the unreasoned demonizing of Bush has gotten way out of hand (As an athiest I voted against him twice) I question the necessity of having a government of nannies. This nation was based on self sufficency, and I don’t believe treating the population like helpless infants is productive. BUT Bush isn’t alone it his quest for ABSOLUTE safety. I’m glad I grew up when you could ride (as a child) on the back of a hay truck, go bicycling without a helmet, and hike up the mountains without a cell phone and a global positioning devise. I even talked to strangers when I was a boy, made a bunch of friends that way, and never got hurt.
Bush isn’t wasn’t the problem, and the cock-sure liberals on this site will soon find that Obama’s 512 campaign promises are not worth spit. Our problems are far larger than any one man can correct, but our country is also far to complex for one man to destroy..
Report thisBy ThnkUBush, January 22, 2009 at 4:06 am Link to this comment
Abroad, Bush has had three major successes.
We were not attacked after 9/11, despite serial warnings that such a comparable terrorist assault was inevitable. Bush created a new methodology of anti-terrorism. In magnitude and comprehensiveness (though unfortunately not in explication), it was analogous to Truman’s similarly controversial promotion of anti-Soviet containment that proved successful for the subsequent near half-century.
For all the rhetoric about Bush’s manufactured war on terror, today it is much more difficult — as the dozens of failed plots during the last seven years attest — to pull off a terrorist act inside the United States. War abroad and new anti-terrorism vigilance at home have decimated those who would wage such attacks.
Even Obama recognizes the success of these measures. We can see this well enough with the president-elect’s shifting positions on FISA, renditions, the Patriot Act, Guantánamo, and withdrawal from Iraq (once envisioned by Obama to be completed by March 2008). Bob Gates II won’t be that different from Bob Gates I at Defense; Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State will be far closer to Condoleezza Rice than to Howard Dean or Al Gore. Gen. James L. Jones could easily have served as national security adviser in the Bush administration. Hamas and other Palestinian groups will probably not get better actual treatment from Obama than they got from Bush — just some soothing rhetoric about dialogue and engagement rather than dead-or-alive, smoke-’em-out lingo. Add all the foreign-policy alignments up, and either Bush was right then, or Obama is wrong now.
Report this