Log in

View Full Version : Nader Was Right: Liberals are Going Nowhere With Obama



Ben
08-11-2009, 12:21 AM
Published on Monday, August 10, 2009 by TruthDig.com
Nader Was Right: Liberals are Going Nowhere With Obama

by Chris Hedges

The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama. It kills as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury to enrich the corporate elite as rapaciously. It will not give us universal health care, abolish the Bush secrecy laws, end torture or “extraordinary rendition,” restore habeas corpus or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of citizens. It will not push through significant environmental reform, regulate Wall Street or end our relationship with private contractors that provide mercenary armies to fight our imperial wars and produce useless and costly weapons systems.

The sad reality is that all the well-meaning groups and individuals who challenge our permanent war economy and the doctrine of pre-emptive war, who care about sustainable energy, fight for civil liberties and want corporate malfeasance to end, were once again suckered by the Democratic Party. They were had. It is not a new story. The Democrats have been doing this to us since Bill Clinton. It is the same old merry-go-round, only with Obama branding. And if we have not learned by now that the system is broken, that as citizens we do not matter to our political elite, that we live in a corporate state where our welfare and our interests are irrelevant, we are in serious trouble. Our last hope is to step outside of the two-party system and build movements that defy the Democrats and the Republicans. If we fail to do this we will continue to undergo a corporate coup d’etat in slow motion that will end in feudalism.

We owe Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party an apology. They were right. If a few million of us had had the temerity to stand behind our ideals rather than our illusions and the empty slogans peddled by the Obama campaign we would have a platform. We forgot that social reform never comes from accommodating the power structure but from frightening it. The Liberty Party, which fought slavery, the suffragists who battled for women’s rights, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement knew that the question was not how do we get good people to rule—those attracted to power tend to be venal mediocrities—but how do we limit the damage the powerful do to us. These mass movements were the engines for social reform, the correctives to our democracy and the true protectors of the rights of citizens. We have surrendered this power. It is vital to reclaim it. Where is the foreclosure movement? Where is the robust universal health care or anti-war movement? Where is the militant movement for sustainable energy?

“Something is broken,” Nader said when I reached him at his family home in Connecticut. “We are not at the Bangladesh level in terms of passivity, but we are getting there. No one sees anything changing. There is no new political party to give people a choice. The progressive forces have no hammer. When they abandoned our campaign they told the Democrats we have nowhere to go and will take whatever you give us. The Democrats are under no heat in the electoral arena from the left.

“There comes a point when the public imbibes the ultimatum of the plutocracy,” Nader said when asked about public apathy. “They have bought into the belief that if it protests it will be brutalized by the police. If they have Muslim names they will be subjected to Patriot Act treatment. This has scared the hell out of the underclass. They will be called terrorists.

“This is the third television generation,” Nader said. “They have grown up watching screens. They have not gone to rallies. Those are history now. They hear their parents and grandparents talk about marches and rallies. They have little toys and gizmos that they hold in their hands. They have no idea of any public protest or activity. It is a tapestry of passivity.

“They have been broken,” Nader said of the working class. “How many times have their employers threatened them with going abroad? How many times have they threatened the workers with outsourcing? The polls on job insecurity are record-high by those who have employment. And the liberal intelligentsia have failed them. They [the intellectuals] have bought into carping and making lecture fees as the senior fellow at the institute of so-and-so. Look at the top 50 intelligentsia—not one of them supported our campaign, not one of them has urged for street action and marches.”

Our task is to build movements that can act as a counterweight to the corporate rape of America. We must opt out of the mainstream. We must articulate and stand behind a viable and uncompromising socialism, one that is firmly and unequivocally on the side of working men and women. We must give up the self-delusion that we can influence the power elite from the inside. We must become as militant as those who are seeking our enslavement. If we remain passive as we undergo the largest transference of wealth upward in American history, our open society will die. The working class is being plunged into desperation that will soon rival the misery endured by the working class in China and India. And the Democratic Party, including Obama, is a willing accomplice.

“Obama is squandering his positive response around the world,” Nader said. “In terms of foreign and military policy it is a distinct continuity with Bush. Iraq, Afghanistan, the militarization of foreign policy, the continued expansion of the Pentagon budget and pursuing more globalized trade agreements are the same.”

This is an assessment that neoconservatives now gleefully share. Eliot A. Cohen, writing in The Wall Street Journal, made the same pronouncement.

“Mostly, though, the underlying structure of the policy remains the same,” Cohen wrote in an Aug. 2 opinion piece titled “What’s Different About the Obama Foreign Policy.” “Nor should this surprise us: The United States has interests dictated by its physical location, its economy, its alliances, and above all, its values. Naive realists, a large tribe, fail to understand that ideals will inevitably guide American foreign policy, even if they do not always determine it. Moreover, because the Obama foreign and defense policy senior team consists of centrist experts from the Democratic Party, it is unlikely to make radically different judgments about the world, and about American interests in it, than its predecessors.”

Nader said that Obama should gradually steer the country away from imperial and corporate tyranny.

“You don’t just put out policy statements of congeniality but statements of gradual redirection,” Nader said. “You incorporate in that statement not just demilitarization, not just ascension of smart diplomacy, but the enlargement of the U.S. as a humanitarian superpower, and cut out these Soviet-era weapons systems and start rapid response for disaster like earthquakes and tsunamis. You expand infectious disease programs which the U.N. Developmental Commission says can be done for $50 billion a year in Third World countries on nutrition, minimal health care and minimal shelter.”

Obama has expanded the assistance to our class of Wall Street extortionists through subsidies, loan guarantees and backup declarations to banks such as Citigroup. His stimulus package does not address the crisis in our public works infrastructure; instead it doles out funds to Medicaid and unemployment compensation. There will be no huge public works program to remodel the country. The president refuses to acknowledge the obvious—we can no longer afford our empire.

“Obama could raise a call to come home, America, from the military budget abroad,” Nader suggested. “He could create a new constituency that does not exist because everything is so fragmented, scattered, haphazard and slapdash with the stimulus. He could get the local labor unions, the local Chambers of Commerce and the mayors to say the more we cut the military budget the more you get in terms of public works.”

“They [administration leaders] don’t see the distinction between public power and corporate power,” Nader said. “This is their time in history to reassert public values represented by workers, consumers, taxpayers and communities. They are creating a jobless recovery, the worst of the worst, with the clear specter of inflation on the horizon. We are heading for deep water.”

The massive borrowing acts as an anesthetic. It prevents us from facing the new limitations we must learn to cope with domestically and abroad. It allows us to live in the illusion that we are not in a state of irrevocable crisis, that our decline is not real and that catastrophe has been averted. But running the national debt can work only so long.

“No one can predict the future,” Nader added hopefully. “No one knows the variables. No one predicted the move on tobacco. No one predicted gay rights. No one predicted the Berkeley student rebellion. The students were supine. You never know what will light the fire. You have to keep the pressure on. I know only one thing for sure, the whole liberal-progressive constituency is going nowhere.”
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C.

Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, What Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

scroller
08-11-2009, 12:37 AM
"Our last hope is to step outside of the two-party system and build movements that defy the Democrats and the Republicans."

This is mathematically impossible in our electoral system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

raybbaby
08-11-2009, 12:55 AM
This seems like a big "duh" statement to me. All the screaming about how "liberal" Obama was and would be was totally ridiculous to anyone who knows what that word means. He was a center-right candidate, and will be a center right president. The "conversation" that should be going on in this country about the best way forward isn't even happening. Instead we've been split or led to believe we are split into two distinct factions, too busy screaming at each other to make any kind of real progress. Neither party is serving the people they are supposed to. And many who consider themselves "politically aware" are too busy cheerleading for what they perceive to be "their" team to realise they are not being served by their government, but are having their country, land and liberty alike, sold off to multi-national corporate interests.

raybbaby
08-11-2009, 01:07 AM
One man that has a mind and knows it can always beat ten men who haven't and don't.—George Bernard Shaw

bothways
08-11-2009, 02:14 AM
If Nader is screaming he's too conservative and Limbaugh is barking that he's too liberal then I think he may be just about right.

Obama is far from ideal but Nader is a nut who would be a disaster in power.

Beagle
08-11-2009, 02:19 AM
left, right, liberal, fascist, blah, blah.

all i know is that he's spending money we don't have.

he's pushing for stuff i don't believe in.

and he shoots his mouth off when he doesn't know the facts.

let's face it - he's only in office because so many people hated bush (left and right).

Rogers
08-11-2009, 03:16 AM
Did anyone honestly believe that one guy could really change things? :lol: People tend to get the governments they deserve. Our politicians are reflections of ourselves. America is the mob, and the mob has it's bread and circuses for now.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/209728/?searchterm=About+Last+Night...

Obama's 100 days - the mad men did well
by John Pilger
"Much of the American establishment loathed Bush and Cheney for exposing, and threatening, the onward march of America’s “grand design”, as Henry Kissinger, war criminal and now Obama adviser, calls it. In advertising terms, Bush was a “brand collapse” whereas Obama, with his toothpaste advertisement smile and righteous clichés, is a godsend. At a stroke, he has seen off serious domestic dissent to war, and he brings tears to the eyes, from Washington to Whitehall. He is the BBC’s man, and CNN’s man, and Murdoch’s man, and Wall Street’s man, and the CIA’s man. The Madmen did well."
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=530

Same as it ever was...
http://doomsteaddiary.blogspot.com/2009/08/doomstead-junkebox-once-in-lifetime-by.html

chefmike
08-11-2009, 03:17 PM
We owe Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party an apology.

What a crock.

techi
08-11-2009, 07:53 PM
Personally I have a lot of respect for Cynthia McKinney. She was gerrymandered out of Congress because she doesn't goosestep to party leadership.

chefmike
08-11-2009, 08:19 PM
Personally I have a lot of respect for Cynthia McKinney. She was gerrymandered out of Congress because she doesn't goosestep to party leadership.

Gerrymandering works both ways:

In 1991 Cynthia McKinney was given a seat on the committee responsible for redrawing Georgia's congressional districts, some of which were gerrymandered to guarantee the election of African Americans. In 1992 McKinney ran and won in one of those gerrymandered districts -- the 11th -- which she had helped design.

However she did manage to get re-elected:

In 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 11th District was an unconstitutional gerrymander because its boundaries had been drawn exclusively on the basis of race. Consequently, McKinney's district was reconfigured and renumbered as the 4th District. Notwithstanding this change, McKinney easily won re-election to Congress in the subsequent elections of 1996, 1998, and 2000.

Although I agree with a good deal of her voting record, unfortunately she became an embarrassment and a laughingstock due to her antics and affiliations...

Her popularity waned further as a result of several additional factors: (a) her implication that President Bush, with foreknowledge that the 9/11 attacks were imminent, had knowingly permitted the attacks to take place because of the financial and political benefits they would bring him; (b) the fact that she had taken large political campaign contributions from Muslim advocacy groups such as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; (c) the support she had happily accepted from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan; (d) her use of New Black Panther Party personnel as security guards; and (e) indications that some of her closest aides were anti-Semitic. (In November 2001, for instance, a member of her congressional staff, Raeed Tayeh, criticized "these pro-Israeli lawmakers [who] sit on the House International Relations Committee despite the obvious conflict of interest that their emotional attachments to Israel cause"; he added that "the Israeli occupation of all territories must end, including Congress."

The foregoing controversies caused McKinney to lose her congressional seat (to DeKalb County judge Denise Majette) in the 2002 Democratic primary.

At this point, McKinney took a position as Visiting Professor at Cornell University. Wrote Cornell Professor Emeritus Peter Swartz: "The selection of Cynthia McKinney as a … professor is an affront to the intellectualism of Cornell University. Ms. McKinney is a racist and anti-Semite of the first rank. If she were white and male, she would be David Duke. It is unfortunate that the selection committee was so open minded that its collective brain fell on floor."


And so on....

techi
08-11-2009, 08:20 PM
If Nader is screaming he's too conservative and Limbaugh is barking that he's too liberal then I think he may be just about right.

Obama is far from ideal but Nader is a nut who would be a disaster in power.

If you split the difference between two nuts then don't you still end up with a nut? :lol:

I don't see how Rush Limbaugh is a gauge on much of anything. If Hitler was reborn as a Democrat we'd have Limbaugh screaming that he was too Liberal. The man has a standard playbook, just insert the talking points of the day and out comes the standard dittohead propaganda. His entire radio show is so predictable that it could be replaced by a computer program.

trish
08-12-2009, 12:42 AM
Unfortunately the nuts can shape political possibilities. An example is health care. Rush tells his zombies to shout down public debate, bring guns and do harm if necessary. As a result of the ruckus, newsmen are actually claiming the public is backing out of their mandate for public health care. Come September you can bet the politicians will respond to the reportage, oblivious to the actual will of the people.

I knew from the beginning that Obama was a centrist. On the issue of health care, I don’t think a more liberal president would be doing any better against this crowd of ignoramuses, media manipulators and foot draggers. The right simply does not want health care reform and they’re going to do anything to defeat it.