Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Obama a Weakling?

On this blog I wrestled with the idea that Obama was a manufactured creation, pulled out of nowhere by the real political masters of U.S.-America to convince jaded, angry, disillusioned USian voters that electoral politics in their country was still meaningful.

I'd decided that nobody is that smart. No group of people in the USA is that powerful. I decided that Obama is just what he appears to be at first glance. A charismatic African-American politician who has learned how to play the game (which for him includes soaring, but vague, rhetoric and a devotion to the status-quo of an outsider wanting to get in) who has found himself in the right place at the right time.

But I've been confounded by the mindless absurdity and excess of his latest behaviour. Most notably his stated desire to go around Congress and to justify "preventative [or prolonged] detention" through an Executive Order, and thereby assert an expansion of presidential power that even bush II couldn't have dreamt of. This desire to create a dangerously powerful, practically lawless emperor out of the office of president seems especially bizarre given the rag-tag, relatively tiny threat of terrorism.

Obama is not so stupid that he shivers in fear at night, worried that he might find himself surrendering to Osama bin-Laden in the Oval Office one day. He's smart enough to know about the excessiveness of his claims to power for the USian political-legal system. Why should he pursue this? He must know that the majority of the US-American population is opposed to this. He must know that the "serious" political-media class in the United States are the same tiny, unrepresentative nitwits who yammered stupidly about flag-pin lapels during the election. Why would he pursue this (among other) absurdities?

I asked this of my partner "ephemeral" and she speculated that he's a weak man, beholden to others and indifferent to how stupid or unpopular their desires are with the voting public. And that actually seems the most plausible thesis. Their is a corporate elite in the USA that desires bailouts for the private sector, continued health for the private insurance industry, oppressive laws against protest and terrifying powers of suppression ("first they came for the Muslims") and on and on, and they've picked Obama to continue to shove this down the throat of the US-American electorate. "Brand Obama" is just that, and he's done a good job of fooling millions of people into believing that politics matters and that they have a (potential, at least) friend in the Democratic Party. They picked Obama out as an attractive package to sell a very toxic product and allowed him to win the presidency. In return, Obama is beholden to them, and he's more a fanatical game-player than an idealist, so he's willing to do these nauseating things to please the power-brokers even if it obviously antagonizes the people he played (the voters) to get the actual votes that won him the presidency.

Can he wake up? It doesn't matter. Electoral politics in the USA are completely bankrupt and useless anyway. The only good Obama is capable of doing is exposing this truth so that even more USian voters learn to abandon their vain hopes and think of some other way to redeem their country.

10 comments:

Todd said...

"A charismatic African-American politician who has learned how to play the game"

"he's a weak man, beholden to others and indifferent to how stupid or unpopular their desires are with the voting public"

"Can he wake up?"

You and your partner seem to be assuming he's a weak, pliable sort (inferring that, if he only had some backbone, he'd "do the right thing") who can't stop what he's doing. Unfortunately, the man believes in what he's doing: he publically pissed all over the 60s for its evil radicalism and considers Reagan one of his heroes.

Nothing about his actions suggests he wants to do anything more than what he's been doing.

thwap said...

I can't believe that he thinks terrorism is a genuine threat requiring these invasions of civil liberties.

If he's systemically and personally committed to destroying bourgeois liberties then how did they arise in the first place?

And none of my reply means that I don't agree with you that he genuinely likes Reagan.

Todd said...

He's not "destroying bourgeois liberties" any more than any other president or congress who passed or strengthened laws to "maintain order". Think of the repression of the 30s, loyalty oaths under Democrats, "free speech zones", etc.

So long as he doesn't infringe on "important stuff" like money-making, the rest is an easy pass for the ruling class. The more liberal among them might mutter, but I can't imagine an outpouring of demands he desist from the group as a whole.

thwap said...

I don't see Obama as a progressive knight in shining armour who is suffering from a lack of nerve. I'm not saying that if Obama only grew a spine he wouldn't be doing these things.

I'm saying that I find Obama too intelligent to believe this crapola about the titanic threat of Islamic fundamentalist terror justifying flushing all legal principles down the toilet. I'm also saying that Obama must be smart enough to know that he's not only betraying his base (again) but he's endangering their crucial support to an extent that previous betrayals never reached. I think he's got brains enough to know that all of these actions are going to destroy electoral support for the Democratic Party if he persists.

I believe that he's doing this because he's being told to do it. I don't think he's as autonomous as Cheney was. I'm saying he's a manufactured product, who has his own opinions, but that these have to take a back-seat to what those behind his meteoric rise want.

The extent of his submission to them, the extent of his own autonomy are what should be questioned. So far as "progressive" values go, I'd say that Obama is a centrist Democrat. And that of an outsider wanting in. He believes in the system he now manages.

He's pro-insurance on healtcare.

He's homophobic.

He's for a more moderate and modest Israeli expansionism.

He's for imperial adventures, but he thinks Iraq was an expensive mistake.

He's anti-union.

He's pro-Wall Street.

etc., etc., ... all I'm saying is that he doesn't believe that Islamic terrorism justifies the wholesale assault on civil rights that he proposes. He's just carrying out this assault under orders.

Alison said...

Lots of people have nicer manners and are more whole as human beings than their job requires; what surprises is that people were so taken with his job interview.
The job is still the job.

Todd said...

"I find Obama too intelligent to believe this crapola about the titanic threat of Islamic fundamentalist terror justifying flushing all legal principles down the toilet."

Maybe. Intelligent people do some stupid shit at times.

(And I don't think we know for sure if BushCo. really believed it either.)

"I'm also saying that Obama must be smart enough to know that he's not only betraying his base (again)"

Depends who his base really is. Lots of centrist types who got tired of Bush and saw a potential black president might have switched their vote for that reason alone ie to help make history as well get rid of someone smelling bad.

After Reagan and Bush Sr., wasn't there all kinds of optimism about Bill Clinton?

thwap said...

Alison,

Oh yeah, the USA is still the USA, and as president you wouldn't expect him to be anything better than Roosevelt or Johnson, who were both enthusiastic imperialists. (And Canada is still Canada and we can't expect a PM to really deliver for the majority and to not kow-tow to the USA.) At the same time, the sheer stupidity of Obama's GWOT and economic policies is disappointing, even for me.

Todd,

I hear you on Clinton. He sucked right up on NAFTA early on, ... same way as Obama pushed the bail-out bill through during the election. I guess with Obama, I can tell there's some intelligence there and it's disappointing to hear him mouth such dangerously stupid things about the threat of terrorism.

Abuabasabat said...

What's a "USian"?

Todd said...

A resident of the USA.

Todd said...

Some interesting commentary on Obama vis-a-vis Wall Street elites:

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2009/07/express/ka-pow-bang-crash-down-goes-another-bubble