January 30, 2013
The Lobotomized Democratic Base
Chuck Spinney is spot on here
. U.S. foreign policy always flows from domestic policies which again are determined by bribes and some cultural quirks. Nothing good can come from such a construct:
American politics continues to repeat the practice of buying domestic power by inflicting misery and destruction on third world nations. In my view, Obama’s own contribution to statecraft in this regard has been his ability to lobotomize almost the entire Democratic base. The same people who were screaming about Bush’s illegal wars, unconstitutional surveillance, lack of due process, etc., are now silent or singing Obama’s greatness.
The Republican party, with a few exceptions, is so visibly crazy that they have become an indispensable foil that permits Obama to govern as he does. The conventional wisdom of liberals is that Obama’s heart is in the right place, but he is conflict averse and therefore must govern as a centrist (really a center-rightist), because the GOP is crazy and intransigent. But in reality, Obama actually is a center-rightist who uses his image as a diffident compromiser as a cloak to hide his pro-corporatocracy given aways. And because most people prefer center-right governance to out-and-out fascism, the GOP plays an essential role as a “bad cop” to the center-right “good cop,” which is why Democrats went along with Obama’s plan to enshrine the Bush tax cuts for the bottom 99.3%, and a huge giveaway on the estate tax, in perpetuity. My fear is that, in the same way, Democrats will go along with Obama’s inflated defense budgets and his permanent conflict foreign policy.
I recommend the whole piece: The Afghan Endgame…and Where It Will Lead
Posted by b on January 30, 2013 at 02:34 AM | Permalink
yep. and this is the balance sheet.
"I see China, on balance, playing a positive role. On the security front, nobody wanted to see a rising Chinese military power intervening in Afghanistan .... On the economic front, China bought a huge chunk of US government debt, which in turn financed US military intervention in Afghanistan ... China is also an inspiring, market-friendly role model for developing countries in the region."
Dr Leif Rosenberger
Economic Advisor, US Central Command
"China will be a net economic winner upon a US withdrawal. But so what?"
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Posted by: somebody | Jan 30, 2013 5:10:19 AM | 1
in my state, Dem loyalists are lining up to defend reelecting Max Baucus, our POS senator who sold out the US public to the corporate "health" parasites and recently helped stuff the fiscal cliff porker bill with a giveaway to the biotech company Amgen.
US democrats are despicable creatures.
Posted by: lizard | Jan 30, 2013 9:49:39 AM | 2
Excellent article b, thanks. This "good cop, bad cop" scenario put forward by Mr. Spinney, is, I believe, right on target. It explains totally, the frustration expressed by the U.S.Progressive community with the behavior of the Democratic party. With few exceptions, Democrats & Republicans are two sides of the same coin.
Posted by: ben | Jan 30, 2013 10:22:36 AM | 3
I don't get this American speculations about this or that politician and if he is good or bad. Governments are there to make legal compromises between the powers in society. And if the only ones that bother to engage are the business sector, compromises will be carried out between businesses.
A hundred years ago, people also engaged. They formed trade unions, they formed cooperative associations, they formed the most diverse associations with the aim to inform public policy. Today, people seem only be able to organise websites. And websites are not that powerful. They can't strike, for example.
We have the politicians we deserve. Even Franklin Roosevelt was an opportunist. But he had to deal with workers occupying big businesses. So he had to support legislation favouring workers at least somewhat. He wouldn't if the workers of the 30s had been as meak as those today.
In sum: As long as politics is the precinct of business and to a small degree of the upper middle class, you will have to face politicians like Bush and Obama. Break into it, and you will have better politicians, almost automatically.
Posted by: Jan Wiklund | Jan 30, 2013 11:18:31 AM | 6
the article is a big, unedited mess. If I received this from the student, I would give it a C-.
There is no way that Obama can do anything about the military. That's a structural problem that no single president can reform.
Also, thank you for the Nir Rosen speech. He basically refutes 90% of everything you've written about Syria over the past year and a half. Rosen also refutes everything that the intolerable scold " angry Arab" has said in embarrassing public denouncement of Rosen's earlier assessments of especially the situation in Homs.
Posted by: slothrop | Jan 30, 2013 12:18:21 PM | 7
actually, "angry Arab" has proven to be an enormously unreliable resource.
Posted by: slothrop | Jan 30, 2013 12:19:34 PM | 9
@6, You've been reading too many comic books Jim, Rebel without a cause
Posted by: ruralito | Jan 30, 2013 12:25:55 PM | 10
lol, slowthrob has found his way to our little corner of the webiverse. MOA is officialy hasbara-worthy! Congrats, b!
Posted by: ruralito | Jan 30, 2013 1:50:33 PM | 11
Yeah,the Zioliars show up anywhere some truth is told,as the truth is their mortal enemy.
What's up with Israel and this new provocation of Syrian and Lebanese sovereignty,silence by our intrepid MSM?Or hyping the Hezbollah terror angle?Arrogance combined with honor free actions,but what else is new?
And Mali,the pink washing and library treasure angle from scum who wouldn't care one whit if these alleged atrocities happened where they couldn't finger Islamic terrorists.And the violence and scope of resistance in our world to the thugs of the west intensifies,and as from the head of Zeus,the Magreb materializes as a real threat,instead of a once imaginary one.Machiavellian to the extreme neh?
Posted by: dahoit | Jan 30, 2013 2:07:55 PM | 12
Interesting article, the best part, in my opinion being the end, when the author describes the dem-rep good-cop bad cop routine.
My main gripe with this article is the same gripe I have with a lot of analysis in the msm that goes a bit deeper than the usual propaganda spiel. This is, I'll put it in medical terms, trying to decipher what is ailing the patient by postulating that the symptoms of the disease are battling amongst each other and then basing the "cure" on stopping the symptoms fighting amongst themselves. The disease causing the symptoms being ignored entirely.
One needs to address the fact that Israel-America (NWO) seeks total world dominance to understand why military budgets remain astronomical. Why the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, and refuses to leave. Why the U.S. is belligerent towards China. It isn't because military contractors bribe congress trough feeders. Or because Afghan puppets are playing the USA like a toy to enrich themselves. These are symptoms of the disease. The "disease" is NWO full spectrum dominance strategy, and the "symptoms" are all their businesses, policy wonks, politicians, media outlets, etc. working together to achieve that. Yes, there are squabbles amongst these, but those are minor turf differences, they are all on the same message and they all work to further NWO strategy.
Posted by: вот так | Jan 30, 2013 2:25:07 PM | 13
"There is no way that Obama can do anything about the military. That's a structural problem that no single president can reform."
It's emperor's job to keep his generals in line. If generals are too powerful they become warlords.
Posted by: nikon | Jan 30, 2013 3:10:04 PM | 14
which I guess is why Obama decapitated Petraeus.
Posted by: nikon | Jan 30, 2013 3:13:04 PM | 15
Not just a review of a sick propaganda film, or expose of Moore's shallowness and greed, this is a very good review of what ails much of America.
Propagandizing for the Propagandist
Michael Moore, Inc.
"...Then let’s proceed to Al-Qaeda, and Bin-Laden, whom Moore conveniently relegates to the PAST of US government (CIA, etc.) involvement. Once again pure concocted fairy-tales on the part of Moore. Well after Afghanistan (at the time of the creation of Al-Qaeda0, in the former Yugoslavia, the US used Al-Qaeda connected assets against the legitimate government of Yugoslavia and then Serbia, as one of its many prongs in the strategy to destabilize and break-up that country (since judging from this essay Moore’s reading in political affairs seems to be non-existent, let me recommend Diana Johnstone’s work and research in that general area, as well as many more specific articles relating to the Al-Qaeda and fundamentalist asset connection, should he ever decide to read anything more than Obama’s self-promotional literature…), the clear precursor, along with the Contra strategy in Central America, to the US – NATO aggression, terrorist destabilization, etc. pursued under Obama in Libya first and now in Syria (with its ultimate targets being Iran, Russia and China). Not only is the US fully cognizant of the role of these groups, but given its past ties, it is just completely non-credible that those have been completely severed (yes, talk is easy, and in “intelligence-speak” it is called ‘plausible deniability”, though of course for those with a minimum of savvy in foreign affairs and some time to read, there isn’t much that’s plausible about it….), and in fact it is far from a coincidence that Al-Qaeda is such a convenient dual-purpose tool: deniable asset in current state-terrorist destabilization programs, and much inflated “bugaboo monster” to continue pursuing the War on Terror, whose ultimate real objective is the complete dismantling of the Constitution and the nation as a “country of laws” domestically. Al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist groups/assets are used by the US and its “allies”/proxies in NATO etc. also in countries like Chechnya, etc. Let me add that Moore’s trying to pretend the “War on Terror” pretext and charade was something just being pursued under the W administration, and that it is not just as vigorously pursued (of course its real objectives being those just stated above, not those sold to the public under propaganda pretences…) under Obama is just as patently false and ridiculous as the rest of his essay. In fact the drone escalation is precisely a CONTINUATION and EXPANSION of that “War on Terror” which remains just as undefined and obviously a pretext for ever increasing totalitarian Kontrol by the National Security State..."
Posted by: вот так | Jan 30, 2013 4:07:28 PM | 16
13 Bot--maybe holding to metaphors and analogy are limited in their value. Try simply discussing the thing itself.
...slop-plop, you've got to support your inane and sweeping allegations. Your bare assertions do not follow and are self serving and specious.
Posted by: scottindallas | Jan 31, 2013 9:31:37 AM | 17
Guys and Gals, it is simple, Oil and minerals, why make it complex, in fact those complexities are the very ruse...
Posted by: Kev | Jan 31, 2013 10:24:22 AM | 18
kev 18 oil guys like a nice stable Dictatorships, not nasty little militocraries.
nikon 15 Notice Patraeus scandal hit about the same time as Hilary announced she was retiring as secretary of state. Coincidence? whos to say
Jan 6. unfortunately for your thesis about people getting engaged and forming trade unions. On the contrary, big business used unions to to put smaller, more efficent competition out of business, see Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism.
Obama is the perfect example of 51% of the public thinking he is with them by allowing them to project on to him any sort of value they like, while in reality, only those who pay, can play.
Posted by: heath | Jan 31, 2013 2:30:35 PM | 19
The ludicrous fiction that Obama is a “good guy” at heart is all that shelters the bankrupt liberal class from the dark reality of national security state America. We are a nation that has been taught to admire our secret police and fear anyone who challenges authority. Public opinion increasingly favors the torture of captives, travelers meekly line up to be body scanned; and the silence of notionally liberal institutions (universities, media, and the church) is deafening.
Much of this evisceration of American liberalism was accomplished by smiling Barak Obama: the destruction of the anti-war movement; the suppression of whistle-blowers; the enrichment of Wall Street criminals at public expense; and the abandonment of regulatory law enforcement. Behold our great liberal President. When comes such another?
Posted by: Cynthia | Jan 31, 2013 2:48:29 PM | 20