Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 1, 2008
A Voting Criteria: The Ability To Change

William Pfaff’s view is usually pretty spot on. I agree with his take on the election.

There are two major issues relevant he says. The economy and foreign policy. I would add Supreme Court seats as a long-term very important issue.

On the economy Obama’s team is simply better than McCain’s ideological ‘free marketers’.

On foreign policy Obama and McCain are very much of the same track and likely to do the same stupid things. But the real question might be who will learn faster:

The fundamental question that should be put to the candidates is whether they are committed to a program of continuing American unilateral military and political interventions in the Muslim world intended to make despotic and “failed” states into democracies on good terms with the United States. They undoubtedly would both say yes.

That’s too bad for the rest of us, who will be among those paying the price. Such a policy is the conventional wisdom in Washington, and certainly that of the array of former Clinton advisers so far reported as associated with Obama. The people publicly connected with McCain are all or nearly all survivors of the neo-conservative wing of the Bush administration (and not the brightest lights among the neo-cons either).

They all seem determined to press forward with the democracy offensive of the discredited Bush administration. Naturally they intend to make a better job of it, having noticed that under Bush the record thus far consists exclusively of failures.

Since the candidates currently seem agreed on this policy, the final
question is not who would do it better, but which of them would be
quickest to realize that it is impossible.
Intelligence isn’t
everything; but Obama is seriously smart and seems to have common sense
as well.

That argument should be thought through by people on the in the possible swing states, who have decided not to vote for Obama. The chance that he may learn that the current failed program of U.S. hegemony must end is certainly there. I think that is a decisive point. If things get really as bad as I expect and he gets enough pressure from ‘the street’ he may tip into that direction.

Comments

“The chance that [Obama] may learn that the current failed program of U.S. hegemony must end is certainly there.” Even if Obama does learn this, who will break the news to the rabid xenophobes that make up much of the electorate and of the punditocracy? And then who will break the news to the merchants of death and their waves of lobbyists and stink tanks in Washington?

Posted by: JohnH | Nov 1 2008 16:41 utc | 1

Reality will breaks it to the people. For me, the key question is which candidate will *not* go postal when the collapse of the empire will come. We know it’s possible, it happened with USSR; though history shows that going away peacefully (at least internationally speaking, because internally, huge suffering is unavoidable) is quite a rare occurrence for failing empires.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Nov 1 2008 17:11 utc | 2

If Obama is as seriously smart as we think he is, on Wednesday he should start telling people how seriously fucked the situation is in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the economy. By January it will be too late.

Posted by: biklett | Nov 1 2008 17:50 utc | 3

William Pfaff:
Intelligence isn’t everything; but Obama is seriously smart and seems to have common sense as well.
Thank you. Good that one doesn’t have to be Black to recognize that Obama is “seriously smart”. Him & Bill Clinton are pretty much par in raw smartness. Bill is quicker on his feet. Obama’s the more out-of-the-box thinker.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 1 2008 17:53 utc | 4

Pfaff is right about the foreign policy, which is why foreignors like me sometimes see nothing to choose between the two.
But he is wrong – or writing in code, using a euphemism for ‘reaction’ – about the learning process. Obama knows it is impossible. More clearly said, he knows no positive results of any kind will be forthcoming (except feeding the military complex, perhaps maintaining US hegemony..) So the question is, not how quickly Obama will learn, but how he will be able to resist, counter, fight, manipulate, cut off, the forces that want, and feel they need, to keep the US not only at war, but dominating with military bases, and other stuff we all know about.
He may not even wish to try. Or may consider it a lost cause, an impossible task. May fool himself into thinking that he will try slowly and sneakily but then sort of set it aside. Or, see the impossibility but be unable, in his own mind, to create any bridges between the present situation and a better one. Lastly, it is possible that he is simply an upstart pol, with only one overriding interest, his own power. As biklett says, any strong stance has to be very rapid, that is essential, otherwise the opportunity is lost. So, we will find out soon enough. (I’m not hopeful.)
So far all his switcheroos have been excused by his thinking fans by the need to get elected. Quite so. But once elected, similar constraints prevail.
One last comment: the similarity in foreign policy and the hyping of differences in domestic policy (they are sometimes not very large, specially if one takes into account that what is wished for, announced or promised is a lot of smoke) is absolutely traditional, and shows that any breaks in continuity will be forced on the US from…well it would be great to say…the American people?

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 1 2008 18:55 utc | 5

If Obama is as smart as you seriously think he is, then
A) He will tell you what you want to hear, but serve the Plutocracy well with a soft-gloved version of Hegemony and Neo-Liberalism.
B.) He would never have run for president knowing full well if he somehow got elected under a platform of honesty and then honored his word he would be a dead man.
I think he is smart, extremely intelligent, as a matter of fact, and the answer is A, and we can expect business as usual, just different wrapping paper and a more decorative bow.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 1 2008 19:24 utc | 6

@Obamageddon at 6,
Oh the answer is A), no doubt at all (imho.)
Being smart, informed, educated, gifted, savvy, does not equate acting for the common good.
Obama’s main role is to present a face of renewal and moving forward.

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 1 2008 20:06 utc | 7

On the economy Obama’s team is simply better than McCain’s ideological ‘free marketers’.

Well, I’m getting uncomfortable feelings about that now as well. I don’t know, Laurence Summers is sure not “change” AFAIC… smart guy, but wrong guy IMO. AFAIK he’s been silent on current “crisis”, and pretty much was cheerleader for last rounds of deregulation under Clinton.

The chance that [Obama] may learn that the current failed program of U.S. hegemony must end is certainly there.

Hey, we aren’t talking Palin here… the 2nd coming of “soft bigotry of low expecectations.”
Obama’s had plenty of time to learn. I only hope he’s gon’a massage this ship in different directions after he takes the helm. But it’s only a hope. And I must say, a baseless one.

Posted by: jdmckay | Nov 1 2008 22:18 utc | 8

Tangerine @7, yes, exactly.
I think The Real News Network and Chalmers Johnson in the link below have it right.
Obama, McCain and the Empire

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 2 2008 0:36 utc | 9

Obama will be forced to downsize the military and bring troops home. Barney Frank is already pushing a 25% reduction in military spending.
I look for a tax cut for the bottom 90%, a $350 billion stimulus and then a tax hike to suck the money back out of the economy and work towards a balanced budget. What people forget is the Bush tax cuts expire without a vote to raise them in 2010. The money will be taxed back out to slow inflation. Lord Keynes will be proud.
It amazing how McCain has no clue and keeps up his class warfare against the bottom 90%. Talking about spreading the wealth which is very stupid.
Has anyone been reading Sirota. He make some good points. This election could be a complete rejection of Reaganism and allow for more progressive policies. McSame has been running on the Reagan era, but the voters don’t seem to care about Reagan. The fool don’t realize that Reagan has been out of office for twenty freakin years. Someone born in 1968 was only twenty when Reagan left. If Obama wins it flushes Vietnam and the Reagan eras down the toilet. Good bye.

Posted by: jdp | Nov 2 2008 0:54 utc | 10

This election could be a complete rejection of Reaganism and allow for more progressive policies.

Then why hasn’t Obama made this case? Never before was there an opportunity to do so.
This is something I really don’t get.

Posted by: jdmckay | Nov 2 2008 1:21 utc | 11

Go to Alternet. The headline article makes my point perfectly. The post Cold War generation and many others don’t have the memory of the red scare.
We may actually be able to move ahead in this country.

Posted by: jdp | Nov 2 2008 1:41 utc | 12

Obama is smart, and he is beholden to the elites who supported him. Clinton was even smarter, and that simply made him better at selling rightist domestic policies to liberal supporters. Clinton also sold the dismantling of Yugoslavia and the embargo of Iraq, which were ideological first steps toward the full neo-con foriegn policy.
The idea that a President, because of his intellectual or moral leanings might reshape broad national policy — a bipartisan fifty year creation intertwining the interests of all the major sectors of the economy — is utopian.
The question really is not whether Obama sees through the folly of continued military neo-liberalism, but whether US elites do. Not all of them share the interests of the military industrial complex. Even oil may be tired of an endlessly unstable Middle East.

Posted by: seneca | Nov 2 2008 1:53 utc | 13

with Obama, your not getting the same-old same-old traditional routine where one political party takes over from another. He’s the wildcard out-of-nowhere extra-party dark-horse doing it on his own steam in ways never tried before and building a massive new political machine at the same time.
And the alternative is the Afrikaaner-Broderbund posing as a major American political party.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 2 2008 2:03 utc | 14

There seems to be a real cognitive disconnect on MoA when it comes to US foreign
policy, as though “______ will see _________ is impossible and _________ troops”.
The US Department of Defense is the largest corporation on the planet, number 1.
Number 2, they don’t have to make any profit to Triumph. Every year, another $1T.
There are so many elitenazim on that tax dole gravey train, they can’t possibly be
expected to “see anything is impossible”, it’s not even in their dialectic.
You might as well ask when Putin is going to realize Russia needs more waterclosets,
or when US:EU:UN is finally going to make good on their promise of aid to Africans?!

Posted by: Char Broiler | Nov 2 2008 2:26 utc | 15

@13
Clinton was even smarter, and that simply made him better at selling rightist domestic policies to liberal supporters. Clinton also sold the dismantling of Yugoslavia and the embargo of Iraq, which were ideological first steps toward the full neo-con foriegn policy.
Not sure this is all it takes to demonstrate smartness. GWB did pretty much the equivalent of all the above. Dubya is a genius.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 2 2008 2:32 utc | 16

@16
No, because bush got the rest of the world to hate us while he did what he did, and in the end, even the majority of Americans hate him. The only ones who hated Clinton where the ones who hated him right from the start. Clinton did sell his evil policies to the ‘liberals’ and they liked him the whole while – and the majority never saw through the policies.

Posted by: Susan | Nov 2 2008 6:16 utc | 17

Robert Gates as SecDef has been able to prevent any further entanglements (competent & incompetent inclusive). Why should we expect that Obama as Prez cannot do the same, of course assuming thats his inclination
Which would put him in a separate league from Clinton & GWB who we generally agree are separated to a large extent by their relative competence

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 2 2008 7:32 utc | 18

So here we go, the last-minute security scare is already brewing:
Iranian bomber threat

Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 2 2008 10:52 utc | 19

I, too, am disappointed with Team Obama for not driving home the message that not just Iraq, but also Afghanistan are two of our biggest bridges to nowhere. My guess is that war profiteers are using their deep pockets to prevent Dems from running on an anti-war platform.
But if Obama does pal around with Palestinian heavy-weights, as claimed by McCain’s spokesman Michael Goldfarb, then this may mean that Obama hasn’t been neo-conned into believing that Israel can do no wrong, thus freeing him to believe that She shouldn’t be free to suck the life (in terms of blood and dollars) out of America!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCaOCWYpPk4

Posted by: Cynthia | Nov 2 2008 13:59 utc | 20

Everything positive said here about Obama is based on hope — hoping that he will learn, or change, or do something he hasnt actually said he will do. Cockburn on Counterpunch this weekend tries hard to find a basis for hope in what Obama has actually said or done and comes up nothing.
Of course, McCain/Palin could be unimaginably worse, and that’s reason enough to vote for O. But us anti-warriors, anti-free-market capitalists, just have to role up our sleeves and keep on struggling. There’ll never be an easy answer, a victory without struggle.

Posted by: seneca | Nov 2 2008 15:21 utc | 21

No matter who we get, the same old folks control the country. And that sure isn’t working people. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a turn to the left of center.

Posted by: ben | Nov 2 2008 15:41 utc | 22

Clinton was even smarter, and that simply made him better at selling rightist domestic policies to liberal supporters. Clinton also sold the dismantling of Yugoslavia and the embargo of Iraq, which were ideological first steps toward the full neo-con foriegn policy.
Absolutely.
Bill managed all that pretty easily, as well as doing good, so to speak, for the US economy – his tactics, which Obama has partly adopted are not the best ones when time marches on and conditions change. (Economy, etc.) Obama even sounds like he wants his own EXTRA – Democrat! Mo bettah! – little war, on Pakistan.

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 2 2008 17:13 utc | 23

Obama is not going to wage war on Pakistan. He’s not going to invade Pakistan. He’s not going to try to smoke da bad-guys out of Pakistan. Nobody will be deploying for duty into Pakistan under Obama. Maybe a special-ops border crossing here & there. Or the occasional hot pursuit of Talib groups tracking back to the hills. Big difference.
But if for some unimaginable reason, Obama decides he wants to out-stupid GWB, there probably is’nt a better way to do it than to invade Pakistan.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 2 2008 17:46 utc | 24

Difference Between Obama and McCain

Posted by: ndahi | Nov 3 2008 4:18 utc | 25

theres a sizable amount of critical material in the imperial “lessons-learned” dossier — Venezuela, Beirut, Iraq II, South Lebanon, Vietnam, Cuba, Somalia I & II, Zimbabwe, Iran, Rwanda, Congo, Afghanistan, Georgia/Caucasus, Kosovo …
the candidate guaranteed to read & re-read it cover-to-cover is Obama. The candidate guaranteed not to read it is McCain.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 3 2008 6:07 utc | 26

Well, that will make Obama that much more of a hypocrit then, won’t it, jony? He’ll read it, and understand it, then march to the tune of the Plutocracy as all of his predecessors have done.
ndahi, that’s about the size of it, unfortunately. Voting’s a waste of time.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 3 2008 12:45 utc | 27