Posted
by Tim Hjersted
April 20, 2009 at 3:04 a.m.
Will Obama be the Great Pacifier?
Obama hides the true negligence and injustice of protecting those who have committed war crimes behind flowery language, behind touching calls for "unity" and "looking to the future." He frames the issue as if allowing war criminals to never see justice will make America the 'bigger man,' so to speak, as though it is the more magnanimous, compassionate thing to do.
In truth, it is becoming clear that Obama's new job is not to bring justice or change, but to act as a more poetic and charismatic face of the American empire.
Obama's letter explaining his stance on the torture memos doesn't seek to unify us behind justice, it seeks to unify us behind silence - to pacify the anger of an American public who should rightfully demand that war crimes not be forgotten when they are done in our name.
Read up on it here:
David Bromwich, Professor of Literature at Yale, examining Obama's response to the torture memos: "Expedience and the Torture Amnesty"
For more: "Opposition Grows To Obama's Decision Not To Prosecute CIA Agents"
For some additional context, here is an excerpt from a recent Lawrence.com interview:
Gavon: But really, why should we bother getting involved in politics—didn’t voting for Barack Obama last year fix everything from our tragic racial legacy to psoriasis?
Tim Hjersted: “Yeah! O-BA-MA! Since he got elected I immediately sought to sell Films For Action for as much money as possible. Groups like Films For Action, Kansas Mutual Aid, the Sustainability Action Network – they’re simply no longer relevant now that we’ve entered the “Age of Obama.” It’s great. Now I can concentrate on beating my old Tetris score from years back.
Oooh, woops, well then I started reading the news again (independent, non-corporate news), and discovered this change we were hoping for isn’t coming anytime soon. Escalating the war in Afghanistan? Check. Already getting iffy about pull-out dates for Iraq? Check. Strengthening Bush’s illegal domestic wiretapping program? Yep. Giving billions upon billions of dollars away to corrupt banks and supporting the interests of Wall St. financiers? Oh yeah. Supporting Bush’s position on the (lack of) rights afforded to prisoners in foreign detention centers? Sadly, yes.
Since I no longer read or watch any mainstream news, I don’t know how much of this has been reported on. (I doubt that much) But at this point, I regret that Obama appears to be not much more than a PR face lift on a declining and distrusted American empire.
People naturally would like to be happy for a while after a shitty last 8 years. But I hope the activism that was beginning to swell during the Bush years wasn’t just a fad, while we had such an obviously disastrous and unpopular president. Has Obama temporarily stolen the political gusto from our sails – the will to seek change through ourselves rather than through someone else? Will Obama be the great pacifier? I hope not. We need some fire in our bellies at this time more than ever.”
and 1 others
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Obama = Bush, Term III
Just wait until we invade Pakistan. THAT is going to rock.
sssoundsystem (anonymous) says…
What a crock. The guy's been in office for what? 90 days?
Equating Obama to Bush's third term is hyperbole in the extreme.
Instead of forcing this issue and ending up with another Abu Ghraib (low-level flunkees get hung out to dry while Rumsfeld laughs), Obama has left the door open to going after Gonzalez, Bybee, Yoo...give the man some time.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"Equating Obama to Bush's third term is hyperbole in the extreme."
Not at all. In fact, one could argue (and I do) that the Bush and Obama approaches* to large issues like TARP and FISA and stimulus spending and mucking about overseas are identical**.
It doesn't matter that it's only been 90 days, what you are seeing with Obama is what you're going to get. Contrary to the screams of the right, he's not a socialist, or at least no more of one than Bush was - and it's absolutely laughable to see Republicans turn up and Tea Parties to complain about spending. In line with the growing screams of the left, he has very little intention of calling off the war on terror or cutting back on domestic spying - and Democrats will soon be calling for even more powers, the same powers they howled about when Bush wielded them. Obama is playing the game by the rules Bush played by. Yes, there will be a few differences***, but they are differences of form, not of substance.
"Obama has left the door open to going after Gonzalez, Bybee, Yoo"
So that some future administration can come after his attorney general? Sorry, that's against the rules.
* Of course, one can throw McCain in as well.
** No, invading Afghanistan or Pakistan rather than Iraq is not a significant difference.
*** After all, there has to be something to separate the parties.
sssoundsystem (anonymous) says…
Nonsense. If you expect Obama, or anyone else, to come in and do a complete 180 in the first three months of an administration, you're naive in the extreme.
MyName (anonymous) says…
The problem with sending a few CIA members to do a perp walk is that the people who were calling the shots are all gone. It's a completely pointless activity that will only lead to partisan bickering and start a cycle where the first thing a new administration does is punish or prosecute the previous administration.
It may make some people feel better to shoot the wounded, but the fact that Bush managed to sink his own party with this policy for information that wasn't very helpful is what will guide future administrations more than anything this administration does.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Either I'm naive or I remember that Reagan completely overhauled the tax system (and got shot, and broke the air traffic controllers) in something close to 4 months - in fact, one could argue that Reagan did most of his good in the first 6 months, surfed it for the next 30, and spent the last 60 looking for an encore.
But I will give you that no one since has done much spectacular. That's not because it's any harder than Reagan had it (especially when one has control of both houses of Congress like Obama today, Bush before him, and Clinton before him), but because there is little significant for Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama to overturn from their predecessors.
MyName (anonymous) says…
El B:
>Not at all. In fact, one could argue (and I do) that the Bush and Obama approaches to large issues like TARP and FISA and stimulus spending and mucking about overseas are identical
That's because there are a limited number of ways to handle these issues and they didn't change just because there's a new face in the White House. This is especially true since there is no new leadership in Congress and so certain solutions would be automatically off the table as they wouldn't pass the House or the Senate.
There are areas of policy where Obama has more options, including our policy towards Iran and Cuba, and there he's very different from Bush (or likely McCain). The differences will show up as time goes by and more options for change become available. The ship of state doesn't change course quickly, as they say.
Not only that, but the differences between Bush's first and second terms show that even he was starting to realize that trying to topple these countries and impose democracy onto people isn't going to work. I think it might be more accurate to say that Bush moved closer to McCain's point of view over time than to say that McCain or Obama are just like Bush.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"The ship of state doesn't change course quickly, as they say."
Especially when the leadership is the same, as you note, and that is a big part of my point. Obama is part of a machine now, and the machine does what it wants the vast majority of the time.
It's not theoretically all that difficult to make a change, especially when WE are the ones enforcing the current policy, as in the case of Cuba. Maybe that policy made sense under Jack Kennedy. Maybe it made sense under Nixon, and one could even argue that it made sense under Reagan. It has made no sense since 1989, a full 20 years ago. So Obama is going to allow family travel. What possible reason can there then be for denying non-family travel? Our 50 year old Cuba policy started coming apart under Bush, and that trend is continuing under Obama. But again, it's the same trend.
How about just coming out and saying, "Given the realities of the world, our policy toward Cuba makes little sense. Therefore I am unilaterally lifting all trade and travel restrictions between our nations and will seek to establish diplomatic relations, blah, blah, blah." All it takes is the stroke of a pen, and Obama holds the pen.
There are really few reasons I can think of why it's not already done, but none of those have anything to do with the change being difficult to accomplish. Liberals are big on symbolism and "sending signals," so how about - given the fact that the biggest complaint the rest of the hemisphere has against us is the Roosevelt Corollary - we send the signal to the rest of Latin America that we're happy to trade and travel, and otherwise we are going to leave their internal workings to themselves?
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"This is especially true since there is no new leadership in Congress and so certain solutions would be automatically off the table as they wouldn't pass the House or the Senate."
Heh. He could always do what Bush's people did with TARP: concoct an emergency, lie about the need for and proposed use of the money, and then once it's in hand do something a lot more fun with it. The best part is that it leaves the original problem intact* so it can be used again and again. It's like an endless cookie jar for bankers and stockbrokers.
* Not that "buying up bad debt" was ever a solution; it was always a program to transfer investment losses from banks to the public. But at least now it's Obama and Gaithner's program to enrich bankers at the expense of workers rather than Bush and Paulson's.
sssoundsystem (anonymous) says…
Yes, because Reagan and Obama are *exactly the same*, just like the state of the world in 1980 and right now are just the same!
This is getting into spoiled brat territory. "Humbug!!! Our guy won and he didn't immediately change our entire system of governance and give me a rainbow and a unicorn!!!"
Why, WHY, would you go after the CIA agents who oversaw this torturing? So we can have another Lyndie Englund to shower with hatred?
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"Reagan and Obama are *exactly the same*,"
One of us is missing the point, and I hope to God it's not me. Maybe if we put this in the form of a quiz:
Reagan turned a 180 because his philosophy of governance was significantly different than that of his predecessor. Obama has not turned a 180 because his philosophy of governance (is / is not) significantly different than that of his predecessor. Choose 1.
My guy didn't win*, and I have said from the beginning that Obama will not bring change because people don't really want change; they want to be protected from it. So it's less spoiled brat than an immature "I told you so" and a raspberry. My political instincts rise no higher, I'm afraid.
But I still want my unicorn.
"Why, WHY, would you go after the CIA agents who oversaw this torturing?"
When did I say anything about going after the CIA?
* not that it's much of a surprise.
sssoundsystem (anonymous) says…
The CIA thing was in regard to the thread, not you specifically.
In regard to Reagan, I'm afraid it is you, based on what you've just posted.
This is not a binary argument. If you think "Obama is a or b, now chose so that I may get my snark on" is sufficient to even approach discussing this issue, than I'll bow out.
But not before reiterating that calling Obama Bush's third term is absolute nonsense.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"I'm afraid it is you, based on what you've just posted."
Crap, I was afraid that might be the case.
But before you get too sure that it's absolute nonsense, you might want to re-read what MyName wrote above: "That's because there are a limited number of ways to handle these issues and they didn't change just because there's a new face in the White House."
The only adjustment I would make is that I would add "Given that we accept x..." to the beginning. There are a million ways to handle the financial crisis, and Marxists and socialists and Austrians and Monetarists and Keynesians will all handle it differently. But given that we accept the Keynesian solution and given that we define what we are in as a normal if severe recession... then "there are a limited number of ways to handle these issues and they didn't change just because there's a new face in the White House. "
The current head of the Treasury* is the former head of the New York Fed, who has all his public life worked in a Fed dominated by Greenspan, as has Bernanke. Greenspan was appointed by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. So, given that the appointees who are handling the mess are all working from the same background and a lot of the same assumptions, there's not going to be a lot of difference between Obama's and Bush's responses. Not in monetary policy as above. Not in foreign policy - we are already dropping bombs on Pakistan. Are we freaking insane? Not in immigration policy (what will Obama do that Bush did not try before him? They even use the same words).
What that leaves, I don't know. CO2 caps, I guess.
* for a little longer. I will be amazed if he lasts another year.
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
I agree with Obama's decisions re the CIA. Sending signals to the globe is as important as protecting future covert operations and the people trained to run them. I suppose some would say that no operation should be covert, but I'm not one of them.
Reading Bromwich's petty diatribe actually hardened my stance. Dilettantes should stick to the lit and let the grown-ups put their asses on the line over difficult judgments. Good thing he's safely squirreled away at Yale.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
sss, pssst.... just to clue you in, Our Beloved El Borak of Myopia is a *Libertarian*. (Sorry to blow your cover, Bill) and I agree with him on most points.
But really, Bill, you can't see the difference? I'd settle for the fact that we don't have a bumbling, faux pas spewing idiot representing us (Joe Biden doesn't count). Or the fact that Obama is committed to closing Gitmo. And has put money towards our highways (which even your party says is a role of the government, no?) And has increased Pell Grants making education attainable.
I know, I know, there's too much spending and it's on this point that both parties are indeed exactly the same. However, at least the Dems admit to spending which in my opinion is much more admirable than paying lip service to conservatism while simultaneously causing the greatest percentile increase of spending in history.
As far as torture goes, wouldn't the UN or another international entity have more to say about that than our current president? International law is something I know nothing about.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"the Dems admit to spending which in my opinion is much more admirable than paying lip service to conservatism ..."
Yes it is, without a doubt.
"I'd settle for the fact that we don't have a bumbling, faux pas spewing idiot"
Well, I don't think Bush was an idiot. But let's be honest, at least he never gave the prime minister a bunch of DVDs as a gift or bowed to the king of Saudi. Obama has plenty of goofs of his own and unless he learns the game fast there will be plenty more.
But yes, there are differences, just as there were (as I think myname noted) differences between Bush's first and second term. There will be differences between any two administrations. But I wonder, am I the only one who sees the similarities?
Keith (anonymous) says…
But let's be honest, at least he never gave the prime minister a bunch of DVDs as a gift or bowed to the king of Saudi.
Held his hand, yes, kissed him, yes, had a member of the Saudi royal family that was named Bandar Bush, yes, but no bowing that's for sure. Made damn sure the Saudis that wanted out of the country after 9/11 got out when no planes were allowed to fly, yes, but other than that Obama is just like Bush.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"And has put money towards our highways (which even your party says is a role of the government, no?)"
No, but the Libertarians are wrong on that, as they are too often "academic" rather than realistic or constitutional. The Constitution says that the government can/should build post offices and post roads, so I have no problem with building roads anywhere (or bridges to nowhere), nor with whatever the post office wishes to do. Those are decisions for our elected/appointed officials to make, they know better than me, and I am satisfied that the democratic process works in that respect.
sssoundsystem (anonymous) says…
Keith pretty well ends the conversation.
sssoundsystem (anonymous) says…
Exactly like Bush, pt. I9:
"Obama open to some interrogation prosecution"
"washington - President Barack Obama is leaving the door open to possible prosecution of Bush administration officials who devised harsh terrorism-era interrogation tactics."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495
That is just what George W. would have done!
alm77 (anonymous) says…
"Well, I don't think Bush was an idiot." I've had my doubts about that as well, but they way he carried himself, smirked cluelessly and continued to mispronounce words after being corrected sure made him look like one. I'll take a terrible gift giving, well spoken, man of the people (who forgot his place w/ a king) over Bush any day.