I guess
the title of this article is the best way to summarize
people’s approach to President-elect Barack Obama. First,
it is important to establish two simple basic logical
functions that should govern the thinking of rational
people.
Opinions are shaped by what
is known or plausibly believed, not by what is discovered
afterwards.
When serious people make an
accusation, they will give their reasons/proofs and then
they can be evaluated.
Second,
let me highlight the different approaches that people take
and what each one implies:
Never ask, never shoot
Basically, regardless of
what Obama does, never criticize him. Just trust him.
Brief Analysis: Fascist
tendencies
Ask first, shoot later
Do not criticize because we
do not know what Obama will do or what his intentions are.
Brief Analysis: Completely
delusional
Shoot first, ask later or
Shoot, never ask
Obama is terrible. He will
be the same as other presidents. No question about it. We
should not even support him. No other scenario is correct.
We should not even participate.
Brief Analysis: Confused and
have a poor understanding of politics
For now,
I will put aside what the “Ask and shoot at the same time”
approach implies.
It is
important to figure out what we know so that we can base our
opinions on it. From there, we can take a reasoned approach
to Barack Obama’s presidency.
Putting
aside U.S. historical record for now (I highlight these in
other articles – including the two I did on Obama), it is
important to recognize that Obama is subjected to the same
pressures that other presidents have been subjected under.
The institutions he is functioning within are exactly the
same. In numerous and interrelated ways, there is a close
tie to
corporate and military interests. They ensure that the
privileged continue to be the main beneficiaries of
political and economic gains. Hypothetically, even if Obama
desperately wants to change things, these are working
against him. Politically speaking, while he may have the
support of the population, it is guaranteed that he would
lose every ounce of valuable support from these areas. It is
highly unlikely that he would risk losing such a vital
support line.
Before running and getting support, he was first assessed by
the elite circle beginning in October 2003. This elite
circle included Vernon Jordan who is a well-known power
broker and corporate board-member. He chaired the
presidential transition team when Bill Clinton won the 1992
election. His connection to Jordan spun off a gauntlet of
fundraising parties that obviously were attended by donors
and lobbyists. According to Ken Silverstein in a Harper’s
edition in the fall of 2006, he won the support of “big
‘players’ from the financial, legal and lobbyist sectors …
like Gregory Craig (a longtime leading attorney and former
special counsel to the White House), Mike Williams (the
legislative director of the Bond Market Association), Tom
Quinn (a partner at the top corporate law firm Venable and a
leading Democratic Party “power broker”), and Robert Harmala,
another Venable partner and a ‘big player in Democratic
circles’”. After his win in the Democratic primary, a flood
of contributions from elite sectors came in rapidly. His
business-friendly centrism has garnered him millions of
dollars and consistently backed by powerful Wall Street
firms. He is seen to be friendly to these elite sectors so
they support him. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely
delusional. These are well documented and they are
established facts.
In a nutshell, it is reasonable to assume that he will be
subjected to the same type of lobbies that past presidents
have been subjected under which resulted in many harmful
policies – whether it be something applied domestically or
overseas. What do we know of Democratic Party politicians
and presidents? Well, they only soften up when they are
challenged as shown in the 1960’s during the Vietnam War and
with the civil rights movement.
John F. Kennedy’s win
psychologically pacified the population and thus took a long
time to get them engaged in the process of challenging the
Vietnam War. When opposition finally mounted, it was all too late. The most brutal bombings occurred in the early
1960’s due to the lack of critical analysis resulting from
the very same euphoria that we are seeing with Obama’s win
today.
Turning again to Barack Obama, what do we know about him?
In particular, what are his stated intentions? There are a
couple of things to base our opinions on in addition to his
close connection to the business and military sectors.
-
His
intentions to continue the illegal embargo on Cuba.
-
Continued hostilities towards Iran (after winning the
candidacy, Obama changed his stance from "dialogue" to
"hostility" again).
-
Support
for Israel (he released official documents as to his plans
of increased funding). He appointed Rahm Emmanuel, who has stated that
Bush Jr. was not supportive enough of Israel, as Chief of
Staff.
-
Bringing in more people in the military (an increase of
100,000) and increasing the already inflated budget of the
military.
-
Approving military incursions at Pakistan’s borders. And
yes, threatening to attack them.
-
Regarding Afghanistan, he seeks to increase the amount of
troops there by reducing those in Iraq. That being said,
it has been stated by those around him that even pulling
out of Iraq is still up in the air.
Everything I have stated here is well known. Based on these,
people can begin to formulate their opinions and extracting
from it reasonable and plausible scenarios. Obviously there
are limits but they are important to formulate if we are to
be prepared for the road ahead.
Lastly, a positive thing that came out of the Obama campaign
was the massive mobilization of people. There was tremendous
community organizing that has not been seen in American
politics in a very long time. There are new opportunities
that people can take but as to what direction the community
that organized around Obama will take is unknown.
There are those who are proposing the “Never ask, never
shoot” campaign. Those who push this scenario can hardly be
taken seriously as they are pretty much asking for a fascist
dictatorship to rule over them. If the broad sectors of
communities – regardless of race, religion, class or
whatever – are taking this direction, we are all in trouble.
Then there is the “Ask first, shoot later” approach that
thinks it is unfair to criticize Obama even before he takes
over officially. These people are completely delusional and
ignore what we know already about Obama and those around
him. In addition to knowing who he has close ties with, he
has stated his policy intentions on a lot of key things. In
light of U.S. historical record, when a policy intention is
stated, it is highly plausible that it will be implemented
if there is no substantial public pressure to steer it
another direction. In the case of Democrats, in light of
historical examples, they will respond only if the pressure
is ample enough but that takes tremendous grassroots
organizing which has to begin now.
When I
say "Yo Billy, I'm gonna kill your mom!" is it unreasonable
to think that I will actually go through with it? While it
is possible that I may back away from it later, there is the
possibility that I may actually follow through with it. It
is at least reasonable to prepare for such a crime to take
place. If I have a record of saying such things and actually
going through killing people's moms, then it is highly
likely it will happen again. Turning back to Obama, is it
really that unreasonable to take him at his own word? Once
you remove yourself from such an emotional attachment to
him, then you can answer that question.
Then there are those who have the “Shoot first, ask later”
or “Shoot and never ask” approach. These people will just
reject the entire process and will ignore the important
improvements that Obama will bring to the United States and
the world. While these differences will be slight, they are
substantial enough that it would allow for some serious
maneuvering by those seeking to really challenge the
existing status quo.
Even the slightest change can create an impact on the lives
of people.
The real basis of hope is the grassroots coalition of
people that got him in, not Obama himself.
At this point, it does not take much resource to challenge.
All you have to do is think and openly discuss with others.
Prepare psychologically for the domestic and foreign
policies that may come because it will be important when the
time to mobilize is upon us. Only the naïve would think that
they only need to sit back. Those who have been sitting
through the Bush administration will do the same thing but
those who have been engaged for as long as they can remember
will know what will be required.
There are
a lot of people who have either taken on the “Never ask,
never shoot” and “Ask first, shoot later” approach. Both are
irrational and extremely dangerous in the long run. The
“Shoot first, ask later or Shoot, never ask” approach is
just too ignorant to even discuss.
Take the “Shoot and ask at the same time” approach.
Criticize while addressing the positives that came out of
the campaign. Recognize the various plausible scenarios
based on what we currently know – specifically, things I
have highlighted in this article. This is not some vague
abstract philosophical opposition, I am addressing specific
things.
The problem is that those with fascist tendencies and the
completely delusional are trying to dominate the discussion.
They want to pacify people from criticizing their hero and
savior without even thinking about the psychological damage
that will do in the long run. They think it is a sport.
Ironically, they seek to destroy the grassroots movement
that put Barack Obama in office. In light of the Vietnam War
example I gave earlier, people should be wary of such insane
personality cults dominating reality.
In the spirit of
resistance,
Critical Mood
