The Reader's Money Quote is a statement that is of such insight and importance that it merits frequent and loud repetition. These Reader's Money Quotes are from an astute UK-based African reader named JaliliMaster (actually, I think of her as one of the international "news correspondents" that this blog has been blessed to have). She said the following in response to the From the "I Told You So" Department-Pres. Obama Watch Division post (my responses are in bold italics):
I agree re: the extended readers money quote regarding dominance. Other ethnicities are doing it and excluding blacks. This is not unique to America, so folks should not think that if they go to another country, they won't face this same type of discrimination. This is the same attitude that allowed these other 'ethnics' to trick AA's in the first place. They thought that other people of colour would have solidarity with them when it came to whites. Turns out, they will stand with you as far as you are needed then you get dropped. [Khadija: This phrase, "they will stand with you as far as you are needed then you get dropped," should be painted on most African-Americans' foreheads. Starting with our gullible, idiotic (mis)leaders.]
In the UK, a Tamil man was taken to court for racially-motivated firing of black employees. Now if anyone knows about the Tamils, they are Sri-Lankan minorities who have been at war for years and are at the bottom of the country socially, economically etc. Yet, he got to britain and used all his money to buy a petrol station service shop. The first thing he did was to fire the employees one-by-one, who were all black Africans, then he hired new supervisors, all Tamil. [Khadija: It's normal human nature to take care of folks in this order: self, family, clan, ethnic group. With many people in many countries, "nation" isn't even on that list. With most people across the board, outsiders are almost NEVER on the "take care of them" list. People who are in touch with reality understand this; and are therefore not depending on others to so-called "do right by them" by taking care of them.]
This man was then taken to court by the employees. He was ordered by the judge to re-employ them or face fines. He chose to pay compensation to these employees than have them working for him. [Khadija: Right, that's to be expected. It's very difficult to bumrush your way onto somebody else's "take care of them" list.]
He was asked how he could be so okay with his racism, he felt there was nothing wrong with it as it was his business. [Khadija: To even ask that question is show how naive one is. {shaking my head}] The man who was interviewing him is some black actor(or other personality) who was doing a documentary. He was the kumbaya type of negro, questioning why people of colour cannot just 'work together'. [Khadija: Oh, puh-leeze.]
I remember he went into Asian communities(Pakistani, Indian etc), and exposed the entrenched racism towards blacks. [Khadija: Then I'm sure this foolish Negro got an earful from those South Asians. From what I've observed of them in the US, they discriminate among themselves based on color. The (arranged) marriage ads that Indians and Pakistanis put in "Muslim" publications openly state that the parent placing the ad is looking to marry their child to persons with "fair complexions." They're certainly not interested in cuddling up with folks who are of African descent and therefore "officially" Black.]
This silly negro started pontificating on camera, even as one Indian man boasted and even mocked that if blacks are so good, how come all the businesses in black communities are owned by Asians?! This negro started wailing that the Asians should be 'fair' and hire blacks. [Khadija: {chuckling}] It never occured to him to question why blacks: (1)Refuse to open their businesses AND manage it properly, and (2) why negroes would rather patronise any other business than a black-owned one!
On a final note, the whole kool-aid(I hate using that term) drunk by black folks in relation to Obama is symptomatic of how blacks, and in particular AA's, refuse to properly vet those that claim to represent them. I've seen many AA's talk about thier 'African Brothers' and 'hang' with them in solidarity, but never make any effort to engage in economic and other financial projects that could be to their benefit. They'd stand by as these African negroes do business with whites, and the whites exclude them(AA's) from being able to partake, in many cases, with the Africans knowledge. No offense, but AA's need to stop being fools. Alot of you seem to have this view that these African 'leaders/reps' would always have your backs, when they don't even have the backs of their fellow country men. [Khadija: JaliliMaster, THANK YOU for the courtesy of telling THE TRUTH. And doing so in the spirit of seeing African-Americans wake up and do better. You already know this, but let me point this out to my fellow African-Americans: We have the deadly mental habit of assuming that other people view the world the same way we do, and that they think the same way we do. They DON'T.
For one of many examples, most African-Americans have the "take care of them" list backwards compared to every other group of people. We put outsiders first and put ourselves last. African-American women put themselves DEAD LAST on the "must be taken care of" list. Nobody else thinks like this.]
The same thing is done with AA leaders, where having the black skin is enough. I've noticed the British governments habits (and the American too), of sending black faces to represent them in African countries when it comes to political issues (say negotiations in Zimbabwe, Sudan etc), because they think they would be better able to trick them with a black face, but then send white faces when it comes to financial issues, because they don't want black folks to be the link to their source of income. Folks need to understand that money is always going to be made, it's all about who makes it. With the recession, it is the smartest that will come out ontop, get with it!
Okay, I tried posting my comments, but it was too long so I'll break them down:
Obama is weak. That is the plain truth. In the case of Bush, only a select few were allowed to speak. With Obama, he allows many to air their views, but only takes the views of a select few into account. What he doesn't realise is that that is no different from Bush. I'm surprised that many could not see Obamas weakness till now. [Khadija: From what I observe, most African-Americans still can't see Obama's weakness. As a friend mentioned to me earlier this morning, most African-Americans will hypnotically cling to (and fall with) Obama to the bitter end. Even after it's all over, they still won't understand what happened, or why.]
Ignoring the fact that alot of the criticism from the right is racially motivated, there are some instances where he should listen. Him bowing to foreign leaders is one of them. Obama seems pretty convinced that he is this all-knowing, world-travelled man, because he lived in God knows where when he was a child. He thinks that he knows more than anybody else about other cultures. That is why he insists on doing nonsense like bowing to other heads of state. In these countries, bowing (or kneeling/bending the knee etc) is used as a sign of respect. But thats where Obamas knowledge stops. It is used as a sign of respect to those who one considers to be above them. [In Obama's case, since he's not actually African-American--he's half continental African and half-White---this is a case of him succumbing to the general (ignorant) American assumption that other people think the way Americans do. In this case, believing that other people subscribe to the "people are people, and people are the same all over, and everybody is as informal as Americans" nonsense. Umm . . . NO.
People are NOT just people in other places. Many other cultures have much more rigidly observed hierarchies. This is reflected in many languages even by "little" things, such as using much more formal forms of address when speaking to people who are in any way "above" you (more educated, older, wealthier, etc.). In many other cultures, everybody has a commonly understood and accepted "place."]
It is the reason the when Laura Bush met the Queen of England, rather than curtsying, she only gave a very slight tip of the head. Why? Her husband was the head of state. She assumes his same level. Therefore, all heads of state are of the same level. The Queen is the head of state, and secondly, Laura is not a British subject, and therefore doesn't bow. [Khadija: That's right.]
I don't know whether or not Michelle had the common sense to do the same thing, although reports said that when they first met, away from cameras, she gave a little curtsey. Try paying attention to foreign media for once, one would see a difference between that and what passes for 'news' in this part of the world. I remember when he went to Saudi Arabia, the moment he bowed, the entire Saudi media went ecstatic, because they felt he was 'submitting'. [Khadija: That's right. Obama was silly enough to think that he was ingratiating himself with these people by doing that. Instead, he was inviting them to hold him in contempt.] That had NEVER been done by any American president before. Now, wherever he goes, this president, supposedly the most powerful man in the world, is actually expected to bow and 'submit'. They expected it in China, they got it. He did the same in other places. It's not lost on me that it is this first 'black' president that is expected to 'submit'. [Khadija: This is a disgrace.]
On the issue of his political appointments, part of the reason that there have been quite a few social faux pas is because the person responsible for 'updating' the president on such issues is the Chief protocol officer. Guess who she is. A die-hard Shrillary nut. She was appointed by Clinton as the post is under the State Department, but she is situated in the white house. Although she is supposed to, she doesn't fly with the president and her office was moved to the State department (from what I understand, that had something to do with Michelle, as she didn't trust the woman when it came to loyalty). [Khadija: A small bit of common sense.]
She had good reason not to, as this woman was a very active member of the PUMA lot, who were virulently anti-Obama. This is another reason why I think giving Clinton the SOS role was a mistake. She insisted that she should have the power to hire and fire as she pleased, a power which should solely belong to the president. Now she stuffed the state department full with her cronies. [Khadija: That's to be expected from everybody except naive, gullible Obama. But then again, Obama doesn't have any cronies of his own--for the reasons that I've covered in previous posts.]
I'm also amused when I see people talking about Hillary running in 2012. People forget that she is inexperienced. There is a reason why all of a sudden, the secretary of states responsibilities have been carved up, with envoys to various regions(Iraq, N. Korea etc) that do not report to Clinton. Being married to the president does not count as experience, especially as up to the point of being given the secretary of state job, she, like Obama, had very little to show for her political career. The silly mistakes she has made with Russia and the Israel/Palestinian issue (too long to go into now) are just one of the many signs that she is a lightweight. [Khadija: Yes, but as we saw with Bush, the actual quality of one's performance is not what matters. What matters is how one's performance is "spun" and marketed.]
Another problem with her is that she seems to reward people (e.g with jobs/political appointments) because of loyalty as opposed to whether or not they are actually capable. This can be seen in alot of the people she had running her failed campaign (start with patty solis doyle).
On the whole Latino issue, the only black folks that can still be deceived with such BS are the ones that are negroes! I've seen many of the 'solutions' that have been put forward to counter the racial discrimination of these Latinos, the most common being to learn spanish. As always happens, the necessary qualifications keep on shifting as black folks meet the mark. After you learn spanish, you find out it's 'native speakers only'. The problem is that black folks are only able to see solutions to problems through the lens of how others can help. [Khadija: African-Americans have been indoctrinated into believing that everybody--except White men--is our "friend."] Instead of trying to figure out how to get these folks to 'do right' by blacks, think of how to make it for yourself. [Khadija: YES!]
I remember during the campaign, when Obama said that parents should make their kids learn other languages. I though..yeah, they should. He then added, "especially spanish". Latinos got so happy. Black folks couldn't see the implications of this. Latinos would not dare openly discriminate against whites, but you know they are more than happy to tell blacks to their face where to stick it. I know this will sound harsh, but people should stop patronising the non-black owned businesses. Whenever one says it, 'they' accuse you of racism, ignoring the fact that they themselves (be it whites, latinos, asians) don't patronise black-owned business. Also, if you are going to support a black owned business, make sure that it supports you. I don't think I need to explain what I mean by that. [Khadija: No, you shouldn't have to explain this, but reciprocity is still a mysterious concept for most African-Americans.]
JaliliMaster, thank you for providing these essential Reader's Money Quotes!
Showing posts with label president obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label president obama. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
From the "I Told You So" Department-Pres. Obama Watch Division
I'm breaking my online semi-silence (until the new site launches) to give another warning and heads-up to those who will hear.
From the "I Told You So" Department-Pres. Obama Watch Division:
Those of you who have staked your futures on Pres. Obama and the “change” he promised, need to figure out what your Plan B will be when Pres. Obama completes the process of becoming a lame duck for the rest of this term. And also figure out what you'll do when he most likely fails to win reelection for a second term.
In “The Change That Never Came, Part 2,” I warned you about Pres. Obama in particular, and the general dangers inherent with Crossover Black politicians.
Here.
In “Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ Versus Pres. Obama’s ‘Team of Rivals’ Cabinet,” I warned about the indications of Pres. Obama’s naïveté.
In short, I warned you not to stake your survival on Pres. Obama:
“Don't stake your (and your loved ones') survival on anything that Pres. Obama might do. First of all, there's no way of knowing whether or not his economic proposals will actually work. Second, there are MANY other parties that don't want any of his proposals to succeed. Including many individuals that are nominally on his "side."
Pres. Obama Does NOT Have His Own Posse. Nobody is Watching His Back. This Means That Anything He Does WILL Be Sabotaged. From the Inside-Out.
I can see that the masses of our people will be devastated (in many different ways) when various factions from within as well as outside the Democratic Party finally pull down the Obama-ssiah.
It doesn't matter how much Pres. Obama tries to appease these factions. The problem is that these various factions cannot be appeased. This is because they don't want to be appeased. What they want is to make sure that whatever efforts the Obama-ssiah makes fail, and he gets ALL of the blame, while they position themselves to reign. . . err, rule. . . err, govern. . . once he's been politically destroyed.
This illustrates another problem with most Black folks' concept of politics. We don't understand that the "ruler" is only as strong as his infrastructure (aka "posse"). In Chicago terms, his political "machine." Does Pres. Obama actually have a loyal, faithful, strong posse of his own? Or is he somebody who was loaned the use of other people's posses? We know the answer to this.
It looks like he didn't understand that these various "retainers" are only loyal to the people who actually own and created them. They are loyal to the individuals who loaned them to him. NOT to him. He didn't create any of these people. This is one of the unspoken consequences of Pres. Obama being a crossover candidate who did not come from any sort of organized Black movement or infrastructure.
Black voters simply hopped on the Obama-ssiah bandwagon after they saw that Whites in Iowa were willing to vote for him. Pres. Obama did not come from us. Not that our infrastructure or organizations are particularly solid, but Pres. Obama has NOTHING but thin air under his feet.
Pres. Obama's recent blindsided stumbles with several cabinet nominees should be a signal to you. The manner in which all of that went down made it quite apparent to me that he doesn't have anybody who is actually watching his back. He doesn't even have an old-school, Chicago political "machine" to watch his back. That's his own fault for being naive.
Machiavelli warned about the dangers of a prince being dependent upon mercenaries. Especially foreign ones. They have a nasty habit of abruptly abandoning the prince (at the worst possible moment) in favor of the highest bidder, and/or their previous employers.
For the love of God, don't rely on this one (naive) man for your survival.”
And now, with this recent election for Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat (and its most likely repercussions), you're beginning to see all of these things come to a head.
It should be clear to those who have been counting on them, that the Democratic leadership will continue to roll over and try to placate everybody except their core constituencies. African-Americans (along with gays and lesbians) will continue to be among the first core constituencies thrown under the bus by the Democratic leadership. The Democrats will keep trying to placate people who are implacable; namely, Republicans and their supporters.
It’s time for those folks who are politically-inclined to begin the long-term project of building a viable third party, and related infrastructure (think tanks and media outlets that will support a progressive platform).
**Addendum** A helpful reader sent me the following link It's a good recap of how many (if not most) African-Americans focus on symbols instead of substance. Which is why all it takes is to have "Black faces in high places" (Black people in prominent, visible places) to pacify us.
From the "I Told You So" Department-Pres. Obama Watch Division:
Those of you who have staked your futures on Pres. Obama and the “change” he promised, need to figure out what your Plan B will be when Pres. Obama completes the process of becoming a lame duck for the rest of this term. And also figure out what you'll do when he most likely fails to win reelection for a second term.
In “The Change That Never Came, Part 2,” I warned you about Pres. Obama in particular, and the general dangers inherent with Crossover Black politicians.
Here.
In “Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ Versus Pres. Obama’s ‘Team of Rivals’ Cabinet,” I warned about the indications of Pres. Obama’s naïveté.
In short, I warned you not to stake your survival on Pres. Obama:
“Don't stake your (and your loved ones') survival on anything that Pres. Obama might do. First of all, there's no way of knowing whether or not his economic proposals will actually work. Second, there are MANY other parties that don't want any of his proposals to succeed. Including many individuals that are nominally on his "side."
Pres. Obama Does NOT Have His Own Posse. Nobody is Watching His Back. This Means That Anything He Does WILL Be Sabotaged. From the Inside-Out.
I can see that the masses of our people will be devastated (in many different ways) when various factions from within as well as outside the Democratic Party finally pull down the Obama-ssiah.
It doesn't matter how much Pres. Obama tries to appease these factions. The problem is that these various factions cannot be appeased. This is because they don't want to be appeased. What they want is to make sure that whatever efforts the Obama-ssiah makes fail, and he gets ALL of the blame, while they position themselves to reign. . . err, rule. . . err, govern. . . once he's been politically destroyed.
This illustrates another problem with most Black folks' concept of politics. We don't understand that the "ruler" is only as strong as his infrastructure (aka "posse"). In Chicago terms, his political "machine." Does Pres. Obama actually have a loyal, faithful, strong posse of his own? Or is he somebody who was loaned the use of other people's posses? We know the answer to this.
It looks like he didn't understand that these various "retainers" are only loyal to the people who actually own and created them. They are loyal to the individuals who loaned them to him. NOT to him. He didn't create any of these people. This is one of the unspoken consequences of Pres. Obama being a crossover candidate who did not come from any sort of organized Black movement or infrastructure.
Black voters simply hopped on the Obama-ssiah bandwagon after they saw that Whites in Iowa were willing to vote for him. Pres. Obama did not come from us. Not that our infrastructure or organizations are particularly solid, but Pres. Obama has NOTHING but thin air under his feet.
Pres. Obama's recent blindsided stumbles with several cabinet nominees should be a signal to you. The manner in which all of that went down made it quite apparent to me that he doesn't have anybody who is actually watching his back. He doesn't even have an old-school, Chicago political "machine" to watch his back. That's his own fault for being naive.
Machiavelli warned about the dangers of a prince being dependent upon mercenaries. Especially foreign ones. They have a nasty habit of abruptly abandoning the prince (at the worst possible moment) in favor of the highest bidder, and/or their previous employers.
For the love of God, don't rely on this one (naive) man for your survival.”
And now, with this recent election for Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat (and its most likely repercussions), you're beginning to see all of these things come to a head.
It should be clear to those who have been counting on them, that the Democratic leadership will continue to roll over and try to placate everybody except their core constituencies. African-Americans (along with gays and lesbians) will continue to be among the first core constituencies thrown under the bus by the Democratic leadership. The Democrats will keep trying to placate people who are implacable; namely, Republicans and their supporters.
It’s time for those folks who are politically-inclined to begin the long-term project of building a viable third party, and related infrastructure (think tanks and media outlets that will support a progressive platform).
**Addendum** A helpful reader sent me the following link It's a good recap of how many (if not most) African-Americans focus on symbols instead of substance. Which is why all it takes is to have "Black faces in high places" (Black people in prominent, visible places) to pacify us.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The "Change" That Never Came, Part 3: "The Immorality of Lesser Evilism" by Rabbi Michael Lerner
"The Immorality of Lesser Evilism
By Rabbi Michael Lerner
November 03, 2000
Even in the final days of the presidential election, a substantial part of the population expresses dismay at the major candidates, feels closer to Nader in terms of the issues he raises, but fears that a vote for him might increase the chances for a Bush presidency. And the same issue arises for those who respond to the message of a Buchanan or John Haegelin. I've seen friends and families rent apart by the anger of some Gore supporters who believe that Nader supporters have lost their moral compass in their inability to see how disastrous a world with Bush-appointed Supreme Court justices might be.
Yet lesser evilism may do more to destroy the moral fabric and political viability of a democracy than any real or imagined evil that might be achieved through the electoral victory of whoever we imagine to be the "bad guy" beneficiary of voting our conscience. Here are some reasons why:
First, Lesser evilism leads to a moral and spiritual corruption of our souls. The habit of voting lesser evil in politics is a slippery slope. We start by giving our vote to a candidate who supports and is a product of a social reality that we actually deplore, and we end up learning to accommodate ourselves to moral corruption in other aspects of our lives. Just as lesser evilism teaches us to accommodate to "reality" in politics, so we accommodate to the reality of our economic marketplace, with its ethos of materialism and selfishness. Since everyone else is "looking out for number one," we learn that the way to "make it" is to go along with a set of practices that involve cheating or hurting others in our pursuit of success, making environmentally destructive or morally insensitive choices, and using the excuse that we must focus on "the bottom line" and not on the fine points of moral behavior.
To the extent that we come to believe that we have no alternative but to accept the lesser evil, we lose the inner quality of soul that makes it possible to fight for anything against the odds. We forget how to stand up for our own ideals, and soon we don't see the point in even thinking about what kind of a world we really believe in ("it's so unrealistic"). Internally we may feel cynical about the world we live in, but as long as we've adopted the attitude that we can't really fight it and must accept its terms, we have cast our vote in favor of keeping what is. Moral courage and hope begin to feel like anachronistic concepts.
Not surprisingly, as people become used to making this choice in daily life, they become most angry not at the forces of evil to which they accommodate, but at those who retain their commitment to fight for their highest ideal. Thus, the rage in liberal circles at Nader supporters or in conservative circles at Buchanan supporters-both of whom insist on standing for their ideals even when they are unlikely to win.
Second, lesser evilism disempowers liberal and progressive forces because it gives the Democratic Party no incentive to respond to progressive ideals. Secure in the certainty that liberals will always respond to the demand of lesser evilism, the Democrats can put their full attention at repositioning their party to accommodate those who might otherwise vote Republican, thus dramatically decreasing the differences between the two parties. And your vote for a lesser evil gives the corporate media the excuse they seek to ignore progressive views throughout the next four years-because the media will say that your progressive views were shown to have no real constituency since you and others didn't vote for the candidates who articulated those views, but chose to empower people who champion the status quo.
Third, lesser evilism is based on an arrogant certainty about the consequences of your lesser evil winning. In fact, those of us who voted for Clinton as the lesser evil in 1992 found that eight years later the gap between the rich and the poor had increased and the social supports for the poor had decreased. Conversely, much as Richard Nixon hurt me personally (by indicting me and sending me to prison for anti-war organizing), the dynamics of his "greater evil" presidency were significantly constrained by an idealistic social movement-and in that context, Nixon responded by recognizing China and by supporting powerful environmental and worker-safety legislation that were whittled down under the Clinton administration. It is the absence or presence of the very kind of social movement that is decisive-and lesser-evilism destroys. Instead of being so sure that "the other guy" is going to destroy the world, better to have a little humility and vote your conscience rather than your crystal ball, because in so doing you make possible a whole different configuration of political possibilities.
Fourth, lesser evilism weakens faith in democracy. If people consistently feel obliged to vote for candidates in whom they do not believe, they end up feeling they are without representation, and hence feel that our government itself is less legitimate. Many stop voting altogether. Others feel dirtied by a process in which they have authorized through their vote the actions of an elected official who, acting in their name, supports policies like the death penalty and acceleration of the worst aspects of globalization, which they actually find morally and environmentally reprehensible.
Finally, voting for a lesser evil entails abandoning and helping to dispirit those who share your principles. Many Nader people are standing up for the principles that you believe in, and instead of supporting them for doing so you are attacking them. Don't be surprised if many these people eventually give up on trying to change the world. So the next time you look around for allies for some visionary idea or moral cause that inspires you, you will find fewer people ready to take risks, and ironically you may then use that to convince yourself that nothing was ever possible and that's why you "had" to vote for the lesser of two evils.
None of this is an argument against those who really are excited by Gore or Bush-they should vote their beliefs. But those who succumb to the fear tactics that intimidate us into voting for someone whose policies are often far from our own beliefs are actually doing a great disservice to their country, their fellow citizens, and their own inner moral integrity."
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of TIKKUN Magazine, author of Spirit Matters: Global Healing and the Wisdom of the Soul, and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco.
__________________________________________
Khadija speaking: Pres. Obama just might be the LAST "lesser evil" vote that I ever cast.
By Rabbi Michael Lerner
November 03, 2000
Even in the final days of the presidential election, a substantial part of the population expresses dismay at the major candidates, feels closer to Nader in terms of the issues he raises, but fears that a vote for him might increase the chances for a Bush presidency. And the same issue arises for those who respond to the message of a Buchanan or John Haegelin. I've seen friends and families rent apart by the anger of some Gore supporters who believe that Nader supporters have lost their moral compass in their inability to see how disastrous a world with Bush-appointed Supreme Court justices might be.
Yet lesser evilism may do more to destroy the moral fabric and political viability of a democracy than any real or imagined evil that might be achieved through the electoral victory of whoever we imagine to be the "bad guy" beneficiary of voting our conscience. Here are some reasons why:
First, Lesser evilism leads to a moral and spiritual corruption of our souls. The habit of voting lesser evil in politics is a slippery slope. We start by giving our vote to a candidate who supports and is a product of a social reality that we actually deplore, and we end up learning to accommodate ourselves to moral corruption in other aspects of our lives. Just as lesser evilism teaches us to accommodate to "reality" in politics, so we accommodate to the reality of our economic marketplace, with its ethos of materialism and selfishness. Since everyone else is "looking out for number one," we learn that the way to "make it" is to go along with a set of practices that involve cheating or hurting others in our pursuit of success, making environmentally destructive or morally insensitive choices, and using the excuse that we must focus on "the bottom line" and not on the fine points of moral behavior.
To the extent that we come to believe that we have no alternative but to accept the lesser evil, we lose the inner quality of soul that makes it possible to fight for anything against the odds. We forget how to stand up for our own ideals, and soon we don't see the point in even thinking about what kind of a world we really believe in ("it's so unrealistic"). Internally we may feel cynical about the world we live in, but as long as we've adopted the attitude that we can't really fight it and must accept its terms, we have cast our vote in favor of keeping what is. Moral courage and hope begin to feel like anachronistic concepts.
Not surprisingly, as people become used to making this choice in daily life, they become most angry not at the forces of evil to which they accommodate, but at those who retain their commitment to fight for their highest ideal. Thus, the rage in liberal circles at Nader supporters or in conservative circles at Buchanan supporters-both of whom insist on standing for their ideals even when they are unlikely to win.
Second, lesser evilism disempowers liberal and progressive forces because it gives the Democratic Party no incentive to respond to progressive ideals. Secure in the certainty that liberals will always respond to the demand of lesser evilism, the Democrats can put their full attention at repositioning their party to accommodate those who might otherwise vote Republican, thus dramatically decreasing the differences between the two parties. And your vote for a lesser evil gives the corporate media the excuse they seek to ignore progressive views throughout the next four years-because the media will say that your progressive views were shown to have no real constituency since you and others didn't vote for the candidates who articulated those views, but chose to empower people who champion the status quo.
Third, lesser evilism is based on an arrogant certainty about the consequences of your lesser evil winning. In fact, those of us who voted for Clinton as the lesser evil in 1992 found that eight years later the gap between the rich and the poor had increased and the social supports for the poor had decreased. Conversely, much as Richard Nixon hurt me personally (by indicting me and sending me to prison for anti-war organizing), the dynamics of his "greater evil" presidency were significantly constrained by an idealistic social movement-and in that context, Nixon responded by recognizing China and by supporting powerful environmental and worker-safety legislation that were whittled down under the Clinton administration. It is the absence or presence of the very kind of social movement that is decisive-and lesser-evilism destroys. Instead of being so sure that "the other guy" is going to destroy the world, better to have a little humility and vote your conscience rather than your crystal ball, because in so doing you make possible a whole different configuration of political possibilities.
Fourth, lesser evilism weakens faith in democracy. If people consistently feel obliged to vote for candidates in whom they do not believe, they end up feeling they are without representation, and hence feel that our government itself is less legitimate. Many stop voting altogether. Others feel dirtied by a process in which they have authorized through their vote the actions of an elected official who, acting in their name, supports policies like the death penalty and acceleration of the worst aspects of globalization, which they actually find morally and environmentally reprehensible.
Finally, voting for a lesser evil entails abandoning and helping to dispirit those who share your principles. Many Nader people are standing up for the principles that you believe in, and instead of supporting them for doing so you are attacking them. Don't be surprised if many these people eventually give up on trying to change the world. So the next time you look around for allies for some visionary idea or moral cause that inspires you, you will find fewer people ready to take risks, and ironically you may then use that to convince yourself that nothing was ever possible and that's why you "had" to vote for the lesser of two evils.
None of this is an argument against those who really are excited by Gore or Bush-they should vote their beliefs. But those who succumb to the fear tactics that intimidate us into voting for someone whose policies are often far from our own beliefs are actually doing a great disservice to their country, their fellow citizens, and their own inner moral integrity."
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of TIKKUN Magazine, author of Spirit Matters: Global Healing and the Wisdom of the Soul, and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco.
__________________________________________
Khadija speaking: Pres. Obama just might be the LAST "lesser evil" vote that I ever cast.
The "Change" That Never Came, Part 2: Pres. Obama Keeps Bush Nominees In Top Posts
From the Associate Press (emphasis added and my comments are in blue):
"Analysis: Obama keeps Bush nominees in top posts
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Tom Raum, Associated Press Writer Mon Aug 31, 4:11 pm ET
WASHINGTON – For all the GOP howling about Barack Obama radically steering the government to the left and leading the nation toward socialism, some of his major appointments are Republican men and women of the middle.
In what may be the top two national posts in light of today's crises at home and abroad, Obama stuck with the picks of former President George W. Bush in reappointing Fed chief Ben Bernanke and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Bernanke last week was given another four-year term to preside over nothing less than saving the U.S. economy and then keeping it strong. He was appointed by Bush in 2006 after a short stint as chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. Gates was kept in his Pentagon post to wind down the war in Iraq and build up the one in Afghanistan.
The loss of Sen. Ted Kennedy to brain cancer led to a chorus of laments about the dearth of politicians these days able to reach across party lines. While Obama hasn't had much luck with the highly polarized Congress in building bipartisan support on legislation, he's reached out often to Republicans in filling key jobs. [Khadija: So, basically he rewards the opposing party---whose leaders have told hysterical lies about his initiatives---we do remember the screams about "death panels"--- by appointing their people to high posts. Right. Sure.]
The notion that he's moving the government to the left "is laughable, it's utterly laughable," said Thomas E. Mann, a government scholar at the Brookings Institution. Mann said the decision to keep Bernanke and Gates "doesn't buy him a thing with Republicans but was a sign of good judgment in both cases" because Bernanke and Gates were doing good jobs.
Obama's larger problem is that he still does not have his own people in a majority of the government's top policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation. But those he has put in top positions include a number of Republicans or nontraditional Democrats (Khadija speaking: In other words, Democrats in name only).
Along with Gates and Bernanke, they include:
-Sheila Bair as holdover chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. She has played a major role in the management of the financial crisis. A one-time unsuccessful candidate for a Kansas House seat, Bair was first appointed by Bush in June 2006. Forbes Magazine ranks her as the second most powerful woman in the world behind German chancellor Angela Merkel.
-Ray LaHood, a former congressman from Illinois, as transportation secretary. He was elected as part of the "Gingrich Revolution" of 1994 and was so trusted by both Republicans and Democrats that he was selected to preside over the House during the impeachment vote against President Bill Clinton.
-Former Rep. John McHugh from upstate New York, as Army secretary. McHugh was known by his House colleagues for an even temperament and willingness to work with Democrats.
-Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who was a Mormon missionary in China in his youth, as ambassador to China.
-Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, as director of the National Institutes of Health. Unlike the others on the list, Collins is not a Republican and worked in the Obama presidential campaign. But he doesn't fit the usual mold of liberal Democrat as portrayed by many Republicans.
[Khadija speaking: Lovely. Just lovely. Is this what we voted for when we voted for Obama? Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe that these Republicans and non-Democrat-Democrats are the best that can be found for these positions. ]
/snip/. . . Republicans are going all out on the war path, especially on health care overhaul and budget issues. [Yes, meanwhile Pres. Obama continues to suck up to these people. Think quick: When, if ever, did former Pres. Bush "reach out" to non-Republicans? He didn't. Bush governed as if he had been elected by a landslide or a clear majority of the voters, even though he wasn't.
Why is Pres. Obama acting like a beggar in what's supposed to be his own house? Answer: Because he's inherently weak. A people pleaser. And most importantly, he's a Crossover Negro Politician who does NOT have his own independent power base.
There are multiple things going on in this situation. There are some things going on that are particular to Pres. Obama:
*weak, people-pleaser personality
*half-White & half-foreign Black
*raised by Whites
*didn't grow up among African-Americans, therefore no natural African-American posse from childhood/high school/parents' friends, etc.
*only really exposed to African-Americans as an adult
And then there are some things that apply to almost ALL crossover Black politicians:
*didn't pay any "dues" in any Black organization or movement
*no Black "posse"/troops as a result of the above
*primarily focused on being perceived as "non-threatening" by Whites
*no Black "posse"/troops as a result of the above
I think this situation is exposing some of the costs of being a disconnected, crossover Black politician. Basically, Pres. Obama doesn't have a natural posse because he was dropped in by parachute among us.
Because he never formed a natural, Black posse, there's nobody around him that HE created and lifted up. NOBODY owes him. Meanwhile, he owes many, many other people and political "princes." Pres. Obama's situation is somewhat more extreme than "typical" African-American crossover politicians because of his family background. Typical African-American crossover politicians at least have Black potential posse members that they grew up with, or are friends of the family, etc.]
'Obama and his liberal congressional allies want to saddle taxpayers with even more debt through their government-run health care experiment that will cost trillions of dollars,' said Republican party chief Michael Steele. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, accused Obama of a management style that's 'not leadership, it's negligence.' Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said in Saturday's GOP video and Internet address that Obama's Democrats favor 'cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the elderly to create new government programs.'
/snip/. . . At the time he announced he was sticking with Gates at the Pentagon, Obama said he didn't ask the member of the Bush war cabinet to remain because of his party affiliation but because he felt he could best 'serve the interests of the American people.' Obama said he was 'going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House.'" [Khadija: You can read the rest of the story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090831/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_s_republicans_analysis;_ylt=Ahyts12P2PmO4dHO8KA.3SID5gcF;_ylu=X3oDMTM1bzY3dHI2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwODMxL3VzX29iYW1hX3NfcmVwdWJsaWNhbnNfYW5hbHlzaXMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDYW5hbHlzaXNvYmFt
This is looking more and more like what others have called "the status quo that we can believe in."
"Analysis: Obama keeps Bush nominees in top posts
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Tom Raum, Associated Press Writer Mon Aug 31, 4:11 pm ET
WASHINGTON – For all the GOP howling about Barack Obama radically steering the government to the left and leading the nation toward socialism, some of his major appointments are Republican men and women of the middle.
In what may be the top two national posts in light of today's crises at home and abroad, Obama stuck with the picks of former President George W. Bush in reappointing Fed chief Ben Bernanke and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Bernanke last week was given another four-year term to preside over nothing less than saving the U.S. economy and then keeping it strong. He was appointed by Bush in 2006 after a short stint as chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. Gates was kept in his Pentagon post to wind down the war in Iraq and build up the one in Afghanistan.
The loss of Sen. Ted Kennedy to brain cancer led to a chorus of laments about the dearth of politicians these days able to reach across party lines. While Obama hasn't had much luck with the highly polarized Congress in building bipartisan support on legislation, he's reached out often to Republicans in filling key jobs. [Khadija: So, basically he rewards the opposing party---whose leaders have told hysterical lies about his initiatives---we do remember the screams about "death panels"--- by appointing their people to high posts. Right. Sure.]
The notion that he's moving the government to the left "is laughable, it's utterly laughable," said Thomas E. Mann, a government scholar at the Brookings Institution. Mann said the decision to keep Bernanke and Gates "doesn't buy him a thing with Republicans but was a sign of good judgment in both cases" because Bernanke and Gates were doing good jobs.
Obama's larger problem is that he still does not have his own people in a majority of the government's top policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation. But those he has put in top positions include a number of Republicans or nontraditional Democrats (Khadija speaking: In other words, Democrats in name only).
Along with Gates and Bernanke, they include:
-Sheila Bair as holdover chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. She has played a major role in the management of the financial crisis. A one-time unsuccessful candidate for a Kansas House seat, Bair was first appointed by Bush in June 2006. Forbes Magazine ranks her as the second most powerful woman in the world behind German chancellor Angela Merkel.
-Ray LaHood, a former congressman from Illinois, as transportation secretary. He was elected as part of the "Gingrich Revolution" of 1994 and was so trusted by both Republicans and Democrats that he was selected to preside over the House during the impeachment vote against President Bill Clinton.
-Former Rep. John McHugh from upstate New York, as Army secretary. McHugh was known by his House colleagues for an even temperament and willingness to work with Democrats.
-Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who was a Mormon missionary in China in his youth, as ambassador to China.
-Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, as director of the National Institutes of Health. Unlike the others on the list, Collins is not a Republican and worked in the Obama presidential campaign. But he doesn't fit the usual mold of liberal Democrat as portrayed by many Republicans.
[Khadija speaking: Lovely. Just lovely. Is this what we voted for when we voted for Obama? Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe that these Republicans and non-Democrat-Democrats are the best that can be found for these positions. ]
/snip/. . . Republicans are going all out on the war path, especially on health care overhaul and budget issues. [Yes, meanwhile Pres. Obama continues to suck up to these people. Think quick: When, if ever, did former Pres. Bush "reach out" to non-Republicans? He didn't. Bush governed as if he had been elected by a landslide or a clear majority of the voters, even though he wasn't.
Why is Pres. Obama acting like a beggar in what's supposed to be his own house? Answer: Because he's inherently weak. A people pleaser. And most importantly, he's a Crossover Negro Politician who does NOT have his own independent power base.
There are multiple things going on in this situation. There are some things going on that are particular to Pres. Obama:
*weak, people-pleaser personality
*half-White & half-foreign Black
*raised by Whites
*didn't grow up among African-Americans, therefore no natural African-American posse from childhood/high school/parents' friends, etc.
*only really exposed to African-Americans as an adult
And then there are some things that apply to almost ALL crossover Black politicians:
*didn't pay any "dues" in any Black organization or movement
*no Black "posse"/troops as a result of the above
*primarily focused on being perceived as "non-threatening" by Whites
*no Black "posse"/troops as a result of the above
I think this situation is exposing some of the costs of being a disconnected, crossover Black politician. Basically, Pres. Obama doesn't have a natural posse because he was dropped in by parachute among us.
Because he never formed a natural, Black posse, there's nobody around him that HE created and lifted up. NOBODY owes him. Meanwhile, he owes many, many other people and political "princes." Pres. Obama's situation is somewhat more extreme than "typical" African-American crossover politicians because of his family background. Typical African-American crossover politicians at least have Black potential posse members that they grew up with, or are friends of the family, etc.]
'Obama and his liberal congressional allies want to saddle taxpayers with even more debt through their government-run health care experiment that will cost trillions of dollars,' said Republican party chief Michael Steele. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, accused Obama of a management style that's 'not leadership, it's negligence.' Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said in Saturday's GOP video and Internet address that Obama's Democrats favor 'cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the elderly to create new government programs.'
/snip/. . . At the time he announced he was sticking with Gates at the Pentagon, Obama said he didn't ask the member of the Bush war cabinet to remain because of his party affiliation but because he felt he could best 'serve the interests of the American people.' Obama said he was 'going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House.'" [Khadija: You can read the rest of the story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090831/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_s_republicans_analysis;_ylt=Ahyts12P2PmO4dHO8KA.3SID5gcF;_ylu=X3oDMTM1bzY3dHI2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwODMxL3VzX29iYW1hX3NfcmVwdWJsaWNhbnNfYW5hbHlzaXMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDYW5hbHlzaXNvYmFt
This is looking more and more like what others have called "the status quo that we can believe in."
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The "Change" That NEVER Came---Republished Article From STRATFOR
Strategic Forecasting, Inc., more commonly known as Stratfor, is a private intelligence agency founded in 1996 in Austin, Texas. Barron's once referred to it as "The Shadow CIA". George Friedman is the founder, chief intelligence officer, and CEO of the company. The following article is from http://www.stratfor.com/:
"Obama's Foreign Policy: The End of the Beginning
August 24, 2009
By George Friedman
Related Link
Special Series: Obama’s Foreign Policy Landscape
As August draws to a close, so does the first phase of the Obama presidency. The first months of any U.S. presidency are spent filling key positions and learning the levers of foreign and national security policy. There are also the first rounds of visits with foreign leaders and the first tentative forays into foreign policy. The first summer sees the leaders of the Northern Hemisphere take their annual vacations, and barring a crisis or war, little happens in the foreign policy arena. Then September comes and the world gets back in motion, and the first phase of the president’s foreign policy ends. The president is no longer thinking about what sort of foreign policy he will have; he now has a foreign policy that he is carrying out.
We therefore are at a good point to stop and consider not what U.S. President Barack Obama will do in the realm of foreign policy, but what he has done and is doing. As we have mentioned before, the single most remarkable thing about Obama’s foreign policy is how consistent it is with the policies of former President George W. Bush. This is not surprising. Presidents operate in the world of constraints; their options are limited. Still, it is worth pausing to note how little Obama has deviated from the Bush foreign policy.
During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, particularly in its early stages, Obama ran against the Iraq war. The centerpiece of his early position was that the war was a mistake, and that he would end it. Obama argued that Bush’s policies — and more important, his style — alienated U.S. allies. He charged Bush with pursuing a unilateral foreign policy, alienating allies by failing to act in concert with them. In doing so, he maintained that the war in Iraq destroyed the international coalition the United States needs to execute any war successfully. Obama further argued that Iraq was a distraction and that the major effort should be in Afghanistan. He added that the United States would need its NATO allies’ support in Afghanistan. He said an Obama administration would reach out to the Europeans, rebuild U.S. ties there and win greater support from them.
Though around 40 countries cooperated with the United States in Iraq, albeit many with only symbolic contributions, the major continental European powers — particularly France and Germany — refused to participate. When Obama spoke of alienating allies, he clearly meant these two countries, as well as smaller European powers that had belonged to the U.S. Cold War coalition but were unwilling to participate in Iraq and were now actively hostile to U.S. policy.
A European Rebuff
Early in his administration, Obama made two strategic decisions. First, instead of ordering an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, he adopted the Bush administration’s policy of a staged withdrawal keyed to political stabilization and the development of Iraqi security forces. While he tweaked the timeline on the withdrawal, the basic strategy remained intact. Indeed, he retained Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, to oversee the withdrawal.
Second, he increased the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Bush administration had committed itself to Afghanistan from 9/11 onward. But it had remained in a defensive posture in the belief that given the forces available, enemy capabilities and the historic record, that was the best that could be done, especially as the Pentagon was almost immediately reoriented and refocused on the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Toward the end, the Bush administration began exploring — under the influence of Gen. David Petraeus, who designed the strategy in Iraq — the possibility of some sort of political accommodation in Afghanistan.
Obama has shifted his strategy in Afghanistan to this extent: He has moved from a purely defensive posture to a mixed posture of selective offense and defense, and has placed more forces into Afghanistan (although the United States still has nowhere near the number of troops the Soviets had when they lost their Afghan war). Therefore, the core structure of Obama’s policy remains the same as Bush’s except for the introduction of limited offensives. In a major shift since Obama took office, the Pakistanis have taken a more aggressive stance (or at least want to appear more aggressive) toward the Taliban and al Qaeda, at least within their own borders. But even so, Obama’s basic strategy remains the same as Bush’s: hold in Afghanistan until the political situation evolves to the point that a political settlement is possible.
Most interesting is how little success Obama has had with the French and the Germans. Bush had given up asking for assistance in Afghanistan, but Obama tried again. He received the same answer Bush did: no. Except for some minor, short-term assistance, the French and Germans were unwilling to commit forces to Obama’s major foreign policy effort, something that stands out.
Given the degree to which the Europeans disliked Bush and were eager to have a president who would revert the U.S.-European relationship to what it once was (at least in their view), one would have thought the French and Germans would be eager to make some substantial gesture rewarding the United States for selecting a pro-European president. Certainly, it was in their interest to strengthen Obama. That they proved unwilling to make that gesture suggests that the French and German relationship with the United States is much less important to Paris and Berlin than it would appear. Obama, a pro-European president, was emphasizing a war France and Germany approved of over a war they disapproved of and asked for their help, but virtually none was forthcoming.
The Russian Non-Reset
Obama’s desire to reset European relations was matched by his desire to reset U.S.-Russian relations. Ever since the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine in late 2004 and early 2005, U.S.-Russian relations had deteriorated dramatically, with Moscow charging Washington with interfering in the internal affairs of former Soviet republics with the aim of weakening Russia. This culminated in the Russo-Georgian war last August. The Obama administration has since suggested a “reset” in relations, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually carrying a box labeled “reset button” to her spring meeting with the Russians.
The problem, of course, was that the last thing the Russians wanted was to reset relations with the United States. They did not want to go back to the period after the Orange Revolution, nor did they want to go back to the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Orange Revolution. The Obama administration’s call for a reset showed the distance between the Russians and the Americans: The Russians regard the latter period as an economic and geopolitical disaster, while the Americans regard it as quite satisfactory. Both views are completely understandable.
The Obama administration was signaling that it intends to continue the Bush administration’s Russia policy. That policy was that Russia had no legitimate right to claim priority in the former Soviet Union, and that the United States had the right to develop bilateral relations with any country and expand NATO as it wished. But the Bush administration saw the Russian leadership as unwilling to follow the basic architecture of relations that had developed after 1991, and as unreasonably redefining what the Americans thought of as a stable and desirable relationship.
The Russian response was that an entirely new relationship was needed between the two countries, or the Russians would pursue an independent foreign policy matching U.S. hostility with Russian hostility. Highlighting the continuity in U.S.-Russian relations, plans for the prospective ballistic missile defense installation in Poland, a symbol of antagonistic U.S.-Russian relations, remain unchanged.
The underlying problem is that the Cold War generation of U.S. Russian experts has been supplanted by the post-Cold War generation, now grown to maturity and authority. If the Cold warriors were forged in the 1960s, the post-Cold warriors are forever caught in the 1990s. They believed that the 1990s represented a stable platform from which to reform Russia, and that the grumbling of Russians plunged into poverty and international irrelevancy at that time is simply part of the post-Cold War order.
They believe that without economic power, Russia cannot hope to be an important player on the international stage. That Russia has never been an economic power even at the height of its influence but has frequently been a military power doesn’t register. Therefore, they are constantly expecting Russia to revert to its 1990s patterns, and believe that if Moscow doesn’t, it will collapse — which explains U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s interview in The Wall Street Journal where he discussed Russia’s decline in terms of its economic and demographic challenges. Obama’s key advisers come from the Clinton administration, and their view of Russia — like that of the Bush administration — was forged in the 1990s.
Foreign Policy Continuity Elsewhere
When we look at U.S.-China policy, we see very similar patterns with the Bush administration. The United States under Obama has the same interest in maintaining economic ties and avoiding political complications as the Bush administration did. Indeed, Hillary Clinton explicitly refused to involve herself in human rights issues during her visit to China. Campaign talk of engaging China on human rights issues is gone. Given the interests of both countries, this makes sense, but it is also noteworthy given the ample opportunity to speak to China on this front (and fulfill campaign promises) that has arisen since Obama took office (such as the Uighur riots).
Of great interest, of course, were the three great openings of the early Obama administration, to Cuba, to Iran, and to the Islamic world in general through his Cairo speech. The Cubans and Iranians rebuffed his opening, whereas the net result of the speech to the Islamic world remains unclear. With Iran we see the most important continuity. Obama continues to demand an end to Tehran’s nuclear program, and has promised further sanctions unless Iran agrees to enter into serious talks by late September.
On Israel, the United States has merely shifted the atmospherics. Both the Bush and Obama administrations demanded that the Israelis halt settlements, as have many other administrations. The Israelis have usually responded by agreeing to something small while ignoring the larger issue. The Obama administration seemed ready to make a major issue of this, but instead continued to maintain security collaboration with the Israelis on Iran and Lebanon (and we assume intelligence collaboration). Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has not allowed the settlements to get in the way of fundamental strategic interests.
This is not a criticism of Obama. Presidents — all presidents — run on a platform that will win. If they are good presidents, they will leave behind these promises to govern as they must. This is what Obama has done. He ran for president as the antithesis of Bush. He has conducted his foreign policy as if he were Bush. This is because Bush’s foreign policy was shaped by necessity, and Obama’s foreign policy is shaped by the same necessity. Presidents who believe they can govern independent of reality are failures. Obama doesn’t intend to fail.
Tell STRATFOR What You Think
For Publication in Letters to STRATFORNot For Publication
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to http://www.stratfor.com/"
"Obama's Foreign Policy: The End of the Beginning
August 24, 2009
By George Friedman
Related Link
Special Series: Obama’s Foreign Policy Landscape
As August draws to a close, so does the first phase of the Obama presidency. The first months of any U.S. presidency are spent filling key positions and learning the levers of foreign and national security policy. There are also the first rounds of visits with foreign leaders and the first tentative forays into foreign policy. The first summer sees the leaders of the Northern Hemisphere take their annual vacations, and barring a crisis or war, little happens in the foreign policy arena. Then September comes and the world gets back in motion, and the first phase of the president’s foreign policy ends. The president is no longer thinking about what sort of foreign policy he will have; he now has a foreign policy that he is carrying out.
We therefore are at a good point to stop and consider not what U.S. President Barack Obama will do in the realm of foreign policy, but what he has done and is doing. As we have mentioned before, the single most remarkable thing about Obama’s foreign policy is how consistent it is with the policies of former President George W. Bush. This is not surprising. Presidents operate in the world of constraints; their options are limited. Still, it is worth pausing to note how little Obama has deviated from the Bush foreign policy.
During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, particularly in its early stages, Obama ran against the Iraq war. The centerpiece of his early position was that the war was a mistake, and that he would end it. Obama argued that Bush’s policies — and more important, his style — alienated U.S. allies. He charged Bush with pursuing a unilateral foreign policy, alienating allies by failing to act in concert with them. In doing so, he maintained that the war in Iraq destroyed the international coalition the United States needs to execute any war successfully. Obama further argued that Iraq was a distraction and that the major effort should be in Afghanistan. He added that the United States would need its NATO allies’ support in Afghanistan. He said an Obama administration would reach out to the Europeans, rebuild U.S. ties there and win greater support from them.
Though around 40 countries cooperated with the United States in Iraq, albeit many with only symbolic contributions, the major continental European powers — particularly France and Germany — refused to participate. When Obama spoke of alienating allies, he clearly meant these two countries, as well as smaller European powers that had belonged to the U.S. Cold War coalition but were unwilling to participate in Iraq and were now actively hostile to U.S. policy.
A European Rebuff
Early in his administration, Obama made two strategic decisions. First, instead of ordering an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, he adopted the Bush administration’s policy of a staged withdrawal keyed to political stabilization and the development of Iraqi security forces. While he tweaked the timeline on the withdrawal, the basic strategy remained intact. Indeed, he retained Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, to oversee the withdrawal.
Second, he increased the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Bush administration had committed itself to Afghanistan from 9/11 onward. But it had remained in a defensive posture in the belief that given the forces available, enemy capabilities and the historic record, that was the best that could be done, especially as the Pentagon was almost immediately reoriented and refocused on the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Toward the end, the Bush administration began exploring — under the influence of Gen. David Petraeus, who designed the strategy in Iraq — the possibility of some sort of political accommodation in Afghanistan.
Obama has shifted his strategy in Afghanistan to this extent: He has moved from a purely defensive posture to a mixed posture of selective offense and defense, and has placed more forces into Afghanistan (although the United States still has nowhere near the number of troops the Soviets had when they lost their Afghan war). Therefore, the core structure of Obama’s policy remains the same as Bush’s except for the introduction of limited offensives. In a major shift since Obama took office, the Pakistanis have taken a more aggressive stance (or at least want to appear more aggressive) toward the Taliban and al Qaeda, at least within their own borders. But even so, Obama’s basic strategy remains the same as Bush’s: hold in Afghanistan until the political situation evolves to the point that a political settlement is possible.
Most interesting is how little success Obama has had with the French and the Germans. Bush had given up asking for assistance in Afghanistan, but Obama tried again. He received the same answer Bush did: no. Except for some minor, short-term assistance, the French and Germans were unwilling to commit forces to Obama’s major foreign policy effort, something that stands out.
Given the degree to which the Europeans disliked Bush and were eager to have a president who would revert the U.S.-European relationship to what it once was (at least in their view), one would have thought the French and Germans would be eager to make some substantial gesture rewarding the United States for selecting a pro-European president. Certainly, it was in their interest to strengthen Obama. That they proved unwilling to make that gesture suggests that the French and German relationship with the United States is much less important to Paris and Berlin than it would appear. Obama, a pro-European president, was emphasizing a war France and Germany approved of over a war they disapproved of and asked for their help, but virtually none was forthcoming.
The Russian Non-Reset
Obama’s desire to reset European relations was matched by his desire to reset U.S.-Russian relations. Ever since the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine in late 2004 and early 2005, U.S.-Russian relations had deteriorated dramatically, with Moscow charging Washington with interfering in the internal affairs of former Soviet republics with the aim of weakening Russia. This culminated in the Russo-Georgian war last August. The Obama administration has since suggested a “reset” in relations, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually carrying a box labeled “reset button” to her spring meeting with the Russians.
The problem, of course, was that the last thing the Russians wanted was to reset relations with the United States. They did not want to go back to the period after the Orange Revolution, nor did they want to go back to the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Orange Revolution. The Obama administration’s call for a reset showed the distance between the Russians and the Americans: The Russians regard the latter period as an economic and geopolitical disaster, while the Americans regard it as quite satisfactory. Both views are completely understandable.
The Obama administration was signaling that it intends to continue the Bush administration’s Russia policy. That policy was that Russia had no legitimate right to claim priority in the former Soviet Union, and that the United States had the right to develop bilateral relations with any country and expand NATO as it wished. But the Bush administration saw the Russian leadership as unwilling to follow the basic architecture of relations that had developed after 1991, and as unreasonably redefining what the Americans thought of as a stable and desirable relationship.
The Russian response was that an entirely new relationship was needed between the two countries, or the Russians would pursue an independent foreign policy matching U.S. hostility with Russian hostility. Highlighting the continuity in U.S.-Russian relations, plans for the prospective ballistic missile defense installation in Poland, a symbol of antagonistic U.S.-Russian relations, remain unchanged.
The underlying problem is that the Cold War generation of U.S. Russian experts has been supplanted by the post-Cold War generation, now grown to maturity and authority. If the Cold warriors were forged in the 1960s, the post-Cold warriors are forever caught in the 1990s. They believed that the 1990s represented a stable platform from which to reform Russia, and that the grumbling of Russians plunged into poverty and international irrelevancy at that time is simply part of the post-Cold War order.
They believe that without economic power, Russia cannot hope to be an important player on the international stage. That Russia has never been an economic power even at the height of its influence but has frequently been a military power doesn’t register. Therefore, they are constantly expecting Russia to revert to its 1990s patterns, and believe that if Moscow doesn’t, it will collapse — which explains U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s interview in The Wall Street Journal where he discussed Russia’s decline in terms of its economic and demographic challenges. Obama’s key advisers come from the Clinton administration, and their view of Russia — like that of the Bush administration — was forged in the 1990s.
Foreign Policy Continuity Elsewhere
When we look at U.S.-China policy, we see very similar patterns with the Bush administration. The United States under Obama has the same interest in maintaining economic ties and avoiding political complications as the Bush administration did. Indeed, Hillary Clinton explicitly refused to involve herself in human rights issues during her visit to China. Campaign talk of engaging China on human rights issues is gone. Given the interests of both countries, this makes sense, but it is also noteworthy given the ample opportunity to speak to China on this front (and fulfill campaign promises) that has arisen since Obama took office (such as the Uighur riots).
Of great interest, of course, were the three great openings of the early Obama administration, to Cuba, to Iran, and to the Islamic world in general through his Cairo speech. The Cubans and Iranians rebuffed his opening, whereas the net result of the speech to the Islamic world remains unclear. With Iran we see the most important continuity. Obama continues to demand an end to Tehran’s nuclear program, and has promised further sanctions unless Iran agrees to enter into serious talks by late September.
On Israel, the United States has merely shifted the atmospherics. Both the Bush and Obama administrations demanded that the Israelis halt settlements, as have many other administrations. The Israelis have usually responded by agreeing to something small while ignoring the larger issue. The Obama administration seemed ready to make a major issue of this, but instead continued to maintain security collaboration with the Israelis on Iran and Lebanon (and we assume intelligence collaboration). Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has not allowed the settlements to get in the way of fundamental strategic interests.
This is not a criticism of Obama. Presidents — all presidents — run on a platform that will win. If they are good presidents, they will leave behind these promises to govern as they must. This is what Obama has done. He ran for president as the antithesis of Bush. He has conducted his foreign policy as if he were Bush. This is because Bush’s foreign policy was shaped by necessity, and Obama’s foreign policy is shaped by the same necessity. Presidents who believe they can govern independent of reality are failures. Obama doesn’t intend to fail.
Tell STRATFOR What You Think
For Publication in Letters to STRATFORNot For Publication
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to http://www.stratfor.com/"
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Machiavelli's "The Prince" Versus Pres. Obama's "Team of Rivals" Cabinet
The "mirror for princes" genre was a type of political writing that was very popular during the European Renaissance of the 14th through 17th centuries. These books taught rulers how to behave in order to avoid having reigns that were violent, tragic, and most of all, short. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is the most famous example of this genre. Currently, these books are mostly read as a form of self-help literature. Most Blacks have never heard of them. This is a pity. This lack of knowledge makes us vulnerable. Vulnerable to hype, and vulnerable to the wiles of others who are familiar with the wisdom contained in these books.
In my recent Sovereign Individual post, I mentioned some of the flaws inherent in the composition of what Pres. Obama apparently believes is "his" team. I pointed out that Pres. Obama doesn't have a strong, faithful posse of his own. He didn't create any of the people around him. Instead, he was loaned the use of other people's posses and retainers. To use Renaissance terminology, Pres. Obama has surrounded himself with mercenaries and auxiliaries. Auxiliaries are troops borrowed from another (typically more powerful) prince.
We can all see what's wrong with depending upon mercenaries. They have no loyalty to anyone because they fight for money. The small saving grace is that mercenaries usually work as individuals with no real attachments to other rulers or factions. Therefore, they probably won't work in an organized, united manner to undermine the prince that has hired them. When mercenaries betray the prince who hired them, they will usually do so as individuals. This is more manageable than the problems created by auxiliaries.
Auxiliaries are even more dangerous than mercenaries. Auxiliaries are loyal to another prince!
When you lose with auxiliaries, you lose. When you win with auxiliaries, you still lose. This is because you owe your victory to the power of another prince. The other prince who loaned you his troops wins because he controls his principality, and indirectly yours also.
A prince without his own native troops will never be truly independent OR secure.
I'll let Niccolo Machiavelli break it down about mercenaries:
"I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.
The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe. . . " The Prince, Chapter 12, "How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries." [emphasis added]
Machiavelli on auxiliaries:
"[Auxiliaries] may be useful and good in themselves, but for [the prince] who calls them in they are always disadvantageous; for losing, one is undone, and winning, one is their captive." The Prince, Chapter 13, "Concerning Auxiliaries, Mixed Soldiery, And One's Own." [emphasis added]
I'm going through this in some detail because more of us need to learn how to disregard the hype, and look at situations through the prism of recorded human experience in these matters. It's worth everyone's time to read The Prince and other "mirrors for princes."
In my recent Sovereign Individual post, I mentioned some of the flaws inherent in the composition of what Pres. Obama apparently believes is "his" team. I pointed out that Pres. Obama doesn't have a strong, faithful posse of his own. He didn't create any of the people around him. Instead, he was loaned the use of other people's posses and retainers. To use Renaissance terminology, Pres. Obama has surrounded himself with mercenaries and auxiliaries. Auxiliaries are troops borrowed from another (typically more powerful) prince.
We can all see what's wrong with depending upon mercenaries. They have no loyalty to anyone because they fight for money. The small saving grace is that mercenaries usually work as individuals with no real attachments to other rulers or factions. Therefore, they probably won't work in an organized, united manner to undermine the prince that has hired them. When mercenaries betray the prince who hired them, they will usually do so as individuals. This is more manageable than the problems created by auxiliaries.
Auxiliaries are even more dangerous than mercenaries. Auxiliaries are loyal to another prince!
When you lose with auxiliaries, you lose. When you win with auxiliaries, you still lose. This is because you owe your victory to the power of another prince. The other prince who loaned you his troops wins because he controls his principality, and indirectly yours also.
A prince without his own native troops will never be truly independent OR secure.
I'll let Niccolo Machiavelli break it down about mercenaries:
"I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.
The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe. . . " The Prince, Chapter 12, "How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries." [emphasis added]
Machiavelli on auxiliaries:
"[Auxiliaries] may be useful and good in themselves, but for [the prince] who calls them in they are always disadvantageous; for losing, one is undone, and winning, one is their captive." The Prince, Chapter 13, "Concerning Auxiliaries, Mixed Soldiery, And One's Own." [emphasis added]
I'm going through this in some detail because more of us need to learn how to disregard the hype, and look at situations through the prism of recorded human experience in these matters. It's worth everyone's time to read The Prince and other "mirrors for princes."
For Your Own Survival, You Must Become a "Sovereign Individual" Instead of a Typical Employee
Don't Stake Your Survival on Pres. Obama
Don't stake your (and your loved ones') survival on anything that Pres. Obama might do. First of all, there's no way of knowing whether or not his economic proposals will actually work. Second, there are MANY other parties that don't want any of his proposals to succeed. Including many individuals that are nominally on his "side."
Pres. Obama Does NOT Have His Own Posse. Nobody is Watching His Back. This Means That Anything He Does WILL Be Sabotaged. From the Inside-Out.
I can see that the masses of our people will be devastated (in many different ways) when various factions from within as well as outside the Democratic Party finally pull down the Obama-ssiah.
It doesn't matter how much Pres. Obama tries to appease these factions. The problem is that these various factions cannot be appeased. This is because they don't want to be appeased. What they want is to make sure that whatever efforts the Obama-ssiah makes fail, and he gets ALL of the blame, while they position themselves to reign. . . err, rule. . . err, govern. . . once he's been politically destroyed.
This illustrates another problem with most Black folks' concept of politics. We don't understand that the "ruler" is only as strong as his infrastructure (aka "posse"). In Chicago terms, his political "machine." Does Pres. Obama actually have a loyal, faithful, strong posse of his own? Or is he somebody who was loaned the use of other people's posses? We know the answer to this.
It looks like he didn't understand that these various "retainers" are only loyal to the people who actually own and created them. They are loyal to the individuals who loaned them to him. NOT to him. He didn't create any of these people. This is one of the unspoken consequences of Pres. Obama being a crossover candidate who did not come from any sort of organized Black movement or infrastructure.
Black voters simply hopped on the Obama-ssiah bandwagon after they saw that Whites in Iowa were willing to vote for him. Pres. Obama did not come from us. Not that our infrastructure or organizations are particularly solid, but Pres. Obama has NOTHING but thin air under his feet.
Pres. Obama's recent blindsided stumbles with several cabinet nominees should be a signal to you. The manner in which all of that went down made it quite apparent to me that he doesn't have anybody who is actually watching his back. He doesn't even have an old-school, Chicago political "machine" to watch his back. That's his own fault for being naive.
Machiavelli warned about the dangers of a prince being dependent upon mercenaries. Especially foreign ones. They have a nasty habit of abruptly abandoning the prince (at the worst possible moment) in favor of the highest bidder, and/or their previous employers.
For the love of God, don't rely on this one (naive) man for your survival.
The "Factory Age" of Rising Income Equality is OVER
From a 1997 book, The Sovereign Individual, by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg:
"[Otto Ammon, a 19th century German economist] believed that high abilities naturally result in people rising in income and social position. . . . He also believed that the 'true form of the so-called social pyramid is that of a somewhat flat onion or turnip.' . . . Modern industrial societies are indeed all turnips, with a small wealthy and upper-professional class at the top, a larger middle class, and a minority poor at the bottom. Relative to the middle, both the extremes are small.
. . . All of this is intriguing, but the immediate interest of Ammon's work lies in the major long-term shift we are experiencing in the relations, financial and political, between the top and the middle. . . . Most people could master the skills required for operating the machines of the mid-twentieth century, but those jobs have now been replaced by smart machines which, in effect, control themselves. A whole arena of low- and middle-skill employment has already disappeared. If we are correct, this is a prelude to the disappearance of most employment and the reconfiguration of work in the spot market. " pgs. 212-213.
"Societies that have been indoctrinated to expect income equality and high levels of consumption for persons of low or modest skills will face demotivation and insecurity. As the economies of more countries more deeply assimilate information technology, they will see the emergence---so evident already in North America---of a more or less unemployable underclass. [Khadija interrupting the quote here: Guess who this is? You get one guess.] This is exactly what is happening. This will lead to a reaction with a nationalist, antitechnology bias, as we detail in the next chapter.
The Factory Age may prove to have been a unique period in which semistupid machines left a highly profitable niche for unskilled people. Now that the machines can look after themselves, the Information Age is pouring its gifts onto the top 5 percent of Otto Ammon's turnip." pg.214 [emphasis added].
No More "Good Jobs"
". . . The model business organization of the new information economy may be a movie production company. Such enterprises can be very sophisticated, with budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars. While they are large operations, they are also temporary in nature. . . While the people who work on the production are very talented, they have no expectation that finding work on the project is equivalent to having a 'permanent job.'" The Sovereign Individual, pg. 237.
Also, read the following blog post about how, in a connected world where "productivity is portable," the artificial differences in salaries between workers in different countries are evaporating. http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2009/02/journal-normalizing-wagessalaries.html Please note the linked CNN story about how IBM offered its laid-off employees the "opportunity" of moving to India, Russia, and Nigeria and working at LOCAL salaries in order to keep their jobs.
My God.
Do you want to have your salary "normalized" with that of a similarly-educated worker in China? I didn't think so. Well, that's what's heading your way unless you make yourself as "sovereign" as possible. This means as independent as possible from your employer. This means having multiple income streams.
People, Get Ready.
Don't stake your (and your loved ones') survival on anything that Pres. Obama might do. First of all, there's no way of knowing whether or not his economic proposals will actually work. Second, there are MANY other parties that don't want any of his proposals to succeed. Including many individuals that are nominally on his "side."
Pres. Obama Does NOT Have His Own Posse. Nobody is Watching His Back. This Means That Anything He Does WILL Be Sabotaged. From the Inside-Out.
I can see that the masses of our people will be devastated (in many different ways) when various factions from within as well as outside the Democratic Party finally pull down the Obama-ssiah.
It doesn't matter how much Pres. Obama tries to appease these factions. The problem is that these various factions cannot be appeased. This is because they don't want to be appeased. What they want is to make sure that whatever efforts the Obama-ssiah makes fail, and he gets ALL of the blame, while they position themselves to reign. . . err, rule. . . err, govern. . . once he's been politically destroyed.
This illustrates another problem with most Black folks' concept of politics. We don't understand that the "ruler" is only as strong as his infrastructure (aka "posse"). In Chicago terms, his political "machine." Does Pres. Obama actually have a loyal, faithful, strong posse of his own? Or is he somebody who was loaned the use of other people's posses? We know the answer to this.
It looks like he didn't understand that these various "retainers" are only loyal to the people who actually own and created them. They are loyal to the individuals who loaned them to him. NOT to him. He didn't create any of these people. This is one of the unspoken consequences of Pres. Obama being a crossover candidate who did not come from any sort of organized Black movement or infrastructure.
Black voters simply hopped on the Obama-ssiah bandwagon after they saw that Whites in Iowa were willing to vote for him. Pres. Obama did not come from us. Not that our infrastructure or organizations are particularly solid, but Pres. Obama has NOTHING but thin air under his feet.
Pres. Obama's recent blindsided stumbles with several cabinet nominees should be a signal to you. The manner in which all of that went down made it quite apparent to me that he doesn't have anybody who is actually watching his back. He doesn't even have an old-school, Chicago political "machine" to watch his back. That's his own fault for being naive.
Machiavelli warned about the dangers of a prince being dependent upon mercenaries. Especially foreign ones. They have a nasty habit of abruptly abandoning the prince (at the worst possible moment) in favor of the highest bidder, and/or their previous employers.
For the love of God, don't rely on this one (naive) man for your survival.
The "Factory Age" of Rising Income Equality is OVER
From a 1997 book, The Sovereign Individual, by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg:
"[Otto Ammon, a 19th century German economist] believed that high abilities naturally result in people rising in income and social position. . . . He also believed that the 'true form of the so-called social pyramid is that of a somewhat flat onion or turnip.' . . . Modern industrial societies are indeed all turnips, with a small wealthy and upper-professional class at the top, a larger middle class, and a minority poor at the bottom. Relative to the middle, both the extremes are small.
. . . All of this is intriguing, but the immediate interest of Ammon's work lies in the major long-term shift we are experiencing in the relations, financial and political, between the top and the middle. . . . Most people could master the skills required for operating the machines of the mid-twentieth century, but those jobs have now been replaced by smart machines which, in effect, control themselves. A whole arena of low- and middle-skill employment has already disappeared. If we are correct, this is a prelude to the disappearance of most employment and the reconfiguration of work in the spot market. " pgs. 212-213.
"Societies that have been indoctrinated to expect income equality and high levels of consumption for persons of low or modest skills will face demotivation and insecurity. As the economies of more countries more deeply assimilate information technology, they will see the emergence---so evident already in North America---of a more or less unemployable underclass. [Khadija interrupting the quote here: Guess who this is? You get one guess.] This is exactly what is happening. This will lead to a reaction with a nationalist, antitechnology bias, as we detail in the next chapter.
The Factory Age may prove to have been a unique period in which semistupid machines left a highly profitable niche for unskilled people. Now that the machines can look after themselves, the Information Age is pouring its gifts onto the top 5 percent of Otto Ammon's turnip." pg.214 [emphasis added].
No More "Good Jobs"
". . . The model business organization of the new information economy may be a movie production company. Such enterprises can be very sophisticated, with budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars. While they are large operations, they are also temporary in nature. . . While the people who work on the production are very talented, they have no expectation that finding work on the project is equivalent to having a 'permanent job.'" The Sovereign Individual, pg. 237.
Also, read the following blog post about how, in a connected world where "productivity is portable," the artificial differences in salaries between workers in different countries are evaporating. http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2009/02/journal-normalizing-wagessalaries.html Please note the linked CNN story about how IBM offered its laid-off employees the "opportunity" of moving to India, Russia, and Nigeria and working at LOCAL salaries in order to keep their jobs.
My God.
Do you want to have your salary "normalized" with that of a similarly-educated worker in China? I didn't think so. Well, that's what's heading your way unless you make yourself as "sovereign" as possible. This means as independent as possible from your employer. This means having multiple income streams.
People, Get Ready.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Obama-ssiah is Coming!
Kudos to Mike Flugennock for designing the poster. http://www.sinkers.org/posters/The poster says it all.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A Reality Check from Munir Muhammad
From The Black Messiah by Rev. Albert B. Cleage Jr. (founder of The Shrine of the Black Madonna Pan-African Orthodox Christian Church):
"Oppression does not destroy a people. It is the acceptance of oppression that destroys." pg. 20.
"People who are constantly waiting for divine intervention find it difficult to develop and keep leadership because leadership depends upon people who are expecting to do something for themselves. Leadership is created by people who are demanding and ready to struggle for certain things. But what role is there for leadership when a people are waiting for God to break into history? Leadership is reduced to mythical incantations, magic dances, and other rituals designed to induce God to do more quickly that which He has already decided to do." pg. 172 (emphasis added).
{Insert chants of "Yes, we can!"}
"You can't lead a people who are sitting around waiting for Jesus to come back on clouds of glory. All you can do is prepare a landing field for him." pg. 173.
Yes, I can see that the landing field for the false messiah is being prepared, and will be ready for January 2009. Those who worship the Obama-ssiah are preparing for their false Jubilee. They are preparing to live, "work," and "struggle" vicariously through this one politician who has promised them NOTHING. They are already fast asleep, enjoying their dream. Actually, it's a waking hallucination. But, I digress . . .
There are others who really should know better who are also dozing off. I almost wonder if these individuals have been drugged.
The Coalition for the Remembrance of Elijah Muhammad (CROE) was formed in 1987 in Chicago. Several long-time followers of Elijah Muhammad's teachings were dismayed by the efforts made to write Mr. Muhammad out of Black history. They were also displeased by the frequent efforts to elevate Mr. Muhammad's students (such as Malcolm X and Min. Farrakhan) over the teacher. There are people who want to use parts of Elijah Muhammad's program without giving him proper credit. There are also people who want to tell lies about Elijah Muhammad. To combat all of this, CROE maintains an extensive archive of audio and video recordings of Elijah Muhammad's speeches, as well as other materials. They also host a cable-access program called Muhammad and Friends.
Over the years, many prominent Chicago-area Black politicians have been guests on Muhammad and Friends. Even the now Obama-ssiah has appeared on this show in the past!
As vehemently as I disagree with the theology put forth by the members of CROE, they are steadfast in saying many things that I believe are both true and necessary. One of the co-founders of CROE, Munir Muhammad, makes some extremely important points in this clip:
"Oppression does not destroy a people. It is the acceptance of oppression that destroys." pg. 20.
"People who are constantly waiting for divine intervention find it difficult to develop and keep leadership because leadership depends upon people who are expecting to do something for themselves. Leadership is created by people who are demanding and ready to struggle for certain things. But what role is there for leadership when a people are waiting for God to break into history? Leadership is reduced to mythical incantations, magic dances, and other rituals designed to induce God to do more quickly that which He has already decided to do." pg. 172 (emphasis added).
{Insert chants of "Yes, we can!"}
"You can't lead a people who are sitting around waiting for Jesus to come back on clouds of glory. All you can do is prepare a landing field for him." pg. 173.
Yes, I can see that the landing field for the false messiah is being prepared, and will be ready for January 2009. Those who worship the Obama-ssiah are preparing for their false Jubilee. They are preparing to live, "work," and "struggle" vicariously through this one politician who has promised them NOTHING. They are already fast asleep, enjoying their dream. Actually, it's a waking hallucination. But, I digress . . .
There are others who really should know better who are also dozing off. I almost wonder if these individuals have been drugged.
The Coalition for the Remembrance of Elijah Muhammad (CROE) was formed in 1987 in Chicago. Several long-time followers of Elijah Muhammad's teachings were dismayed by the efforts made to write Mr. Muhammad out of Black history. They were also displeased by the frequent efforts to elevate Mr. Muhammad's students (such as Malcolm X and Min. Farrakhan) over the teacher. There are people who want to use parts of Elijah Muhammad's program without giving him proper credit. There are also people who want to tell lies about Elijah Muhammad. To combat all of this, CROE maintains an extensive archive of audio and video recordings of Elijah Muhammad's speeches, as well as other materials. They also host a cable-access program called Muhammad and Friends.
Over the years, many prominent Chicago-area Black politicians have been guests on Muhammad and Friends. Even the now Obama-ssiah has appeared on this show in the past!
As vehemently as I disagree with the theology put forth by the members of CROE, they are steadfast in saying many things that I believe are both true and necessary. One of the co-founders of CROE, Munir Muhammad, makes some extremely important points in this clip:
Friday, November 7, 2008
Reader's Money Quote - From Rev. Lisa Vazquez
The Reader's Money Quote is a statement that is of such insight and importance that it merits frequent and loud repetition. This Reader's Money Quote is from Rev. Lisa Vazquez, host of the blog Black Women, Blow the Trumpet! She said the following while commenting on Welcome to Election Night at Grant Park.
"White people tend to build up a 'special negro' and they grin as blacks create an emotional investment in that person . . . . THEN . . . . whenever they feel like it, they whip out the noose on that 'special negro' and let him swing in the wind and they watch the faces of those blacks who put their IDENTITY and DESTINY in the successes of that one 'special negro' . . . . and they grin that they have again, and again pulled this same trick on us.
We never talk about this vile trick . . . . and fall for it every time . . . .
I can think of COUNTLESS 'special negroes' that whites were supportive of and later on, pulled out the noose on . . . . when Martin Luther King was killed, black people acted like the entire world was coming to an end. One man had died . . . . one visionary . . . . they put ALL OF THEIR HOPE in one person . . . . {shaking my head}
Once again, the blacks who had this mentality passed it on to the next generation since we are AGAIN . . . . seeing this same mentality . . . . {shaking my head}"
In response, I noted that what Lisa has described is a very old, very effective slave-breaking technique. Take the most admired slave and build him up by granting him special favors or a special position. For a while. Then make an example out of him by destroying him in front of the other slaves.
This leaves the surviving slaves TOTALLY demoralized, beaten, and broken. All because they invested themselves and their destiny into a person and NOT a plan for escape. Lisa, thank you for providing this Reader's Money Quote. This could be the most important point to be made about the dangers of the "Obama-ssiah" phenomenon.
"White people tend to build up a 'special negro' and they grin as blacks create an emotional investment in that person . . . . THEN . . . . whenever they feel like it, they whip out the noose on that 'special negro' and let him swing in the wind and they watch the faces of those blacks who put their IDENTITY and DESTINY in the successes of that one 'special negro' . . . . and they grin that they have again, and again pulled this same trick on us.
We never talk about this vile trick . . . . and fall for it every time . . . .
I can think of COUNTLESS 'special negroes' that whites were supportive of and later on, pulled out the noose on . . . . when Martin Luther King was killed, black people acted like the entire world was coming to an end. One man had died . . . . one visionary . . . . they put ALL OF THEIR HOPE in one person . . . . {shaking my head}
Once again, the blacks who had this mentality passed it on to the next generation since we are AGAIN . . . . seeing this same mentality . . . . {shaking my head}"
In response, I noted that what Lisa has described is a very old, very effective slave-breaking technique. Take the most admired slave and build him up by granting him special favors or a special position. For a while. Then make an example out of him by destroying him in front of the other slaves.
This leaves the surviving slaves TOTALLY demoralized, beaten, and broken. All because they invested themselves and their destiny into a person and NOT a plan for escape. Lisa, thank you for providing this Reader's Money Quote. This could be the most important point to be made about the dangers of the "Obama-ssiah" phenomenon.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
"Welcome to Election Night at Grant Park"
Some of my relatives decided to rent a room at a South Loop hotel in order to participate in the election rally. [Instead of having to get through the masses and traffic to drive home afterward.] Since I'm off from work this week, I decided to jump on their bandwagon and go to the rally. So, here are some random observations of election night at Grant Park:
It's an unusually warm, Indian-summer day in Chicago. The afternoon temperature is in the 70s and sunny. The banners over the underground parking lot near Grant Park read "Obama Presidential Parking."[I was mildly amused that the City of Chicago let them phrase it that way, instead of "election rally parking."] There was already a huge crowd gathered on Michigan Avenue by 2:30 p.m. The emotional atmosphere is very much like it was during Mayor Harold Washington's election as Chicago's first Black mayor. The difference 20+ years later is that the hopeful, energized crowds here in Grant Park are mostly White---I would guess about 55% White. [If you know anything about Chicago's racially polarized politics, you know that this is a "!!!" moment.]
Unlike Mayor Washington's election, I'm emotionally detached from this one. I'm not at all excited about President-elect Obama. I've lived and voted through far too many "let's make history" elections that were hollow victories. Sometimes, the "let's make history by electing the first Black [fill in the blank]" politician is used to do things that Black people would never tolerate from White office holders. I remember how the "let's make history, first Black" mayor of Philadelphia, Wilson Goode, presided over the police firebombing of a Black neighborhood. This firebombing caused fatalities (including the deaths of several Black children), and burned down dozens of Black families' homes. We certainly made history with Wilson Goode.
The only "let's make history" vote I cast that I'm pleased with years later is for Mayor Harold Washington.
With this election, the only meaningful benefit I see is how Michelle Obama being held up as a model of grace and beauty will help lift Black girls' spirits. I am extremely pleased by this because Mrs. Obama is a typical, brown-skinned Black woman. She's not one of the "White women's children" or "looks like a White woman's child" individuals that are held up to the rest of us as the pinnacle of Black beauty. This is a significant deviation from the "paper bag test" and "manila folder test" that has been established to measure Black beauty. This is extremely important.
There were a couple of people in the crowd hoping to be able to get tickets into the main rally. One young Black woman was wearing a placard that said, "I came all the way from Seattle without a ticket. Please help." A young White man held up his skateboard which read on the underside, "Will skate for a ticket."
The crowd was extremely diverse. I see a few hijabis in the crowd while overhearing an animated conversation in Chinese next to us. There are lots of people that came from all over the country and all over the world to be here for this. I talk to a young African-American woman who came from Houston with her relatives. We discuss the Biblical precedent of people living to fulfill a certain purpose and then being killed. Jesus, Dr. King. We're both hopeful that President-elect Obama gets to live a long, full life. I have a conversation with a White man who's about my age, we both express the hope that the victory margin is too large for the Republicans to seriously try to steal the election (as before).
A recording plays, "Welcome to Election Night at Grant Park. Signs, banners, strollers, and food are not allowed into Grant Park." That's why the television audience didn't see any banners being waved during crowd shots. I saw about 5 Chicago police officers on horseback riding through the crowd on Michigan Avenue. One horse seemed startled for a moment by the spontaneous chanting that would break out in sections of the crowd. There's the constant background sound of police helicopters hovering over the park.
The crowd is surprisingly attentive and respectful during Sen. McCain's concession speech. The only boos come at the mention of Gov. Palin's name. The crowd is mesmerized by President-elect Obama's speech. I notice the warnings ("the government can't do everything"), and somber notes in his speech. One of my relatives compares the situation to Detroit. "They" let Blacks take (nominal) control of things just as they're on a steep decline.
Time will tell.
It's an unusually warm, Indian-summer day in Chicago. The afternoon temperature is in the 70s and sunny. The banners over the underground parking lot near Grant Park read "Obama Presidential Parking."[I was mildly amused that the City of Chicago let them phrase it that way, instead of "election rally parking."] There was already a huge crowd gathered on Michigan Avenue by 2:30 p.m. The emotional atmosphere is very much like it was during Mayor Harold Washington's election as Chicago's first Black mayor. The difference 20+ years later is that the hopeful, energized crowds here in Grant Park are mostly White---I would guess about 55% White. [If you know anything about Chicago's racially polarized politics, you know that this is a "!!!" moment.]
Unlike Mayor Washington's election, I'm emotionally detached from this one. I'm not at all excited about President-elect Obama. I've lived and voted through far too many "let's make history" elections that were hollow victories. Sometimes, the "let's make history by electing the first Black [fill in the blank]" politician is used to do things that Black people would never tolerate from White office holders. I remember how the "let's make history, first Black" mayor of Philadelphia, Wilson Goode, presided over the police firebombing of a Black neighborhood. This firebombing caused fatalities (including the deaths of several Black children), and burned down dozens of Black families' homes. We certainly made history with Wilson Goode.
The only "let's make history" vote I cast that I'm pleased with years later is for Mayor Harold Washington.
With this election, the only meaningful benefit I see is how Michelle Obama being held up as a model of grace and beauty will help lift Black girls' spirits. I am extremely pleased by this because Mrs. Obama is a typical, brown-skinned Black woman. She's not one of the "White women's children" or "looks like a White woman's child" individuals that are held up to the rest of us as the pinnacle of Black beauty. This is a significant deviation from the "paper bag test" and "manila folder test" that has been established to measure Black beauty. This is extremely important.
There were a couple of people in the crowd hoping to be able to get tickets into the main rally. One young Black woman was wearing a placard that said, "I came all the way from Seattle without a ticket. Please help." A young White man held up his skateboard which read on the underside, "Will skate for a ticket."
The crowd was extremely diverse. I see a few hijabis in the crowd while overhearing an animated conversation in Chinese next to us. There are lots of people that came from all over the country and all over the world to be here for this. I talk to a young African-American woman who came from Houston with her relatives. We discuss the Biblical precedent of people living to fulfill a certain purpose and then being killed. Jesus, Dr. King. We're both hopeful that President-elect Obama gets to live a long, full life. I have a conversation with a White man who's about my age, we both express the hope that the victory margin is too large for the Republicans to seriously try to steal the election (as before).
A recording plays, "Welcome to Election Night at Grant Park. Signs, banners, strollers, and food are not allowed into Grant Park." That's why the television audience didn't see any banners being waved during crowd shots. I saw about 5 Chicago police officers on horseback riding through the crowd on Michigan Avenue. One horse seemed startled for a moment by the spontaneous chanting that would break out in sections of the crowd. There's the constant background sound of police helicopters hovering over the park.
The crowd is surprisingly attentive and respectful during Sen. McCain's concession speech. The only boos come at the mention of Gov. Palin's name. The crowd is mesmerized by President-elect Obama's speech. I notice the warnings ("the government can't do everything"), and somber notes in his speech. One of my relatives compares the situation to Detroit. "They" let Blacks take (nominal) control of things just as they're on a steep decline.
Time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
