[Peace-discuss] Framing Obama

[C. G. Estabrook]

Stuart--

Thanks for your careful consideration of what I wrote.

I do actually wonder if Obama ever really took "some real anti-war positions."

As Cindy Sheehan pointed out in the summer of 2005 (just before the last time 
AWARE split over Obama: <http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook09292005.html>), 
one is either for the ending of the war and the withdrawal of the U.S. from 
Iraq, or for its continuance. Obama was not then (nor is he now) for the ending 
of the war and the withdrawal of the U.S. from Iraq.  He was never opposed to 
the war in principle (and still isn't) -- just tactically:  it was "the wrong 
war in the wrong place at the wrong time," he said.  But "removing the troops 
now," he said three years ago, "would result in a massive bloodbath for both 
countries," and so couldn't be done.  He criticized the hash the Bush 
administration had made of the war, but his positive alternative ("withdrawal of 
combat troops in 16 months") would leave thousands of US troops in what can only 
be called a permanent occupation, particularly now that it's clear that for 
Obama and the realists, AfPak is the right war in the right place at the right 
time, and indeed that he is urging the administration to kill more people in 
Pakistan.

I think that "Hillary and Obama even seemed to be competing as to who would take 
the clearer antiwar stance" when they read the polls on how 70% of Americans 
were against the war.  That opinion had to be recruited for their respective 
campaigns, but Obama had already thought long and hard about how to reconcile 
(in appearance) elite and popular opinion, by making it appear that they were 
not opposed, as they nevertheless generally are.  He discusses this matter 
obliquely but frequently in "The Audacity of Hope."  There he contends for 
example that the worse result of the Vietnam War was the split between the USG 
and the American people. (Four million SE Asians might disagree, if they could.) 
  He sees the primary job of a potential president is to "bring us together" -- 
which I read as convincing the majority that their interests are not contrary to 
those of the elite, when in fact they are.

I'm actually not sure it matters whether whether candidates' changes reveal 
hidden facts or reflect influence.  We think that AWARE activities (joined with 
those of many others) can influence government policy, either by supporting an 
appropriate candidate or convincing him/her to change.  But we're in danger of 
being misled.  If a candidate who's pro-war can convince the anti-war movement 
to support him/her, s/he can continue (or expand) the war with the anti-war 
movement on her/his side.  That's where "framing" (advertising, public 
relations, lipstick on a pig) comes in -- in this case, it's a matter of making 
a pro-war candidate acceptable to the anti-war movement.

The Vietnam War came to an end, not because the anti-war movement threw the 
rascals out (it didn't), nor because the rascals in office revealed their inner 
peacenik (they didn't), nor because they succumbed to influence (altho' perhaps 
some did).  It ended because the costs of the war, foreign and domestic, became 
too high for the American elite.  Those costs will unfortunately have to be much 
higher  to end the Middle East war, because SW Asia is far more important to the 
USG than SE Asia was.  (And don't forget that the US did finally win in SE Asia, 
after incredible carnage, even if it didn't achieve its maximum war aims.)

The modern anti-war movement should use whatever levers it has, but the greatest 
danger seems to me that it will be distracted.  And it's not a neutral 
environment: great efforts are being exerted to distract it.  Including framing.

Regards, Carl


Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 05:26:14PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> In the absence of an accurate analysis, the best will in the world can do 
>> the right thing only by accident. If I give first aid for drowning to 
>> someone suffering from burns, I probably won't be much help.  The goal of 
>> the brief news summaries that I've offered the AWARE meeting for the past 
>> half-dozen years has been to understand how and why the massive killing 
>> that we Americans have perpetrated has come about, in order to counter it. 
>> Some effort toward that goal has seemed necessary because we all of us hear
>>  about the world through the filter of a huge industry devoted purposely to
>>  misrepresenting crucial political matters.
>> 
>> For the past two years or so one important question has been the real 
>> position of Barack Obama. Was he in fact an anti-war candidate?  The answer
>>  is now obvious, as he calls for an expanded military, more US and NATO 
>> troops for Afghanistan, and attacks on Pakistan, but it hasn't always been 
>> so.  Many good-hearted peace people, hoping against hope (to paraphrase the
>>  apostle), believed that he might become ‘the father of peace for many 
>> nations’ ... but he adopted only the motif.
> 
> Yes, as you've well pointed out, Obama can't call himself an anti-war 
> candidate now. But only a couple of years ago he was taking some real 
> anti-war positions. And more recently, for a while, Hillary and Obama even 
> seemed to be competing as to who would take the clearer antiwar stance.  Not 
> so now.
> 
> The question of framing seems to be, How do we see this change? Do we 
> consider that the candidate is progressively revealing his intrinsic, 
> unalterable nature, which was previously kept hidden -- perhaps to gain the 
> support of (now disappointed) Progressives, without whose help he wouldn't 
> now be the Dem. nominee?
> 
> Or do we see the changes in Obama (and for that matter, in McCain) as showing
>  that their opinions are subject to change -- whether for chasing political 
> opportunity (hoping to please voters in general) or political opportunity 
> again (seeking support of the wealthy, which would gain them more favorable 
> news coverage), or personal persuasion, or what?
> 
> It makes a big difference, of course, whether changes reveal hidden facts or 
> reflect influence.    Because if candidates can be influenced, we in the 
> peace movement can help inflence them.  And if they can be influenced and we 
> do not push them, our opponents will still keep pulling them to the right, 
> and we'll be even more disappointed.
> 
> Here's a quote from a recent Naomi Klein article in The Nation,
> 
> New Orleans: The City That Won't Be Ignored 
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080922/klein (also at 
> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/05 )
> 
> [...]
> 
> The problem is that by remaining virtually silent about the most dramatic 
> domestic outrage in modern US history, Obama created a political vacuum. When
>  Gustav hit, all McCain needed to do to fill it was show up. Sure, it was 
> cynical for McCain to claim the hurricane zone as a campaign backdrop. But it
>  was Obama who left that potent terrain as vacant as a lot in the Lower Ninth
>  Ward.
> 
> Until now, Obama's supporters have largely accepted the campaign's assessment
>  of the compromises necessary to win, offering only gentle prodding. The fact
>  that the Republicans have managed to turn New Orleans to their advantage 
> should put a decisive end to this blind obedience.
> 
> Republicans have a better attitude toward their candidate. When they don't 
> like McCain's positions, they simply change them. Take the hottest-button 
> issue of the campaign: offshore oil drilling. Just four months ago, it was 
> not even on the radar. During the Republican primary, the issue barely came 
> up, and when it did, McCain did not support it. None of this bothered former 
> House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his newly minted American Solutions for 
> Winning the Future. Gingrich waited patiently for what his party loves most: 
> a crisis. It arrived in May, when oil approached $130 a barrel.
> 
> [...]