[Peace-discuss] The Nation praises Obama's war propaganda

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Haven't read the Nation article yet, but will. However, Vanden Heuval was on one of the Sunday morning news shows last week and unequivocally disagreed w/ Obama's decision to escalate -- rather that wind down -- the war in Afghanistan. And since she was neither nasty nor disagreeable while speaking her mind, she'll be invited back and maybe even have a chance to change a few minds on a few other progressive issues. 
 --Jenifer 

--- On Sun, 12/13/09, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:


From: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Nation praises Obama's war propaganda
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Date: Sunday, December 13, 2009, 5:31 PM


What is said here is mostly right on the money and should impel readers The Nation to condemn, the remarks of Nichols and Vanden Heuval. It will be interesting to see if similar remarks appear in print in the magazine, where there is likely to be a nonfavorable reaction. Note that Alexander Cockburn writes for The Nation, as do some others less willing to try to stay in the good graces of the Obama administration. Less conciliatory reactions are expected from from The Progressive and Z Magazine.   --mkb



On Dec 13, 2009, at 3:10 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:


...Hastening to align itself with the imperialist establishment and declare its support for [Obama's "Peace Prize"] speech was the Nation magazine, the main organ of what passes for “left” liberalism. John Nichols, one of the magazine’s principal commentators, in a blog entry published almost immediately after the speech and featured as the lead item on the magazine’s web site, wrote that it was "an exceptionally well-reasoned and appropriately humble address."

Nichols gushed, "The president's frankness about the controversies and concerns regarding the award of a Peace Prize to a man who just last week ordered 30,000 US new troops into the Afghanistan quagmire, and the humility he displayed ... offered a glimpse of Obama at his best."

"As such," he continued, "the speech was important and, dare we say, hopeful."

In an interview on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” news program, the Nation’s editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, praised the speech’s supposed "humility and grace." The host of the show, evidently expecting more criticism, noted that vanden Heuvel "seemed to be resolving the conflict between the wartime president ... and the speech about peace rather easily...”

Vanden Heuvel responded with blather about the "complexity" of American life. It was a "complex speech," she said, and she was "interested in its complexity."

Contrary to vanden Heuvel, there was nothing “humble” or “graceful” about Obama’s speech. Nor was it complex. It was an open brief for unrestrained aggression and colonial oppression.

There should be no confusion as to the position of the Nation and the privileged upper-middle-class layers for which the magazine speaks, including former radicals and one-time critics of US imperialism. They have moved squarely into the camp of American imperialism. They support Obama’s wars in Central Asia and Iraq and, more generally, the efforts of the United States to assert global hegemony.

In the run-up to the 2008 elections, the Nation was among the most enthusiastic supporters of the Obama campaign, presenting his victory as the first stage in a radical reform and revitalization of American democracy. It vouched for Obama’s supposedly antiwar credentials.

One year later, the candidate of “change” and “hope” presides over a right-wing administration that is expanding US military aggression while it bails out Wall Street and attacks the jobs and living standards of the working class.

The unmasking of Obama before the entire world has not in any way lessened the support he receives from the Nation. On the contrary, the coming to power of an African-American president has served as the vehicle for American liberalism, including its supposedly “left” wing, which long ago abandoned any serious reform agenda and rejected class as the basic category of social life in favor of race, gender and other categories of identity politics, to lurch further to the right.

It has provided the means by which the Nation has completed its passage into the camp of American imperialism and political reaction.

Remarking on Obama’s speech, Walter Russell Mead, the Henry Kissinger senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, remarked, “If Bush had said these things the world would be filled with violent denunciations. When Obama says them, people purr.”

The “purring” of the Nation comes at a time of growing popular opposition to the Obama administration and its policies. In his speech, Obama himself made reference to the fact that his expansion of war is deeply unpopular, noting the “disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the population.” He made clear, however, that this “disconnect” will have absolutely no effect on the policy of his government.

What will happen as the “disconnect” turns into anger and opposition? How will the Nation respond? Its greatest concern is the growth of a political movement that breaks free of the Democratic Party...


>From <http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_57791.shtml>; the whole article is worth reading.
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091214/5f13832b/attachment.html