[Peace-discuss] O's speech

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Obama's props

The rave reviews from Amreekan liberals of Obama's speech to Congress compelled 
me to watch it, or as much of it as I could without sinking into a grinning 
stupor. You don't have to waste your time, as you can read the transcript here. 
Was it really "electrifying"? Well, of course it was. It was supposed to be. But 
was it Obama who was electrifying? Wasn't it just the atmosphere whipped up by 
lapdogs in Congress who insisted upon raising up on their hind legs and slapping 
their paws together at the blandest incitement to do so? Obama did what he was 
expected to do: he conversed as if he might be the father you never had, was 
courteous to his opponents, smiled charmingly, spoke in coy yet apparently 
effusive language, and denounced the past (the past is very unpopular among 
American politicians, especially concerning "the stale ideas of", "the failed 
solutions of", "the broken promises of" etc). And he had very carefully phrased, 
and timed, moments in his speech that clearly instructed his supporters to 
holler and rave. And that was what was electrifying.

Trying to extract content from the speech, on the other hand, was like trying 
suck blood from a stone (where, in all likelihood, the only blood you taste will 
be your own). And even Obama's performance, though obviously well-rehearsed, 
contained a few slips. Not that Obama lacks a sense of dramatic irony. Promising 
to have his stimulus/bailout package sternly overseen by the vainglorious 
waffler Joe Biden, he flourished: "because nobody messes with Joe". Joe, the 
banking industry's favourite gopher, giggled with delight, as red in cheek as he 
was white in mane and fangs. If Congress got the joke, that didn't stop them 
from giving it up once more. In a parallel fashion, when he promised that the 
banks would really be very roughly scrutinised indeed, he remarked: "this time, 
they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more 
lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer 
money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet." 
Another ungovernable ovation. This cassandra was driving the chorus to delirium. 
But was Obama ever a cassandra? Did he not, in fact, put his popularity at the 
service of Wall Street and Hanky Panky Paulson in helping push through the last 
bail-out? You know, the one that enabled CEOs everywhere to replace their dreary 
old drapes with lush new ones made of crushed velvet or, worse, velour? Where 
were his forebodings about the fucking executive curtains?

And again, when it came to reforming healthcare, he subtly juxtaposed it with a 
coded reference to social security privatization. The administration has just 
had to back down from plans to create a task force looking at ways to address 
the supposed solvency problems of the fund. In fact, Obama is lying when he 
complains of the 'growing costs' of social security. The number of over-65s in 
2000 was slightly less than what it was projected it would be by the Roosevelt 
administration in 1934. Notwithstanding that, Alan Greenspan's ominous warnings 
about baby-boomers flooding the social security rolls come the new millenium did 
result in a series of reforms in the 1970s that increased the payroll tax. The 
system has a surplus, and will continue to have a surplus for decades. There is 
no solvency crisis. Obama is, to repeat for emphasis, lying. It is unfortunate 
for him that these fibs were trashed by liberals in 2005 when Bush first tried 
to push through privatization. On the other hand, if his progressive supporters 
continue to gush and drool as they are now doing, he could probably hand over 
the Treasury to Wall Street and no one would hold it against him.

Perhaps Obama's biggest challenge in this speech was to determine the correct 
quantum of patriotic blood-letting. Most Americans oppose both the wars on Iraq 
and Afghanistan. The vast majority of Democratic voters are in opposition. 
Obama, for his part, indicated that he was working on a plan to get US troops 
out and leave Iraqis to their own devices, which would be encouraging except 
that reports intimate his intention to leave tens of thousands of troops in 
there. And as for Afghanistan and Pakistan, the war counsel is evidently that 
the US must escalate to "defeat Al Qaeda and combat extremism". Unfortunately 
for him, Pakistan isn't playing ball, having cut a deal with the Taliban. And, 
as we know, Karzai and most of the population of Afghanistan would like to 
pursue a similar policy. Hardly perfect, I'm sure, but then you don't 
necessarily "combat extremism" by practising it from 20,000 feet, even if you 
sell it as "carnage you can believe in". Still, Obama had more than one audience 
to please, and on this question he has consistently chosen to place his 
presidential charisma at the service of the war party. And, though he has 
thankfully ordered the closure of that Guantanamo hellhole, the fact that he 
insists it is a humane institution should cast some doubt on his statement that 
"the United States of America does not torture". This is being treated as a 
promise, but it sounds like denial. In fact, it is the exact wording Bush used 
in his denials, while the US was in fact torturing prodigiously. And given that 
renditions will continue, and that most of the secret prisons are being 
maintained, there is no reason to believe that the global gulag will stop 
mutilating genitals, much less waterboarding...

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-props.html