[Peace-discuss] Mr Obama: Replace Rahm w/ Me (open letter from Michael Moore)

[C. G. Estabrook]

FDR's administration had to come up with at least palliative responses because 
the situation was so serious and - more importantly - the popular demand was 
great enough. In the 20 years before FDR took office, there had been revolutions 
across Europe and the threat of the same in this country.

In the 20 years before Obama took office we had two Bushes and a Clinton. The 
genius of the 20th century had been at work: "The 20th century has been 
characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of 
democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda 
as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

Unlike FDR, BHO didn't have to actually do anything - except pay off rich people 
at home and increase the killing half a world away. And of course both had to 
work through the constitutional system as it existed in their time - a system , 
remember, that had been designed (as its architect, James Madison, said) "to 
protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" - i.e., to prevent 
democracy. (An earlier generation of 20th century conservatives insisted quite 
accurately that "The US is a republic, not a democracy"; but it should be a 
democracy.)

Your settled principle of never voting for a Republican assumes more consistency 
among them that seems to be the case.  AS J. M Keynes is supposed to have said, 
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Regarding impeachment, we might take a lesson from "Candide," where Voltaire 
wrote, "Dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour 
encourager les autres" (in this country England it is thought good to kill an 
admiral from time to time to encourage the others).

If Johnson or Reagan or Clinton or Obama were impeached and removed from office 
"pour encourager les autres," succeeding chief magistrates might not be so avid 
to commit crimes. But we haven't done that, so they act with impunity. --CGE


John W. wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:00 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing.  The problem is not Rahm Emanuel, so I doubt Michael
> Moore is the solution.  The problem is that Obama came into office facing
> three problems - Mideast war, recession, and health care - and did precisely
> the wrong thing with each (and not by accident).
> 
> And not because the problems were difficult. Each had an obvious solution:
> bring the troops home, go beyond what FDR did 75 years ago (nationalize
> failing banks, set up an expanded WPA with a job for anybody who wants one),
> and take away the age restriction for Medicare.  Those programs wouldn't even
> require much innovation - they'd all been done before.
> 
> 
> In your world, Carl, what role does the legislative branch play in all of
> these "obvious" solutions?  Did FDR just go out and do all of those things
> single-handedly and unilaterally?  Educate me about how simple it all is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, Obama escalated the killing, gave massive amounts of money to rich
> bankers, and expanded insurance companies' ability to profit from human
> misery (as those companies know - check their stock prices).
> 
> And again, Obama did all of these things by himself?
> 
> 
> 
> But, as another Illinois politician who also had a certain megalomania
> worried, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time."  It certainly
> looks as thought the policies of Obama and the Democrats will be rejected at
> the polls in November. We should be outlining the alternatives to Obama's
> policies, not childishly posturing about "beat[ing] the Republicans to a
> pulp" and "pound[ing] the right wing into submission."  The American Right 
> contains principled opponents of Obama's blood-lettings and of his raids on
> the treasury for the benefit of the rich. And voters seem to be rallying to
> it.
> 
> For me personally to ever vote for a Republican or a member of the American
> Right, said individual would have to be healing the sick, raising the dead,
> and feeding 5,000 people with a handful of loaves and fishes, all out in the
> open where I could witness it at her political campaign stops.   Oh, and
> she'd have to be selling all of her worldly possessions and giving her money
> to the poor.  Otherwise I'll just stay home from the polls, or else "throw
> away" my vote on the likes of Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney.
> 
> 
> 
> On this day (March 5) in 1868 a court of impeachment was organized in the
> United States Senate to hear charges against President Andrew Johnson, who
> was attempting to roll back the social revolution set loose by the Civil War.
> The country would be a better place if Johnson had been removed from office,
> setting a pattern for others - down to both Bushes, Clinton, and the present
> incumbent - who is surely as guilty of war crimes (including the "supreme
> international crime") as his predecessors.
> 
> Indeed.  Elect 'em, then promptly impeach 'em.  Sounds like a hugely viable
> and pragmatic plan!
> 
> 
> 
> That's not going to be solved by Moore's theatrical flair. --CGE
> 
> 
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> 
> Seen this?
> 
> --- On *Fri, 3/5/10, Michael Moore /<maillist at michaelmoore.com 
> <mailto:maillist at michaelmoore.com>>/* wrote:
> 
> 
> President Obama: Replace Rahm with Me ...an open letter from Michael Moore
> ...


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.