Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Luke Savage — Liberalism in Theory and Practice

Contemporary liberals are temperamentally conservative — and what they want to conserve is a morally bankrupt political order.,,,
A characteristic of neoliberalism?
Maybe I was predisposed to democratic socialism; I always considered myself to be “on the Left,” even as a teenager. In any case, it’s become clear in retrospect that watching the liberal class respond to events over the past decade has been a powerful stimulus in my politicization.
Which is to say, I didn’t acquire radical politics simply through reading Marx in college (though it certainly aided the process). Nor did I become irredeemably frustrated with liberalism merely by absorbing some abstract argument about its flaws. I didn’t have a Road to Damascus revelation while thumbing through some volume by Chomsky or David Harvey. And while I would certainly count them as formative to my political evolution, it wasn’t the likes of Ralph Miliband and Tony Benn — let alone Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn — who ultimately imbued me with a burning hatred for anything and everything that calls itself “moderate” or “centrist.”

No, that instinct owes much more to watching Barack Obama summon forth a tidal wave of popular goodwill, then proceed to invite the same old cadre of apparatchiks and financiers back into the White House to carry on business as usual despite the most punishing economic crisis since the Great Depression; to seeing the “war on terror” become a permanent fixture of the global landscape long after its original architects had been booted from the halls of power, courtesy of supposedly enlightened humanitarians; to witnessing a potentially monumental hunger for change be sacrificed on the altar of managerialism and technocratic respectability. It comes from watching a smiling Nick Clegg stand next to David Cameron in the Rose Garden at Number 10 Downing Street before rubber-stamping a series of lacerating cuts to Britain’s welfare state and betraying a generation of students in the process; to seeing the dexterity by which Canada’s liberals gesture to the left then govern from the right; and from seeing the radical demands of global anti-austerity movements endlessly whittled down and regurgitated as neoliberal slam poetry to be recited at Davos by the hip young innovators du jour.
These triangulations, and many others like them, helped me realize that the malaise was the product of a congenital trait rather than a temporary blip. The problem, in other words, wasn’t that contemporary liberalism was failing to live up to its ideals, but that it was living up to them all too well....
Bourgeois liberalism.
In theory, modern liberalism is a set of ideas about human freedom, markets, and representative government. In practice, or so it now seems to me, it has largely become a political affect, and a quintessentially conservative one at that: a set of reflexes common to those with a Panglossian faith in capitalist markets and the institutions that attempt to sustain them amid our flailing global order. In theory, it is an ideology of progress. In practice, it has become the secular theology of the status quo; the mechanism through which the gilded buccaneers of Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and multinational capital rationalize hierarchy and exploitation while fostering resignation and polite deference among those they seek to rule....
Jacobin
Liberalism in Theory and Practice
Luke Savage

See also
In France, however, there is no centrist opposition or alternative left. Macron won by ingesting and replacing the decayed remnants of all the parties of the centre left and centre right, and even so he only won 24 percent of the vote in the first round of last year’s presidential elections. For liberals, he is literally the only game left in town. If he is defeated in the next presidential elections in 2022, then as things stand today, the overwhelming probability is that the next French president will be Marine le Pen of the National Front (or “National Rally” as it now calls itself).
With this, conservative nationalism would move into the very heart of European politics, and the European Union in anything like its existing form would cease to exist. Moreover, at this point, the main French opposition would become the Marxist (but equally anti-EU) left-wing movement of Jean-Luc Melenchon’s “Unbowed France” (La France Insoumise). If this becomes the only real choice left to French voters, then liberal democracy will be dead and democracy of any kind may not survive for much longer.
Well, maybe not neoliberal "democracy" of bourgeois liberalism. That is a far cry from democracy of any kind.

Otherwise, it is a useful article.

Valdai Club Discussion
The French Fifth Republic: Sinking Fast, with No Lifeboat in Sight
Anatol Lieven | professor at the campus of Georgetown University in Doha, Qatar, Associated Scholar of the Transnational Crisis Project, Chair of International Relations and Terrorism Studies at King's College London, and Senior Researcher (Bernard L. Schwartz fellow and American Strategy Program fellow) at the New America Foundation, where he focuses on US global strategy and the War on Terrorism,

Thursday, December 6, 2018

New Cold War & looming threats — Jipson John and P. M. Jitheesh interview John Pilger


Must-read, especially for the cheerleaders of war.

The post is "bipartisan." For example, documents how the Obama-Clinton  team was worse than Bush II-Cheney by providing the numbers. 

Right now, there is only the War Party in US politics, with different factions vying for power. Moreover, the US economy is dependent on military spending, so a new cold war with China and Russia is perfectly rational from the economic POV.

Follow the money. At bottom, you will find the class struggle. “There's class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.” The neoliberal era began in earnest with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, in no small measure based on Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, which presented a black or white picture of political economy in terms of a choice between free market capitalism and socialistic communism. Echoing this, Thatcher claimed "there is no alternative." 
Neoliberalism is an extension of what used to be called monetarism, both of them exotic or extreme versions of the overarching “ism”—capitalism. In the West, led by [British Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher and [U.S. President] Ronald Reagan and their European equivalents, a “two-thirds society” was declared. The top third would be enriched and pay minimal or no tax. The middle third would be “aspirational” with some of them “succeeding” in a ruthlessly competitive world and others falling irrevocably into debt. The bottom third would be abandoned or offered stable impoverishment in return for their obedience. The relationship between people and the state would change from benign to malign. A new buffer class of managers tutored in American corporatism, with its own “culture” and vocabulary, would supervise the conversion of social democracy to a corporate autocracy. Public “debate”, managed by a fully integrated media, would be dominated by “identity politics” with all notions of class banished as an “issue”. False foreign demons (led by Russia, closely followed by China) would be designated “necessary enemies”....
The European Union is basically a cartel. There is no “free” trade. There are exclusivity rules set down and policed by the central banks, principally the German central bank, with concessionary benefits for the weaker members, namely the movement of labour across borders, though this is now in question. The central aim of the E.U. is the protection and reinforcement of the economic power of the strongest. Brussels is a centralised bureaucracy; democracy is minimal. The “European oneness” you refer to is propaganda, promoted by those who receive most from being in the E.U. The crushing of Greece is a lesson the majority of Britons appear to have understood....
Although Thatcher presented is a false choice that ignores the middle, it gained prominence among Western elites, where it still holds sway. It provides the foundation for neoliberal globalization (really transnational corporate totalitarianism) and unipolarism. G. W. Bush's, "You are either with us or against us," which was directed at the Global War on Terror, was extended to include all that that refuse being colonized or turned into vassal states. The choice is obedience or punishment.

This is wide-ranging post that covers the world and provides numbers to detail the assertions. Even those for war should know what is at stake.

Monthly Review
New Cold War & looming threats
Jipson John and P. M. Jitheesh interview John Pilger

See also

Counterpunch
Yemen: 85,000. Dead. Kids.
Charles Pierson

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Patrick Armstrong — Obama Marries the Liberals to the Neocons


The co-optation of the so-called US left, which is really the center in comparison to "the left" in the rest of the world.
In the Obama years the marriage of the neocons and the humanitarian interventionists was effected. The neocons, with their doctrine of American Exceptionalism are always ready for an intervention and their justification is always the same: "American moral leadership":

Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job.
So there was never any difficulty getting neocons and their ilk to support another bombing campaign to do a bit of "morally exceptional police work". The Obama change is that liberals, whose historic tendency is to oppose another war, are now in the War Party. And so there was hardly anyone was left to go out on protest....
I would not lay this all on Obama. Bill Clinton had a hand in it, and a big reason that Hillary lost is for supporting it. Patrick Armstrong acknowledges the Clinton connection, and points out that Barack Obama provided a rationale for it. Now the Democratic Party is saddled with it until it is repudiated. That will cost more votes than it attracts. But it is great for campaign contributions from the defense sector, a recognition that in the US, military Keynesianism rules.

Strategic Culture Foundation
Patrick Armstrong

Friday, August 3, 2018

Bill Black — How Democratic Party Mendacity about Deficits and Banksters Lifted Trump

Stephanie Kelton and I have been trying hard to keep Democrats from, again, rushing into the trap of denouncing Republicans for running federal deficits. Yes, Republicans are hypocrites about debt and deficits. That does not mean that Democrats should repeat Clinton and Obama’s embrace of the Republican’s economically illiterate, harmful, and fake hysteria about debt and deficits....
In general, good government is good politics. The Democrats should focus on adopting and supporting superior policies that are humane and supported by good science....
New Economic Perspectives
How Democratic Party Mendacity about Deficits and Banksters Lifted TrumpWilliam K. Black | Associate Professor of Economics and Law, UMKC

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Nat Parry — Torture-Tainted CIA and State Nominees Recall Failure to Prosecute Bush-Era Abuses

The declining human rights standards on display with the Haspel and Pompeo nominations are the latest in a long line of policy failures that include the Obama administration’s lack of prosecutions of Bush-era torture, Nat Parry notes.
If a person is OK with torture and assassination, that person is OK with anything. Is this an indication of psychopathology or more seriously, sociopathology?

Friday, November 3, 2017

Publius Tacitus — Trump Was Right, The Election Was Rigged


What Americans should be concerned with rather than Russiagate regarding the corrupting of the political process and thereby American "democracy," such as it is.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Trump Was Right, The Election Was Rigged
Publius Tacitus

See also for the other side
At this point I will defer judgement until Brazile addresses the discrepancies between her account and documents that are available in the public domain. That is precisely what Sen. Warren should have done as well.
Washington Monthly
Some Questions Donna Brazile Must Answer
Nancy LeTourneau

Aslo

The Intercept
Angry About the DNC Scandal? Thank Obama.
Ryan Grim

Friday, October 20, 2017

Mike Whitney — John Brennan’s Police State USA


John Brennan in the spotlight again.
This is a deliberate mischaracterization of what Brennan was actually doing. He was spying on the members of the rival party to gain a political advantage. This is how police state operates.
Whatever the facts, and there are very few reliable facts based on evidence on the table so far, it's clear that Russiagate is political.
According to a recent CBS Poll, a majority of Americans (57%) now believe that “Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” In contrast, only 34 percent of Americans don’t believe there was any Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
What the numbers don’t explain, however, is how one’s own political ideology shapes the results. For example, 71 percent of Democrats believe that Russia interfered, while a mere 18 percent of Republicans agree. In other words, one’s own prejudices (about Trump and Russia) have a much greater impact on one’s opinion than either facts or evidence. Propaganda campaigns try to exploit public bias to effectively manipulate perceptions. The CBS polling data shows that they have succeeded in that regard.
Whitney sees trouble ahead.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda (In 2013, Obama gutted the Smith Mundt Act “unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.” (Foreign Policy Magazine)
In 2016, Obama paved the way for more domestic propaganda by passing the Orwellian-named “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” as part of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Ostensibly, the bill lays the groundwork for responding to “fake news” overseas, but in reality, it marks “a further curtailment of press freedom” and an ambitious attempt to suppress accurate, independent information.)
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for the full implementation of an American police state.
But what is more concerning, is that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people. That can only lead to trouble.
Counterpunch
John Brennan’s Police State USA
Mike Whitney

Monday, September 18, 2017

Pam and Russ Martens — Obama Has the Same Retirement Plan as the Clintons: Lavish Speaking Fees from Wall Street

The “Wall Street Democrats” is the wing of the party created by the Clintons and nurtured further by Barack Obama. It takes money hand over fist from Wall Street for political campaigns, wags a warning finger at Wall Street from the public podium while stuffing its administrations with Wall Street execs, then its leadership reaps millions of dollars in personal speaking fees from the robber barons after leaving office. As of this morning, there’s no longer any debate that Obama is firmly entrenched in this cozy world of money.
Sums up what wrong with the Democratic establishment. They are on make and on the take.

Wall Street On Parade
Obama Has the Same Retirement Plan as the Clintons: Lavish Speaking Fees from Wall Street
Pam Martens and Russ Martens

See also

Regardless of the degree of agreement or disagreement with Professor Davidson's analysis, just about everyone will acknowledge that a wide setgment of American voters, approaching 40% on the right are extrememly disaffected with American politics. The supporters of Bernie Sanders represent the same rejection of the status quo on the left.

This is more anti-establishmentarianism than tradition American populism. In Trump's terminology the establishment is "the swamp," and establishment figures are swamp critters that need to be removed from positions of power and influence. Bernie takes a similar stand on the left, although not in as colorful terms.

This trend promises to influence American politics for the foreseeable future, and the ruling elite and its cronies and minions are not going to go quietly.

As a result, American politics is truining into a reality show, and Donald Trump is just the person to be a major player in it. It could not have been better cast from this perspective.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania

Monday, September 11, 2017

Bill Black — Is Politico or Third Way More Divorced from Reality?


Bill deftly trashes the Third Way New Democrats. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were as toxic as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher through their "triangulation," which amounted to moving right to capture the center.

New Economic Perspectives
Is Politico or Third Way More Divorced from Reality?
William K. Black | Associate Professor of Economics and Law, UMKC

See also

The title below should read, "Why The Democrats Are Unable to Defend the u.s. From the 'Most Vicious' Republican Party in History."

Ralph Nader deconstructs the present by reviewing the history. This began decades ago, arguably under conservative Jimmy Carter.

The Intercept
Ralph Nader: The Democrats Are Unable to Defend the u.s. From the “Most Vicious” Republican Party in History
Jon Schwarz interviews Ralph Nader

Monday, September 4, 2017

Andrew C. McCarthy — It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s

In his April 10 comments, Obama made the obvious explicit: He did not want the certain Democratic nominee, the candidate he was backing to succeed him, to be indicted. Conveniently, his remarks (inevitably echoed by Comey) did not mention that an intent to endanger national security was not an element of the criminal offenses Clinton was suspected of committing – in classic Obama fashion, he was urging her innocence of a strawman crime while dodging any discussion of the crimes she had actually committed.
As we also now know – but as Obama knew at the time – the president himself had communicated with Clinton over her non-secure, private communications system, using an alias. The Obama administration refused to disclose these several e-mail exchanges because they undoubtedly involve classified conversations between the president and his secretary of state. It would not have been possible to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information without its being clear that President Obama had engaged in the same conduct. The administration was never, ever going to allow that to happen....
Plausible. Will there be an investigation. Most probably this as about the same probability of going anywhere as Bush and Cheney being investigated for war crimes and torture.

National Review — The Corner
It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s
Andrew C. McCarthy

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Adam Garrie — Julian Assange asks why the US said nothing when Obama supported Ukrainian neo-Nazis

In the above Tweet, Assange has juxtaposed a neo-Nazi torch march in Kiev with the far-right torch march in Charlottesville. Apart from the torches, it is clear that the Ukrainian fascists were far more equipped for violence as they were wearing bullet-proof combat gear and facial coverings.
The Duran
Julian Assange asks why the US said nothing when Obama supported Ukrainian neo-Nazis
Adam Garrie

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Gareth Porter — How CIA and Allies Trapped Obama in the Syrian Arms Debacle


The title is a bit misleading. The buck stops at the Oval Office, and then President was too weak to be able to resist pressure and act in the best interests of the United States, not to mention in accordance with international law. The devil made me do it excuse don't pass the smell test. The blame rests on the president, and he should be tarred with it.

However, this backgrounder does illustrate the power of the US deep state in running US foreign and military policy, regardless of the president's lead. This reads like court intrigue in the age of monarchies.

The American Conservative
How CIA and Allies Trapped Obama in the Syrian Arms Debacle

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Stephan Richter — The liberal international order: Just who shredded it?

Smackdown.
To see where we are — the United States needs to take a look at it's recent past.…
The truth is that it wasn’t Putin — or even Trump now — as much as George W. Bush and his reckless foreign policy cowboys — remember Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, all names that should live in infamy — who did most of the shredding of that liberal international order.
They committed acts of war that were clearly criminal in nature. Their only saving grace was — and is — that they have a U.S. passport.
Otherwise, they would all find themselves in the dock at the ICC in The Hague, where indeed they belong.
Still, Obama did not break with his predecessor’s Bush league approach. Deliberately obscure mandates in Iraq simply changed topic, gone were the torture memos, in where drone strike memos.
Put yourself into the shoes of a Russian or Chinese policymaker for a moment – and ask any one of these four questions:
Salon
The liberal international order: Just who shredded it?
Stephan Richter | the publisher and editor-in-chief of The Globalist

Friday, June 23, 2017

Jacob Pramuk — Obama reportedly approved 'cyberweapons' against Russian infrastructure before leaving office


Is anyone else's crap detector going off?

CNBC
Obama reportedly approved 'cyberweapons' against Russian infrastructure before leaving office

So let me get this straight. President Obama and 17 intelligence agencies knew that Russia was mucking with the election and did nothing about it beforehand and waited until after HRC had lost ignominiously to do anything about it. Right.

Monday, May 1, 2017

Zaid Jilani — Barack Obama Is Using His Presidency to Cash In, But Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter Refused

This argument, while common, is based on historical ignorance. It assumes that presidents have always found a way to leverage their political connections post-presidency to make money from interest groups and wealthy political actors.

But that isn’t the case....
The Intercept
Barack Obama Is Using His Presidency to Cash In, But Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter Refused
Zaid Jilani

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Joel B. Pollak — Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump


Where Trump is coming from.

Breitbart News
Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump
Joel B. Pollak | Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News

Alexander Mercouris — Barack Obama publishes legalistic reply to Trump’s wiretap charge

Obama’s statement is a lawyer’s reply. Obama is of course himself a lawyer, but there is no doubt this statement was prepared after consultation with his lawyers. In fact they probably drafted it.
We are at a very early stage in this matter. There are multiple investigations underway, some launched by the outgoing Obama administration against the incoming Trump administration, and some launched by the current Trump administration against the preceding Obama administration. There are also separate inquiries underway in Congress. It seems there are rules prohibiting public discussion of these inquiries or even in some cases disclosure of their existence.
Obama’s highly legalistic statement today – which reads very much like a defence statement – however gives a good flavour of the direction some of these inquiries are taking, and of the sort of defence of his actions which Obama – if pressed – will make. As I have said previously, there is no doubt the wiretaps were legal since they were approved by a court. Unsurprisingly therefore Obama is taking a legal route to defend himself.

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Moon of Alabama Obama Prodded Abuse Of Intelligence To Sabotage Trump Policies

I do not prefer Trump policies. Flynn was a maniac and Session is a crazy fossil. But that does not justify this anti-democratic abuse of the foreign policy instruments of the state against the political opponents within the country.
Obama created these tools and now left them for the Trump administration to use. They will come back to haunt the Democrats. What will they say and do when the Trump administration will use these against them?
Barack Obama is looking worse day by day. He was not an unwitting or unwilling tool of the deep state and neoliberal establishment. He was a creation of it, a care-carrying member, and the leader of it. HRC was groomed to be his successor.  The machinations began the moment of the results of the election were known and continue to the present with the goal of delegitimizing POTUS and removing him from office if possible.

Progressives still haven't figured out how bad they were had.

Moon of Alabama
Obama Prodded Abuse Of Intelligence To Sabotage Trump Policies
b
If FBI judged it could not prosecute Trump or his close associates for something but nevertheless believed the evidence constituted something disqualifying [impeachment], what they’d want to do is preserve the evidence, make sure SSCI could find it, and provide tips — laid out in the NYT, if need be — about where to look.
And any things that did rise to the level of criminal charges would be a lot easier to charge if someone besides Sessions were in charge.
This seems to be very methodical.
emptywheel
Five Data Points on the Sessions News
emptywheel (Marcy Wheeler)