Impeach Obama?

Interesting, polycarp.  While I didn't watch the entire video, in the description around it, this caught my eye:

I agree with that totally--but, just for the record, I do not think that the counterpart to 'rationalized illegality' is 'irrational legality'....all professions are expected to operate 'rationally'....and, as far as the basis for their thought processing, should....it is the only way that a 'form of order' is established within them....

 Bruce Fein, who describes himself as 'conservative' was at the forefront of the drive to impeach Bush.  One of the stated reasons he brought out for impeaching Bush was the probability that the next president would not rescind the power that Bush had grabbed -- that precedent has been the rule throughout this nation's history -- but would build on it.  The reasons are structural, not personally-related to, say, the puted dictatorial nature of the person holding office, which of course is the meme that feeds the propaganda system, thereby subverting any possibility of actually educating people about this problem -- an educational process that might lead to a groundswell of pressure to actually change the system itself before it rises to the level of a full fledged empire (as many argue that it has) and collapses in upon itself as Empires do (and Tainter offers some excellent reasons for why that has happened throughout history in The Collapse of Complex Societies).

As you may recall, I brought a lot of information to discuss about the Unitary Executive (sometimes called the Imperial Presidency) to this board towards the end of the Bush Administration, a lot of which was about the Constitutional basis for the "strong" president that the theory describes, and the precedents for these supposed powergrabbing "crimes" going back through the nation's history. 

This tendency towards a CEO version of a presidency, which essentially is a command version moving the office in the direction of authoritarian, tyrannical control, has a number of pressures pushing those in office to keep the precedent going.  One is the pressure to make things work as many scholars see being indicated by the Constitution itself. The president essentially is in charge of the bureaucracy and as the bureaucracy complexifies, thanks to legislation, it calls upon the president to find better management techniques, much as the private tyrannies we call corporations have. 

It should be noted that in any presidential system, the office of any presidency ramps up pressure on that position, much more so than any type of parliamentary system would. 

And then, with the presidential system, the larger and more complex a nation becomes, the more pressure accrues for the president to simplify his office by seizing power using whatever tools might be available.  I think it's fair to say that raises the many questions Nader and Fein bring to that Harvard forum.

My conclusion is the real problem is the nature of our Presidential Republic system itself.  It's antiquated for our current national circumstances.  Impeachment is a sorry way to deal with that.  Especially given the nature of our spectacle-ridden, illusion-prone media.

Chris Hedges introduces his last chapter 'The Illusion of America' in Empire of Illusion with this poem:

We would rather be ruined than changed;

We would rather die in our dread

Than climb the cross of the moment

And let our illusions die.

--W.H.Auden, The Age of Anxiety

No impeachment. The election is coming up. If you believe that he is unworthy, vote him out or don't vote at all. That is the American way.

It's time to stop demanding a recall or impeachment for every politican we disagree with.

ren, I think that is rigel1 saying 'It's not my problem'....8^).....

Speaking of "the American Way", I argued four years ago now that, because of the nature of the system, Obama, no matter how sincere he actually might be, would be constrained by it, and his presidency would follow the similar Unitary Executive pattern of previous presidencies.

The Imperial Presidency by Arthur M. Schlesinger (1973)

Briefly: The Imperial Presidency  -- Wiki

Nader's point that we have become embroiled in a Military Industrial Complex-driven politics, that the President has become a Military leader in the nation now forever at war, is a good one.  I guess you could also say that's the American Way, to rationalize an enemy forever at our door, threatening.

Hi Kerry. If there is any question about what I am saying please feel free to ask. I will try to clarify.

Uh, rigel1, that's a little inside issue between me and ren--you were just at the right spot saying the right thing to make a joke out of it (I think).....although, I guess Benjamin Franklin's idea that those who would opt for safety over liberty deserve neither safety nor liberty would be appropriate here, also....

I appreciate the joke, Kerry, more especially the second one.

I'm too serious this morning to think up a joke for you.  These issues of justice brought to us in the Harvard forum have been "my problem" since I found myself in Vietnam, thanks to this paranoid-ridden Empire directed by a Commander in Chief.  Brings back a lot of crap to listen to these two.

I think the point about recall or impeachment is that it would not change the real problem, particularly were it used against Obama instead of the people who pushed and established the Unitary Executive in operative reality.  Chalmers Johnson made the point that empires cannot be republic/democracies and that running them is about the structures of power Nader describes accurately.  Had Nader run a political campaign focused on these issues, he would not have been so useless as a politician.  He is a very fine prophet nonetheless.  Prophets are not political organizers by themselves.

Those who are depressed by presidential elections need to get busy on movement politics instead of trying to figure out which ineffective protest alternative candidate will make them feel better.  Obama can be a symptom of what is wrong, but he is not the cause and attacking him is beside the point.  Go 350!

 Obama has advanced policies that can be characterized as war crimes. His drone strike policies have routinely targeted non combatants including woman and children.

 http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/05-3

 http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/12/28

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/12/20

 http://2012indyinfo.com/2011/12/20/human-rights-group-to-cia-end-drone-targeted-killing-programs-common-dreams/

 Let me provide a brief summary of facts on the Obama presidency. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and concomitantly downsized Head Start and Home Heating programs in the same bill so the 1% could keep their privileged status. Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan by increasing the troop levels from 15K to over 100K. Obama signed executive order authorizing the assassination of Amerikan citizens without due process rights. Obama extended Patriot Act without due process protections. Obama continues to authorize drone strikes which many human rights organizations assert have taken thousands of innocent lives, i.e., non combatants. Obama provided a green light for BP to dump trillions of gallons of dispersants into the Gulf which numerous environmental organizations told us is one molecule away from anti-freeze. Green Peace additionally did a biological survey of the gulf and told us it is a dead zone with submerged oil caking the bottom of the Gulf. Obama also attacked whistle blowers on this issue as numerous CD asserted and contrary to his ‘so called’ transparency promise. Obama sunk both Single Payer and Public Option to advance a For Profit Health monstrosity in behind door deals with corporations as reported in numerous articles on CD. Obama voided habeas corpus; He appointed Bush’s assassination general in Afghanistan and later fired him for Petarus now CIA Director. He appointed numerous Bush economic advisors to head up his economic team including insider connections to corrupt financial interests like Guethnier, Summers, Volker and numerous others too many to list and additionally noted in article after article on CD. Obama despite promises to keep the internet neutral reneged by diluting the rules and opening the gate for corporate control. Now we hear that social security, medicate, and Medicare are on the chopping block via the so called trigger that was negotiated as a concomitant sell out to supersede the Cat Food bipartisan committee had they not agreed. The deal was done before the faux committee ever sat down at the table. Essentially the committee proved cover for the real deal that was hammered together behind closed doors void of transparency. Obama authorized the assassination of Osama by bowing to the myth of redemptive violence. Obama re-opened deep water drilling shortly after the press spot light was turned off. And additionally authorized expanded drilling off the eastern seaboard something Bush never did. Obama keeps advancing a fantasy called ‘clean coal’ to accommodate the coal industry payoffs to his campaign run (refer to Opensecrets . org), Obama has authorized more Mountain Top removal permits than the Bush administration in three years. Obama temporarily deferred a decision on Tar Sands, but the issue is far from over. Obama helped destroy environmental accords which called for real reductions

Let me propose Obama's NEW Campaign slogan: HOPE AND CAVE!

Your disappointment is palpable.  Obama would do more were he not the subject of the greatest hate campaign since Lincoln, and were there a loyal opposition with enough moderates to make reaching across the aisle what it once was.  If you want agreement on the sick system, you can have it without making Obama the villain.  I think the politics that matters now is to focus on the evil Right and the timidity of the DLC Dems.  Back the Progressive Caucus and elect those who can make Obama move Left, and see whether he is "the problem" you want to believe he is.  I think he would be happy to do a lot more if the DC politics made it possible.  Getting something rather than nothing does actually help some people and is what his job is about.

Trying to argue that Obama is worse than Bush only discredits you.  He has to deal with a very different situation than Bush/Cheney did, and he has to deal with the garbage they pumped into the DC bureaucracy without the power to remove a lot of the crap.  His nominees don't get confirmed.

I would not go so far to defend Obama if your attack on the system were better directed towards those who are really doing the damage.  Making Obama weaker is not how to get any of the things you claim to want.  Do you want Romney in the White House, or worse?  Dreaming of what you would like to have and pissing on those closest to you for not being the savior you desire may be an emotional relief, but it is dumb politics.

And, were you busy creating the Left alternative and working with those in the system who are willing it would help your emotions be in context.  I think we can dispell the illusion of a working system without making Obama the center of our attacks.  The fact that a decent President cannot do more makes that case better than indicting him for being worse than Bush or for being just another one. 

It's really worth listening to what Bruce Fein has to say in his presentation about the failures of Congress.  Then to what they both have to say about putting public pressure on Congress persons.

Congress has failed us in many ways, especially in curbing the evolution of the Unitary Executive.

I agree totally with that comment, ren.  I am less critical of Obama for not changing it from the White House in this atmosphere than I am of Congress for giving away their constitutional duties.

A small sample of what the progressive community thinks about the Obama presidency on the issues I mentioned above:http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/20-7

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/20-8

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/07-12

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/22-6

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/01-1

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/17-2

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/12/06-4

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/15-12

http://www.alternet.org/story/140068/cheney%27s_chief_assassin_is_now_obama%27s_commander_in_afghanistan/

http://www.salon.com/2009/04/11/bagram_3/

http://themancommon.blogspot.com/2009/04/barack-obama-torture-and-habeas-corpus.html

http://my.firedoglake.com/mason/2011/12/15/the-obamanable-president/

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/11-8

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/02-0

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/09-5

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/08-4

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/08-2

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/08-3

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/25-2

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/31-4

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/24-2

http://www.commondreams.org/video/2011/09/09

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/08-10

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/23-11

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/13-4

So what?  Impeachment for Bush/Cheney was off the table.  Why blame Obama for what Congress needs to do?  You do not have any political sense, only a big emotional disappointment in the Democrats.  I have nothing against criticizing these policies, but try to attack the power in DC instead of blaming Obama for not being the savior in chief. 

BTW, I never blamed Nader for Gore not winning.  The Democrats have their own problems, but it was the Supremes who did the evil deed.  Still, it does matter to people other than you if the greater evil wins.  They pay in real suffering and lives.  I have gotten over protest voting for my own emotional and self-righteous satisfaction.  You need to as well.

Quote of the year came from Republican House Speaker, David Boehner, when asked about the Debt Deal negotiations with Obama, Boehner replied, "We got 98% of what we wanted."

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/boehner-got-98-percent-of-what...

Here is the progressive response to the Debt Deal crafted by the CAVE president;

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/01

I am glad you are not running our diplomacy with China.  You have no idea about the stakes or what needed to be done to counter the rabid GOPimp rhetoric to allow an eventual human rights and labor criticism instead of a neo-Yellow Peril fear and loathing reaction from the Chinese.  Obama does not exactly get bipartisan foreign policy cooperation. 

Once again, being more angry about those closest to you than with the usual suspects on the Right raises questions about what you want to accomplish.  There is lots to do to make things better and to live up to your handle, but creating more emnity and distrust does not help.  The Chinese need to be reassured that we are responsible internationalists before we can return to some semblance of that.  Saber rattling and posturing does not get what you want done.

For those of you who know all TOO well the spin factor from the same Suspects, you might find this essay by Rabbi Learner one -- if not the most -- cogent argument against the meme of Lesser Evil Voting: I assume most of you don't need to be told what to think by the moderators on this forum...

The Immorality of Lesser Evilism

By Rabbi Michael LernerNovember 03, 2000

Even in the final days of the presidential election, a substantial part of the population expresses dismay at the major candidates, feels closer to Nader in terms of the issues he raises, but fears that a vote for him might increase the chances for a Bush presidency. And the same issue arises for those who respond to the message of a Buchanan or John Haegelin. I've seen friends and families rent apart by the anger of some Gore supporters who believe that Nader supporters have lost their moral compass in their inability to see how disastrous a world with Bush-appointed Supreme Court justices might be.

Yet lesser evilism may do more to destroy the moral fabric and political viability of a democracy than any real or imagined evil that might be achieved through the electoral victory of whoever we imagine to be the "bad guy" beneficiary of voting our conscience. Here are some reasons why:

First, Lesser evilism leads to a moral and spiritual corruption of our souls. The habit of voting lesser evil in politics is a slippery slope. We start by giving our vote to a candidate who supports and is a product of a social reality that we actually deplore, and we end up learning to accommodate ourselves to moral corruption in other aspects of our lives. Just as lesser evilism teaches us to accommodate to "reality" in politics, so we accommodate to the reality of our economic marketplace, with its ethos of materialism and selfishness. Since everyone else is "looking out for number one," we learn that the way to "make it" is to go along with a set of practices that involve cheating or hurting others in our pursuit of success, making environmentally destructive or morally insensitive choices, and using the excuse that we must focus on "the bottom line" and not on the fine points of moral behavior. To the extent that we come to believe that we have no alternative but to accept the lesser evil, we lose the inner quality of soul that makes it possible to fight for anything against the odds. We forget how to stand up for our own ideals, and soon we don't see the point in even thinking about what kind of a world we really believe in ("it's so unrealistic"). Internally we may feel cynical about the world we live in, but as long as we've adopted the attitude that we can't really fight it and must accept its terms, we have cast our vote in favor of keeping what is. Moral courage and hope begin to feel like anachronistic concepts

Not surprisingly, as people become used to making this choice in daily life, they become most angry not at the forces of evil to which they accommodate, but at those who retain their commitment to fight for their highest ideal. Thus, the rage in liberal circles at Nader supporters or in conservative circles at Buchanan supporters-both of whom insist on standing for their ideals even when they are unlikely to win.

Second, lesser evilism disempowers liberal and progressive forces because it gives the Democratic Party no incentive to respond to progressive ideals. Secure in the certainty that liberals will always respond to the demand of lesser evilism, the Democrats can put their full attention at repositioning their party to accommodate those who might otherwise vote Republican, thus dramatically decreasing the differences between the two parties. And your vote for a lesser evil gives the corporate media the excuse they seek to ignore progressive views throughout the next four years-because the media will say that your progressive views were shown to have no real constituency since you and others didn't vote for the candidates who articulated those views, but chose to empower people who champion the status quo.

Third, lesser evilism is based on an arrogant certainty about the consequences of your lesser evil winning. In fact, those of us who voted for Clinton as the lesser evil in 1992 found that eight years later the gap between the rich and the poor had increased and the social supports for the poor had decreased. Conversely, much as Richard Nixon hurt me personally (by indicting me and sending me to prison for anti-war organizing), the dynamics of his "greater evil" presidency were significantly constrained by an idealistic social movement-and in that context, Nixon responded by recognizing China and by supporting powerful environmental and worker-safety legislation that were whittled down under the Clinton administration. It is the absence or presence of the very kind of social movement that is decisive-and lesser-evilism destroys. Instead of being so sure that "the other guy" is going to destroy the world, better to have a little humility and vote your conscience rather than your crystal ball, because in so doing you make possible a whole different configuration of political possibilities.

Fourth, lesser evilism weakens faith in democracy. If people consistently feel obliged to vote for candidates in whom they do not believe, they end up feeling they are without representation, and hence feel that our government itself is less legitimate. Many stop voting altogether. Others feel dirtied by a process in which they have authorized through their vote the actions of an elected official who, acting in their name, supports policies like the death penalty and acceleration of the worst aspects of globalization, which they actually find morally and environmentally reprehensible..

Finally, voting for a lesser evil entails abandoning and helping to dispirit those who share your principles. Many Nader people are standing up for the principles that you believe in, and instead of supporting them for doing so you are attacking them. Don't be surprised if many these people eventually give up on trying to change the world. So the next time you look around for allies for some visionary idea or moral cause that inspires you, you will find fewer people ready to take risks, and ironically you may then use that to convince yourself that nothing was ever possible and that's why you "had" to vote for the lesser of two evils.

None of this is an argument against those who really are excited by Gore or Bush-they should vote their beliefs. But those who succumb to the fear tactics that intimidate us into voting for someone whose policies are often far from our own beliefs are actually doing a great disservice to their country, their fellow citizens, and their own inner moral integrity.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of TIKKUN Magazine, author of Spirit Matters: Global Healing and the Wisdom of the Soul, and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco.

____________________________________________________________________________

Despite the stalking of Third Party voters that is common on this forum, I would just like to highlight one of Learner's paragraph's about the rage inherent in the typical Dem apologist and WHY IT MATTERS:

"Not surprisingly, as people become used to making this choice in daily life, they become most angry not at the forces of evil to which they accommodate, but at those who retain their commitment to fight for their highest ideal. Thus, the rage in liberal circles at Nader supporters or in conservative circles at Buchanan supporters-both of whom insist on standing for their ideals even when they are unlikely to win."

I like this guy, but it still does nothing to change the facts of life in the short term.  I do not have to become less critical of the empire or the corruption of the system to see that electoral presidential politics is not where to make the changes because we can't do anything but get pissy or allow serious evil to go unchecked.

If voting for Obama means having to love him to death or demonize the real Left, that would be one thing.  If Nader had done anything to build a serious challenge from the Left, that would be another.  If we could bring down the empire by dropping out of voting for President, that would also be fine.  BUT, if we just elect another Cheney, God help us.

I am not going to succumb to the idea that protest voting is more moral than strategic choices.  I am not opposing any radical criticism or political strategy other than electing GOPimps by default for nothing.  Build something, and Progressives will come.  But, focussing on Obama instead of the Repblicans is a stupid excuse for a strategy, and I think it has the marks of a radical cult where those who don't quite agree stand to divert the members into 'heresy' while the Great Evil remains an organizing force. 

Golly gee whiz, I am so sorry we don't have real elections that matter enough for you.  Darn, politics is not all that much fun when we have to deal with reality instead of living the dream.  Even if we are only rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, are you going to keep us from hitting the iceberg or are you going to get the evacuation better prepared?  I don't see it.  I think we are doing a lot more than you give us credit for, but that does not mean the iceberg will be missed, only that we might have a better chance of surviving. 

Lerner offers what I think is a false choice in the end.  We don't have to compromise our ideals to make short term realistic choices.  We can support every positive effort while not making things worse than they need to be.  Being radical does not mean that we have to give up on those who are doing better than the rest in the corrupt system.  It just means we don't depend upon the system to work ultimately.  Lerner and Hedges have a legitimate concern that we will want to believe in the system or will fail to respect or engage in anything outside it.  It is still not a binary choice, and I think we can do both and come out better than if we make either alternative all there is.

We have seen where all this leads, indeed! We have seen and known the proposals all to well of those void of conviction and follow through of those advocating for the duopoly/ Wall Street/ cabal. I fail to understand how it is that some remain clueless at the increased poverty now which have returned to the levels of the 1960s. It makes one wonder where have the appeasers of the Dem/Republican cabal been since the 1970s? Have they not been paying attention? Nowhere will this class of clones ever utter a word of rebuke against the far-too-bloated military budget (comprised entirely of taxpayer subsidized war-for-profit spending in what amounts to corporate welfare, the most immense part of discretionary spending) and instituting a national health plan (such as Medicare for all, just like the members of Congress have, or better yet, like the one Australians enjoy) will result in a budget surplus; no, they fail to understand that the US military and wars of aggression have nothing to do with increasing security, just as the for-profit health care system has nothing to do with health care. They are both pursuing the same goal: PROFITS. Military spending is not wasted at all... it provides a steady stream of funds from the public purse to make the world safe for the Fortune 500. Of course, the attacks now directed at the social safety net is now on the cabals agenda; as is limiting personal rights previously taken for granted.

 The Obama apologists are also seemingly clueless as to the actual motives of our government, which, since its very founding, have been dedicated to protecting the minority of the opulent against the majority (Madison), and is and ought to be run by the people that own it (John Jay). The typical apologist hit man or woman also fails to understand that the goals of government are not the betterment of the people, but the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many, to ensure that democracy is in name only, and that the common people remain spectators, not participants. Unemployment is a good thing in the eyes of the owners, for it ensures that profits to the owners will continue and grow, and that workers, the actual wealth creators, will be glad to simply eek out a subsistence living on the margins, and will refrain from dissent or even the mildest of protests, deterring that hated beast called democracy. What the apologetic class, and others on the alleged left fail to grasp is that "the needs of the nation" are not the concern of the ruling elites; it is the demands of the top 1/10 of 1% who control the State, those that buy and sell politicians and elections that determine policy which advances corporate hegemony.

 All this blather about what the what the congress "should do" simply shows that those who believe it are ignorant or naïve, or both. In the end, what difference does it make whether the corporate shill and Wall Street lackey in the White House makes bold or timid proposals?...he has no intention of doing anything other than abandoning them, just as he has done in the past. One wonders how disingenuous it gets as the true believers rattle aimlessly on, or as if they never seen a campaigning politician making empty promises before?

Agreed. And ruined we will be.

Talk of impeachment, like talk of Obama being 'moved to the left', suggests denial. Participants within a system, one that is all they have ever known, often can't accept the need for fundamental change. They are closed off to the idea that solutions lie outside of that system.

To attack or to defend a particular POTUS is to be so focused on the cult of personality, the illusion, that one loses sight of "the cross of the moment."

Garrett, Thank you for pulling that out of my post.

Few have been more critical over the years of our various presidents than I have.  My story begins after the overly idolized JFK started the invasion of Vietnam to "save us" as they always do.  It's presidential foreign policy making, after all.  We'll never know what shape that debacale would have taken under his watch, he was washed clean of it by his own sacrificial blood.  A few years later I woke up from my ideological stupor in Vietnam, and my deconstruction of this monolithic imperial system began in earnest.

A lot of people have gone down similar roads, many of them friends of mine from that era, some now passed away.  I think Chris Hedges went a similar route, though his began in the halls of Harvard's divinity school, it seems, and his went the route of observer/commenter journalist in some of our more serious Empire-related conflicts.  Something about seeing hell face to face has a disconcerting effect on us mere mortals and our pitiable ideals.  He came to the conclusion that the system is owned by those who can amass and control the capital in this capitalistic economic hegemony that is, after all, merely the machinery of an inverted totalitarianism that Sheldon Wolin identified in his,  Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.  A conclusion that reads that, in terms of any real democracy, "they" won, we lost.  In other words, the private tyrannies known as corporations rule.  I thank him for his courage to speak up.  It's what we all need to do.

Any real change will have to come out of a mass awakening from below.  Many are beginning to find alternatives... Transition Towns, rhizome communities, the fledgling OWS movement, you know.

This is an interesting question, which is voiced in terms of the system itself, rather than the personality:

Can Obama Avert War with Iran?

Because here's one part of the problem they all succumb to if they get that far in their dreams of being President, and if one can connect this back to the economic hegemony of private tyrannies in place, perhaps the question of what Obama can do makes some sense:

"Losing" the World: American Decline in Perspective, Part I

The Imperial Way: American Decline in Perspective, Part II

I have been informed by Chomsky for half a century, and he is among the formative voices of my thinking about the American Century Myth from Vietnam on.  I do not disagree with his analysis or conclusions about Iran and our fixation on Israel, and I see it as the projection of our own American fanatasy world instead of a secular and realistic reading of the facts on the ground. 

When I try to understand why the proponents of Liberal America have been so domesticated by the forces of empire, I have tried to explain it within a shared immersion in an American narrative of "destiny" and "exceptionalism" that bifurcated from the Civil War and turned Southern after Vietnam.  Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Wolin and Hedges, with some other insightful realists, have cast needed light on the narrative, but they have also described why the power of the myth eludes rational criticism and exposure in our culture, and not just in the flawed mechanisms of our Constitution and the power of the ruling class.

Has there been progress?  Yes, and no, in the sense that time is running out faster than it appears we are able to make the changes needed.  This leads some like Food for All to despair of any incremental or within the system possibilities.  I tend to agree with just about all of that, except the despair.  I think that is what leads us to attack those we think ought to be doing better rather than focus on those dedicated to the myth and its toxic and tragic path.  It is not a simple division, and I appreciate why Hedges sees Obama's ability to keep the illusion alive in the Purple Haze as dangerous even if I cannot see doing anything that gives the cultists another chance to run amok.

Part of my analysis is that we are wrong to think that we can manage history and make our change smooth and evolutionary.  If we were awake and aware, we could respond to the crisis with far more intelligence and sound policy; but this is the problem.  We are still in a state of pathology where the Myth is operating and Liberals continue as "dry drunks" rather than recoverd addicts while the Right drinks the Southern Comfort and Ecstasy of Millennial Empire as if it were their health and energy elilxer.

On the one hand, the cracks in the Myth grow and the pain and exhaustion of war and global empire is felt in our bones.  On the other hand, our identity as Americans has not found a new narrative other than needing to go to rehab or denial.  Rens permaculture transcends this, as does the Korten formula for successful development being "indigenous and artisanal."  Poly has the economics down and puts forward the "monastary" as a fine example of a sane and human society, albeit a utopian or "special" sense of political organization.  But that is what ideal communities have sought to do, and what our "city set on a hill" was supposed to be to Europe.

Were we able to look upon the political construct called America as little more than a stage of history and see ourselves in a new world where democracy could be 'reborn' within a global realism, we might be able to have a productive group therapy instead of an apocalypse.  But, let's face the fact that we and our fellow Americans are deeply emotionally involved in this story.  It is not just about a change of mind.  It is clearly not about "the issues."  They only make sense to us within a larger narrative, and it is coming to terms with our identity and sense of meaning and purpose within that frame that scares us or makes our thought appear idealistic when it is realistic.

Having the answers is not enough.  If we really had them, anyway.  We are always better at diagnosing the problem, particularly the problem with others than we are in understanding our own blind spots and obsessions.  Of course power speaks to truth as long as it can.  Of course the electable President cannot do what is needed to reverse the pathology of power; and the ones we dream of electing because they have the answers have no chance because power is power.  If our hopes are vested in that path, we are screwed and will become cynics blaming those who do not fulfill our hopes.  If, however, we see something bigger and less in our control at work, we can support the lesser evils in the system to cushion the change and prevent needless suffering and death without giving them our hope or losing the larger sense of what is really going on.

What empire has ever saved itself and turned back on its own?  Not the Brittish, even though they did manage to get back to England with far less damage than most.  And, how does the "first new nation" embrace being "the last empire" without going bad? 

So, here we are.  Our domestic Constitution cannot operate in an Empire, nor can it lead us back from it.  Money has corrupted it quite thoroughly, and our faith in the superiority of our form of government has to be given up if we want to be a democracy in the future.  But, it is the illusion that our Empire is not evil that persists and cannot.  The US Navy is not a force for good around the world, and Wall St. plays no positive role either.  What if Europe's economic crash blows back into ours?  What if the IMF is finally unable to cover up its failures?  What happens to us?

If you see any of this as negative, too bad.  We are obviously not prepared to deal with the coming apocalypse as a nation or culture; but there are emerging communities of awareness and preparation.  I like the image of the dinos and the mammals where the latter have to dodge the dying beasts but will inherit the future.  Instead of despair, the knowledge of what is wrong exposes the pretense of power as well as its immediate threats and panic.  Appreciating the pathology allows us to give up its claims to moral and political authority.  If we are standing on solid ground, even if we feel naked and small, we are in better shape than they.

Great Awakenings are an American tradition, and I like to refer to that phenomenon to describe these moments where the old order collapses and a new reality is found.  The meaning of these events in our history was that people who were on "the frontier" were able to give up a derivitave identity and dependency on the "Eastern" authorities and claim their own beings at the center of their own history.  They were not out in the boonies while history was being formed on the East Coast, and earlier they were not on the other side of the pond while England and Europe were the source of all that mattered.

If we make this about the narrative and less about geography, our "Great Awakening" becomes the ability to shed the frame of authority and power to rediscover our own human and political reality.  I have offered the Pledge of Allegiance as an organizing narrative rehab for Americans.  I am not saying that we go back to the mid-19th Century at all, just that we have some familiar memes that can help spark our current thinking about what to do and who we might be.

I also look globally for others who are leading the way and providing a healthy intervention if we will accept their support and counsel.  Were we not the Evil Empire, we would discover that there is some affection for the best in our story left.  What we lack in ethnic and parochial cohesion is also what we offer in pluralism and democratic inclusion.  Our adolescent hubris about saving the world did include a vision of universal humanity, albeit covered in narcissism.  If we grew up, we might still be welcomed into such a globalism. 

Rediscovering our humanity in a world where we are not in alienation from nature or each other is worth a dream.  It is worth doing what we can where we are instead of charting courses of destruction and despair.  Things are worse than we think, of course, if we are trying to manage the apocalypse.  But they are not as bad as we fear if we think there is nothing but destruction and the end of the world ahead.  It is not a magic escape, just a new world where we give up our special status and become human, finally.

And finally, I think Hedges makes good distinctions between the victims of the manipulators and the psychopaths who are beyond redemption.  We may not be the final judge of who is beyond all hope, but we need to avoid the bitterness and despair we visit upon those at the bottom and focus on the abuses of power.  It is not about being blind to psychosis or to addictive acting out; but it is about recovering the power to love and extend grace and healing.  We are not running this process of change, but we can respond with heart, soul and mind even if it is about surfing the apocalypse with a few wipe outs along the way.  There is no safety on the beach or out beyond this wave.  It is scary, but it is also thrilling.  Living in false hope or living in dread offer nothing better, so, like Eddie said, "let's go."

The plutocrats get what the plutocrats want. If they feel 4 more years of Obama serves their long-term interests, then we'll see 4 more years of Obama. If they want a war with Iran, they'll get a war with Iran, regardless of who resides in the White House. The POTUS, I figure, has less actual power than the Queen of England.

A lot of money is being spent by the banksters to make a run at Obama.  If they did not care or were happy with him, I think they would let the Republicans nominate another sure loser.  Romney looks good to them because he is their Ken Doll.  I don't mean he has much of a chance, but people who believe what he believes think he is the guy they want instead of Obama.  And, I don't know why they don't just sit it out, but they aren't.  Go figure.

The myth of genuine choices has to be maintained. The political theater must be funded. Those "making a run at" Obama will also donate large sums to Obama. Look at a list of McCain's funders in 2008. Look at a list of Obama's funders in 2008. Or 2004 (Kerry and Bush). The lists are very, very similar. Go figure.

I think you are too generous to these creeps.  The hate Obama stuff does not come from only the Far Right idiots, the banksters also understand that he is not their boy.  If you were right, they could just let the Cultural Conservatives blow themslelves out and inherit the 2016 for Romney and Wall St.  I don't think they would provide this great economic stimulus if they were satisfied with Obama.

 The memes and disinformation propagated by DRC is truly epic in its utter non-sense. Please Fact Check this troll in the future people.

 The FACT is that Obama has raised more corporate cash than every Republican combined to date including Bankster cash. So the assertions that  seek to manipulate your belief system via meme and which tells you that, "A lot of money is being spent by the banksters to make a run at Obama. If they did not care or were happy with him, I think they would let the Republicans nominate another sure loser"  or that, "The hate Obama stuff does not come from only the Far Right idiots, the banksters also understand that he is not their boy."

These types of partisan memes are legendary on political forums. And the Dem apolgia is being spread thick as the Banksters 'boy' hits campaign mode.

One need only take a look at the corporat money flow into campaigns from the only non aligned/non-profit site which tracks corporate money, to get a rather clear picture on who is being bought: i.e. opensecrets dot com. Assuming you have an interest in the truth vs the fairy tales being diseminated here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

You prove nothing.  To play and win in this bad game, one must have the money.  Do you really want Romney instead of Obama?  Or worse?  Do you want a saint to prove his holiness by losing?  I have addressed your legitimate criticisms of the system fully, but you keep making Obama more a target than the system or its real defenders.  You may mean well, but I think you do more harm than good with this anti-Obama rant.  Just build the Left alternative and see if we come.  Until then, stop wasting your and my time with this emotionalism. 

Some rich people may be smart enough not to want the whole thing to go down in flames, and they might even be able to see that the GOPimps are insane.  So what?

The proof is in the pudding. Denial makes you look all the more foolish.

What's the point?  If Obama cannot do what the hopeful wanted, how do you plan to get somebody better in the White House?  You have no strategy, and being a Left purist may make you feel superior, but it gets nothing done.  OMG, Obama takes money from some people on Wall St.  I think I will just go get drunk and hide out.  I am so disappointed!  Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh.

If anyone on this forum comes close to coming across as “superior” given personal style that is part, ah shucks, ivory tower, and progressive insider (by rhetoric and name dropping) that would be you, not me.

If you prefer to live in a vacuum and whine because of some undefined and impotent strategy based on presuppositions, who exactly is stopping you? If you are looking for someone to hold your hand for you while disseminating meme’s, obfuscations, and sprinkled with a good dose of sophistry while keeping the forum safe from a non-DRC thought, I am sure you can find many here willing.

But given the scope and praxis of the downsizing of the social safety net juxtaposed against skyrocketing poverty (including my own), interminable war, corporate personhood and hegemony, all buttressed against demeaning legislative fiat that has destroyed the New Deal gains of the past or in the process of destroying what is left of it, I think we can conclude that whatever “strategy” that you and your ilk are advancing -- perceived or delussional – just isn’t making it!

Just do something postitive, build some alternative and stop ignoring the real bad guys and the real problems.  I am tired of your self righteous bs.

Pot calling the kettle black!

Boo hoo.

And then some!

Obama lowered estate taxes. By A LOT.

Bush and the GOP Congress was happy to give millionairres $3.5 million tax free and tax the rest at a 45% rate.

Obama gives them $5 million tax free and taxes the rest at a 35% rate.

That's $675,000 worth of gravy, just to start, then $100,000 per million after 5.

The Rise of Free Range Chicken Serfdom...  An interesting take on our current government "by the people", our bickerings, and our actual Matrix living circumstances.  (You'll enjoy this Chris.)

So, is this plug for Ron Paul, sent to me by a liberal "more to the left than Democrat" friend who writes: "this says it all!", really this election's antidote to the current livestock management program, of which Obama is being personified as THE problem (just get rid of him and all will be well, while the complexity of Congress is let off the hook)?  Judge Napolitino: How to get fired in under 5 minutes

This is much larger than the spectacle of another round of our four year Presidential Election.  We cannot epitomize this problem in a personality.

EXACTLY!!

DRC, I think the problem is in scale. Of course all elections and all voters are faced with the conundrum of having to vote for candidate A because he or she is much better than candidate B. But there comes a time in an honest man's conscience where he simply cannot give support to that which he loathes. Obama is certainly better than the alternative (possibly with the exception of Paul) and that "FORCES" our hand . . . or does it? I simply am at the point where I don't know if I can vote (support) Obama's capitulation to the Banksters, to the Military, to Big Oil, to Big Pharma, to Executive Dictatorial Status, etc. So back to scale, we all have to hold our noses and vote, but there is a threshold that many of us here, and well argued points above, simply cannot support any more corporate tyranny and Obama is another front man for corporate tyranny. What's the alternative? chaos, war, collapse? Will those things surely happen if a republican gets in? Possibly, maybe likely. Will those things happen if Obama gets four more years? Well, project out what he's done so far and it could still happen and it would be worse because we actually supported their dupe and their system.

We just might have to face the grim fact that money and human insecurity have combined to collapse society just as it has done with many other civilazations. Why do we think we are immune to collapse. When money becomes the religion of the land and it has, then everything is a commodity and people are simply consumers. As I said in another post, I may capitulate the more I get disgusted with the republican candidates and I like Obama's oratory and the fact that he wants to reduce nuclear stockpiles. But make no mistake about it, a vote for any republican or for Obama is a vote for a continuation of the same downward spiral. One will plunge us a little faster than the other, that's about it. I'm not saying I won't vote for Obama in the face of things, but I'm nearing that threshold where I simply can't vote for either party. We have a few months left to sort their positions out.

Were Kucinich wearing the Ron Paul disguise, you would have a better candidate, but we would still have to ask, why the disguise?  Ron Paul is a very flawed candidate, not the guy folks want to believe in, and he offers nothing of real worth compared to the "lesser evil."  I hesitate to fall into that lesser and greater rhetorical meme because, as ren has posted, it makes no sense to reduce this mess down to one person.  It was not even reducible to Cheney, although he did a good job of personifying the Evil Empire in one twisted, paranoid character.

It is not about getting sick and tired of the duopoly and compromised choices every four years.  It is about doing something about it the rest of the time.

I would argue that RP's non-intervention foreign policy is superior to all republican candidates and Obama's. His domestic, hands off approach to the economy is, indeed, highly suspect. However, my real problem is that no interviewer has yet challenged him to explain how his "free market" methods would actually work to protect the poor, the elderly, the environment, etc. I'm not sure why I haven't heard how his free market mechanism would work and I find that very curious, because I am a journalist of old and I certainly would be putting real and hypothetical questions to him to answer.

Well, choco, since we are in a very blue state, we have some anxiety-freeing luxuries.  We can maybe even have fun!  Ignore this tedious spectacle, let's vote Roseanne Barr into the Green Party nomination this summer and then see what she can do!  After all, her message is way more appealing than any Ron Paul's "let's have a free market solve it all" can be.

Roseanne Barr Joins the Info Wars

Roseanne Barr is running for president as a Green Party candidate.

Yes, I've been on the Green Party website and noticed there is another woman running too and somehow I got distracted and vowed to come back to see what's shaking there. I want to be Roseanne Barr's chief strategist for her campaign bid. I'd advise her to keep on keeping on. When you think about it an alternative people-first candidate should be able to stir things up as the two parties are backed by the one percent. The irony is that many who would agree to the Green Party platform won't vote for them because they think they will be wasting their vote so they vote for the lesser of two evils rather than voting for the best candidate period. That is voting from fear.

Fun.  If you have the luxury of a blue state majority, or even if you are at the bottom of red state hell where having fun doesn't hurt anybody.

Choco, RP's 'nonintervention' foreign policy is purely utopian.  Do you think he would be able to do away with the imperial military and all that "intelligence (sic) system?"  This stuff begs the politics it would take to get him elected, and if we could do those things we would not need to have the rest of his bs.  The fact that he runs as a Republican and hangs out with these dangerous goofballs discredits him from these discussions of serious topics.

Dennis the Menace is still my alternative fantasy.  Al Sharpton was great in the debates in '08.  I would suggest that if you want to play Presidential politics, aim at the upcoming Democratic primaries for '16.  Meanwhile, if elections are your thing, go down the chain to rattle some local and state cages.  Meanwhile, Roseanne rocks!

Kucinich is, or would be, my first choice, no doubt. RP's foreign policy is why he can't get elected, and should he somehow, then he would be dealt with severely, I suspect.

RP really has no foreign policy.  How one would dismantle the empire is what is at issue.  It does not disappear magically, and there will be a lot of big crises involved.  I wish it were as easy as not having gone there in the first place.  This is not an argument for keeping the empire, btw.  It is about how to end it.

No one person can do it alone, and that's where the myth of personality comes apart.

If, for instance, all the people involved in the OWS movement -- and that includes those who are supportive if not actually able to be in on the ongoing occupations -- if all those people were to also begin to write/email every day to their congress critters, strange things could possibly happen. 

The House critters like Pelosi and Bohner may dismiss you once they are there, and go about doing the corporate business, but they are only there for two years, so their there, there is ultimately very vulnerable. The House was designed to be vulnerable that way.  And if a no more there, there possibility is introduced daily into their tiny little minds, it might actually take up some of that cramped space, along with a few demands, like maybe to begin acting like a Congress Constitutionally should and put a bridle back on the rogue Unitary Executive they've been enabling.

You don't have to have an authoritarian, fundamentalist church network to make democracy happen... or do you?

More refreshing common sense, ren.  I agree that Congress is the place to push electoral politics and imput. I also like local and regional for the same reasons.  It is about where our efforts can be effective rather than against the idea of a federal government.  I am tired of the cult of personality and the focus on the President as if we had a king. 

Choco, you might find this article interesting given it purports many of the themes you introduce but takes your analysis much further. This is simply the best political analysis Ive read in the last year (Chris Hedges notwithstanding). WARNING: THE POLITICAL STATUS QUO TYPES ARE LIKELY SPILL THEIR DOUBLE MOCHA LATTE, if not trigger a involuntary convulsion.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/20

From the article:

"On the other hand, now that Obama is ramping up the Big Lie machine once again, many of those people will get just what they deserve. What was that line Bush mumbled about fooling me twice? I’m astonished to see progressives gearing up to be abused a second time by Obama – who is all of a sudden sounding like a progressive again – like they’ve walked right out of a Stockholm Syndrome field manual or something. Are we talking about the same guy here? The one who put the actual bandits who wrecked the economy in his cabinet? The one who has not prosecuted a single Wall Street bankster? The one who bailed those thieves out, but has done nothing remotely serious for the unemployed and homeowners? The one who pretends to fold in every negotiation with Republicans? The one whose staff regularly disses progressives?

That guy? Hey, liberal idiots. I have a question for you. Do you really think this bastard is going to become FDR in his second term? Do you really think he’s going to seriously slash military funding in order to save Medicare? Do you really think he’s going to rescind his deal with the insurance industry in order to provide genuine public health care access? Do you really think he’s going to replace Timothy Geithner with Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz? I mean, this is a guy so beholden to Wall Street that he pretended not to have the courage to nominate Elizabeth Warren to the new consumer affairs position she invented. Are you really going to be wooed by him again? If so, if you’re so easily abused by your political class, you might as well line up to be Newt’s fourth wife for all the street smarts you’re displaying."