The FIRE sector – Finance/Insurance/Real Estate. All that money they have at their disposal means they can get an assassin in to “private” functions like that one White House party where an unscreened couple walked in without an impediment. The hatred in the Beltway is palpable. I have expected this for a long time. His speech on the State of the Union means an unexpected event is already being hatched by some group, likely in the FIRE sector.

It is still thought “lunatic fringe” to look honestly into the real sources of this kind of killing. The Banking Sector in 1963 had a very close relationship with the French “mob.” Though not mentioned in the US – a French gunman admitted during a trial for something unrelated that he had fired the shot that killed JFK from the parking lot behind the “grassy knoll,” using a silencer. Call it nonsense if you will – but the evidence exists.

“The great lesson of history is to prepare for the unexpected.” (Lewis Mumford)

The history of violent revolutions is ugly and depressing. I’ve been reading lately about the French Revolution. Still worse was the Russian. THe American Revolution was more of a colonial revolt, with the rulers being an ocean away, rather than a ruling class that had grown up organically from within the society; indeed, the main revolutionaries were that domestic ruling class.

Your own country, South Africa, performed a wonderful transformation, pretty much bloodlessly: when I was working in American foreign policy circles in 1980-82, the best experts on your country could not see how the white supremacist regime could “get off the tiger” without being eaten. Thanks to Mandela and Leclerc, and others, there was a peaceful transition from the white-dominated to a majority rule society.

The other great miracle of essentially non-violent transformation occurred in the Soviet Union. THat was largely due to Mikhail Gorbachev, in my view: not only in the USSR but across the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe, the “revolutions” were “velvet.”

I can hardly imagine any revolution in the United States, of a violent sort, that would a) be successful and b) not be a disaster even if successful. Almost always, a) violence breaks more than it builds, and b) in the chaos of the violence, the worst sort –the natural-born killers and warlords– take over.

The American political system, however broken, offers an infinitely better opportunity to make genuine promise. All it would really take, actually, given that there’s still free speech and people can still vote –things missing from many societies through history– is IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT’S RIGHT BEFORE THEIR EYES.

Besides which, this past year of the Obama administration –as far short as it has fallen of what I think COULD and thus SHOULD have been achieved– has done a great deal to move things in a better direction. And I see no reason to give up hope that the coming years will bring more progress, on various fronts.

Unfortunately, this president is a ruthless, power-grabbing liar. His waffling and indecisiveness are an attempt to continue the deceit that he is decent and genuinely wants a proper deal for the American people.
Darkness has not only overtaken the Republican party, it is a general feature of the American political establishment.
You are living in a de facto dictatorship, a de facto one-party state. You won’t get out of this mess by voting for either of the big parties, and the small ones don’t count. Your only hope of freedom is to take up arms, which once upon a time was a very American thing to do.
I am worried that Americans have lost their will to freedom, no longer have the guts to fight their oppressors, and will go along with whatever they are ordered to do.
I am equally worried that that applies to the rest of us too.

On a recent thread, a comment was posted that denigrated the focus –here on NSB, and presumably elsewhere– on Obama. I recall there being some remark about “the great man theory of history” (or something like that), as if it were some childish notions or emotional needs that drive the concern about Obama and the kind of leadership he is providing and will provide the forces that brought him into office.

That critique I reject. It does not take some general “great man theory of history” to recognize that in SOME circumstances, much depends on single individuals. This seems like one of those circumstances.

If these were normal political circumstances in America, one could imagine a variety of means by which necessary poilitical goals could be reached. But with the darkness that possesses today’s Republican Party –and has done so for at least this past decade– there is a need to do battle and to prevail over those forces.

Given the nature of the battle –conducted through the framing of issues, the process of informing or misinforming the public, the constant attacks from the right and the counterpunching (or lack of it) from the object of the attacks– I can not see any effective way that the forces that SHOULD prevail CAN prevail in the absence of Obama’s leading and coordinating an effective battle plan.

I’d like our critic with the “great man theory of history” jibe to present us with some plausible alternative scenario about how THIS Democratic Party can conduct the present political battle with THIS Republican Party and can prevail. The minority party can have its powerful spokesmen, but everyone –the media, the people, the members of the party– looks to the White House to be the voice of the party, and to call the troops to battle.

THere are other ways –besides with Obama’s leadership, and within the next several years– in which the battle can ultimately be won. But for the next several years, the advance of truth over the Culture of the Lie, of decency over ruthlessness, of constructiveness over sheer power-grabbing depends on this president adopting and properly executing a suitable strategy for battle.

But I’m curious, Andy – we’re spiraling the drain, and the hour is late. If Obama just can’t pull it together, what is Plan B?