Barack, You’ve Lost Your Way
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Obama was supposed to be the one whose mission is to call us Americans back to the better angels of our nature. But it seems we’ve reached a point where it is we who need to summon Barack back to the better angels of his nature.
We need to remind him of the nature of the force that has brought him to this point. We need to remind him of that deep place from which has come the power he’s ridden to win the Democratic nomination and to stand now within reach of the presidency.
************
Why do you think it is, Barack,” we need to ask, that a relative newcomer like you, and one laboring under the weight of America’s racist history at that, has become the front-runner, superceding more experienced, better-known, seemingly inevitable” competitors?
It is because at a time when the power of the presidency has been wielded by a gang for whom no principle guided them save their lust for power, you gave promise of being a man of principle.
It is because at a time when America’s leadership has been trampling our Constitution and our laws, you persuaded us that you would act with integrity to restore our values and our Constitution.
It is because at a time when we’ve consistently been lied to by our leaders, you seemed to speak to us honestly.
It is because millions of Americans —yearning for an end to this darkness—were inspired by that message and joined forces with you. Yes, inspired. The force that has brought you to within reach of the presidency has been a moral and spiritual force, the kind –as you seemed to understand– required to overcome the corrupt powers that have come to dominate American politics.
And now you’ve lost your way.
Among the several recent moves that have looked not principled but opportunistic, the most troublesome is your recent position on FISA.
Over the last two and a half years, we’ve learned too much about this FISA struggle to buy what you’ve said about our national security requiring that this bill be passed and about this bill being an acceptable compromise” that protects the rule of law. And so we’re left having to believe either that you don’t understand what you’re talking about or, far more likely, that out of political calculation you’re saying things to America that you yourself know are not true.
And this not on just any issue, but one that goes to the heart of the lies and fear-mongering and trampling on the American system of government that define the darkness of this Bushite era!
Don’t you understand that such political opportunism cuts the legs out from under the horse that’s been carrying you this far on your mission? Don’t you know that the whole potential power of your presidency rests on that trust that you built —trust in your integrity, trust now damaged—between yourself and that national community whose organizer and leader you promised to be?
A recent article (on Huffington Post) speaks about how, with these recent seemingly expedient and unprincipled moves, you’ve undercut your brand.” And this article, in turn, drew upon articles in the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post which included such statements as:
The changes carry some risk that Obama will diminish the image he has sought to build as a new type of leader who will change how Washington conducts business. McCain and other Republicans have used his recent policy statements to argue that Obama is a traditional politician, unwilling to take clear stands on tough issues and abandoning his principles when he finds it advantageous. (LA Times)[And, quoting David Sirota, a former Democratic aide on Capitol Hill and author of the new populist-themed book The Uprising."] When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” (Washington Post)
But what you have jeopardized goes beyond branding,” implying as that does a sales strategy. It undercuts the main argument for your candidacy, that your candidacy was not principally a sales strategy but was rather about your being someone genuine. Your new politics” seemed to be based on your faith that what needed to be said could be said, and the sales” would take care of themselves.
In your campaign, while speaking of your willingness to speak honestly to the electorate about tough issues, you declared your faith in the American people.” Did you lose that faith? Did you decide that while there might be enough people in America who care about truthfulness and integrity to carry you to the nomination, you couldn’t trust that there are enough such Americans to win in the general election?
We Americans need for you to rekindle that trust. We need for you to find again that faith you’ve evidently lost in the power of your message of hope and integrity. America needs that new politics, for it will never be redeemed by the old politics” you so eloquently denounced before, only to begin to embrace now.
Or is it not that you’ve lost faith in the power of your new politics, but that the whole image of the man of principle that you sold during the nominating process was just a clever sales strategy for that stage in your quest for the presidency?
“I do not believe that. I expect that, instead, you’ve been led astray by your willingness to listen to the advice of practitioners of the old politics” who have no understanding of the nature of the spiritual force that you’ve quickened in America, that yearning of so many Americans for truthfulness and principle and genuine caring and integrity that enabled you to upset who the establishment assumed was the inevitable” nominee. My guess is that, being a newcomer, and now also with so much to lose, you decided that you would play it safe” and play politics in the tried and true manner of opportunism and posturing. I expect that you lost faith in the ability of truth and decency to win out, in today’s benighted America, over the lies of the swift-boaters and the fear-mongers.
But even if you were only playing the part of the principled man, it would still be a blunder to change your act in this way now. You have ridden a particular kind of force, whether through con job or (as I suspect) genuine character, making a most improbable ride from obscurity to the threshold of the Oval Office. Changing the engines driving you forward at this point can only blunt your momentum. Even if it is the opportunism that is real and not the principle, your compromising your image this way would be a blunder.
Whatever incremental gains you may get from positioning yourself in opportunistic ways, they will surely be outweighed by what you lose by becoming just another opportunist seeking power. John McCain has already shown how ambition can drive a man to surrender his integrity. America hardly needs to go to the polls next November knowing that, no matter who wins, the power of that office will be wielded by someone for whom winning power outweighs his principles.
You’ve damaged that channel by which you’ve ridden the yearnings of your countrymen, 80 percent of whom believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. But it is not too late —whether you are a man of principle or just good at playing the part—to repair that channel.
You’ve shown creativity before in navigating difficult issues in ways that are both principled and politically adept. (What would your position on FISA have looked like if you’d approached it with that same depth and creativity and adept touch that you displayed in your statement on race in the midst of the first Reverend Wright furor?) Return to that path, and wave high the banners of hope, of a new and more principled politics, of partnership between the president and the people against the entrenched powers, of calling America back to the better angels of our nature and to our shared values.
That’s the only kind of campaign that can sweep you into office with a powerful mandate to repair our damaged nation.
Don’t forget that it is only the extraordinary nature of this moment in our history that has made possible your extraordinary rise to this position. It was a big mistake to stop speaking to the special yearnings that have arisen in this especially dark time in our nation’s history, and start playing politics as usual.
But it is not too late to return to the offer of a new kind of politics that, in this dark time, made you a channel of the aspirations of millions of your countrymen.”
*******************
The image of leadership that Barack Obama has presented in his remarkable campaign for the presidency has been one of partnership between himself and the American people. I still believe that partnership is America’s best hope.
And as we are discovering, that partnership should be a two-way street. Obama is an exceptionally intelligent, able man. But he will make mistakes. Thus, though much of the time that partnership will work with the leader showing the way, there will inevitably also be times when it will be up to those who support that leadership to call our leader back to the true path.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:23 am
I hope so very much that he can hear you, Andy, and all those good and intelligent people who are able to communicate well just like you. (i.e. Greenwald)
And, who in many ways have more life experience than he does as well. I sometimes worry about his ‘groupies’ a bit.
he should have more help from people of equal or more ability than himself in select areas, and even if they are not President material like himself.
Don’t embarrass yourself, Obama! Don’t ruin it for your own sake, and which is everyone’s sake. With McCain it’s no big deal, but with you as Andy has made clear, it is a very, very big deal. You hurt everyone.
DO NOT MESS IT UP!
….and believe me, I can only imagine how difficult this is, but you knew that ahead of time. I’d rather you lose the election with integrity than win it without.
Listen to Andy!! It’s not too late!
July 1st, 2008 at 5:28 am
I think ‘The Church’ in the main recognizes men (and women) as saints after they are dead.
It’s the only safe way.
While they are alive as is so obvious-
they can so suddenly become quite unsaintly.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:57 am
It looks like Obama has changed his positions and now has advisors that more closely align to his new views. Willingly or unwillingly Obama has
changed course Where have all the leaders gone?
Lee Iacocca expresses his outrage below
From a recent item in Juan Cole’s blog.
“There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all the leaders gone?
“On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. & That was George Bush’s moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he’d regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq — a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn’t listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith-based, not reality based. If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, I don’t know what will.
“So here’s where we stand. We’re immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We’re running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We’re losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership. ‘
So if Republicans like Iacocca are this upset with the direction of the country, you can understand what McClatchy says about the past funders of the noise machine (I’m not saying Mr. Iacocca was one) just not having their heart in it this time.
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/30/2008 01:05:00 AM 13 comments | Share:
http://www.juancole.com/
July 1st, 2008 at 9:59 am
Andy,
Well said, but I’m guessing that (like me) you would love and embrace big changes. But what about all those among us who are more cautious? If Barack is seen as being too radical, he also runs the risk of scaring them who are no doubt already a little hesitant just because of his skin color.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:07 am
We are how we vote….It seem’s to me everyone is trying to make Obama do what he should of done to begin with….I have nothing against him, thought he was going to be a just, fair, for the people candidate…This FISA deal proved me wrong along with the slow draw down of the war and backing the Israel war monger’s 100%..
It is not my place nor any voter’s to make a candidate over, they are how they vote and present them selve’s..If we are having these huge problem’s before Obama get’s into office what kind of problem’s are we going to have once he is in…Is he going to be a centerest or lean far to the right just to help his popularety.?.Is he going to give into the warmonger’s and distroyer’s of our constitution like palosi and reid.?
I’ve been a democrat all my life and I don’t see him as one at this point…It is not my plan to write or call an adult man and beg him to do the right thing here, we can not drag some one kicking and screaming through a campaign and think they are going to change once in office…..Sorry, the dem’s and Obama lost me as a voter for them after 45 year’s…I’m going to write in a better choice who doesn’t need me to explain the constitution..It is sad that a civil right’s attorney has to have our right’s explained and demanded by we the people…..Blessings
July 1st, 2008 at 10:21 am
A saint who makes no errors in judgment – whether it be practical or moral judgment – is of no use to anyone. It is the saint who makes those errors and then demonstrates to us all the higher path in addressing those errors that inspires us to continue to try to right our own path, who proves that even the most wayward path, like that of our country these years, can be righted again.
I hope someone puts this article on Obama’s desk. I hope that, saint or not, he uses this blunder to demonstrate that to correct one’s course is a sign of strength rather than of weakness. Bush has shown all too much of the “strength” demonstrated by being the “decider” whose decisions are above reproach and beyond even the benefit of hindsight.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:24 am
Obama’s “about face” upon locking up the nomination was so stark, obvious and sudden that feel completely used and dirty. Repudiating Gen. Clark’s statement was, while being politically expedient, a complete departure from the “new politics” that seemed to be one of, at a minimum, intellectual honesty. Instead of repudiating Clark, what I would have expected was a condemnation of the media outlets spinning his comments out of context. But I guess if he crosses the media he will be doomed for sure.
The despicable attempts by the media superstars to force an apology from Clark – completely ignoring and subjugating all content and explanations he offered to them – and then enter into a mind-boggling display of spin was ultra slimy (although it was equally obvious Clark was armed with Obama talking points). I can’t understand how any rational person can not, at this point, see what these people are doing. Either these pundits are mentally ill and completely deranged (because stupidity is out of the question when their means and ends are understood and their behaviors repetitiously steering and becoming – by the usage of various devices – people toward those ends), or there is a puppet master controlling the dials.
There is no issue as critical to preventing the decline into fascism than protecting our civil liberties. I naively assumed that because Obama is a constitutional lawyer he would have the spirit and best interests of our national core at heart. There is no possibility that he is unaware of what’s at stake, and it reminds me of two worrisome quotes I read from him and his campaign months ago. He said something to the effect of, “I am a blank slate upon which people project their hopes and aspirations”, and, “This campaign is not about the specific issues, but hope for change”.
All along I’ve been acutely aware the absence of rhetoric and debate by the candidates on some of the most radical Bush policies. How could this be an accident or mere oversight? Are we supposed to believe, or just assume, that those are the changes he is referring to? A few months ago John McCain made the statement that he would see to it that the American people weren’t fooled into thinking that anything would change. He maybe right.
I’m afraid that, as I have stated here many times before and which is now becoming manifestly clear, the corporate powers that have been nurtured with near steadfast dedication over the past thirty years, have amassed so much power and influence over the economic affairs of all nations in general, and over our government in particular. These corporate entities ARE the American people in the eyes of the politicians. Obama is proving himself to them now that he has won the nomination. We little people have no real power other than our vote, but who records, tabulates and broadcasts the vote? There is far greater threat to presidential power coming from Wall Street and Corporate America than there is an angry mob. The best we can hope for is that Obama is just saying what he has to to get elected, and then will govern as a populist. But I’m not holding my breath.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:26 am
After reading The Audacity of Hope I accepted that Obama is a different kind of politician. He is a pragmatist and thinks in terms of bringing people together to get things done. I don’t agree with his stance on the death penalty or on gun control. I’d like to see a lot less guns in the world and the end to executions in this country. However, I accept those are his views and he is not the one to make fina ldecisions on these things. What he does best is bring people to the table from all sides of an issue and says, “Here is the problem we face. How are we going to fix it? The solutions won’t be ideologically based; as he is inclusive in his thinking and will listen to everyone. We desperately need that kind of dialoque at this time; to heal the divide between red and blue states and to bring as many people to the table as is possible. I was saddened by his stand on FISA and I may be naive, but I honestly don’t think it’s a political manipulation. Obama thinks in incremental steps toward solving problems and this is one small step toward a compromise that he can live with for now. It isn’t over; FISA can and will be revisited. The law does not prohibit criminal charges. Obama has said when he is in office he will set up a committee to review the Patriot Act and any and all laws that infringe on our privacy and civil rights. It is one step, and he does need to win the election if there is to be further progress. We don’t curently have the votes in the House or Senate to get much done and Obama is working tirelessly in a fifty state campaign, not only to win the election but to help bring in a democratic working majority. He is doing his job, incredibly well and I think it’s too soon to
proclaim him soul dead. I think we need to understand that what matters to him is not ideology, but results. He will anger everybody all the time unless we let go of judging him according to progressive, liberal or any other ideological standards. There is a difference between compromise and pandering. I don’t agree with him on a lot of things; I’m strongly against the death penalty and would like to see a whole lot more gun control in this country; not less, but that doesn’t mean I think his stand on those issues was a calculated effort to get conservative votes. He has some genuine conservative beliefs and for me the bottom line is that he doesn’t get to decide. As long as Obama keeps involving more and more people in a grounds up movement and governs by bringing as many people to the table as possible, I feel safe. It is up to us to tell him what we want but we also need to join him in having a dialogue with people we don’t always agree with. I think with Obama we will have an opportunity,
not only to reach across the aisle but to learn to communicate with people who think very differently than we do. He is not an ordinary politician and if we try to define him by our usual political labels we are going to be breaking our own hearts constantly.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am
Witch1, I beg you to reconsider. Choices like yours – not to demand from the candidate who might win to represent you in exchange for your vote, but instead to vote for a non-contender – put us in the position we’re in with the presidency we have. If you want a repeat of Bush’s first election, then by all means, vote for Nader or whatever write-in you have in mind. Otherwise… vote for Obama, for the love of god (and country).
July 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am
I’m sorry you’ve all fallen off the clouds, but maybe total paradigm shift on a dime is too lofty a goal for this time or for this person. I think JerseyGuy has a great point.
I think we are seeing the result of following a Messiah rather than a human being. How did that whole Messiah thing work out for Jesus of Nazareth, then? The people he did the most for were the ones screaming the loudest for his blood when he didn’t overthrow Rome the way they wanted him to.
Obama is simply a human being who is hoping to be elected President. He is not the Messiah, and I ought to know, I’ve followed a few.
[Well, okay, one, but I needed to use a line from Monty Python and "he's a very naughty boy" just didn't work. Unless you are one of those screaming for Obama's head.]
July 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am
I’m astonishied at these opinions. Obama is the same intelligent talented opportunist that he has always been. He tacked to the mainstream left to win the nomination and is now tacking to the mainstream right to win the election. Like all candidates do in all elections in all countries.
In the US, however, the Bushites have destroyed the traditional American power system to establish a disguised police state. The secret police dispersed are among the intelligence agencies, police, military, and outsourced corporation. Therefore it is necessary to legalize massive spying on the American population by the US power system.
So both the Dems and Gops, funded primarily for the ruling class, vote for it, and the media legitimates it, largely by silence. It is essential to the developing police state.
And the police state is necessary because the population is going to get restive when Obama expands the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran and Pakistan, increasing the military, as he has pledged to do, and the cost, taking the War on Terrorism to another two or three hundred million people.
Obama’s presidency will be a third term of Bush, since he cannot withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan without acknowledging a defeat of the US Superpower. As the Economist and others have pointed out. But since this clashes with the opinions and interests of the population, it will be done under a new version of Freedom and Democarcy, the customary codewords that legitimate the rule by a capitalist plutocracy.
The alternative to Obama is McCain, an old, sick, unstable man with a militaristic outlook worse than Bush. So I’ll vote for Obama. But that doesn’t mean one has to identify with the intellectual garbage and dishonesty that is going to justify it. It is possible to justify it by telling the simple reality based truth. Which the American people do not want to hear, and therefore is not communicated.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Good post’s all, …The biggest problem I have is backing any one who is willing to throw away my constitution, live’s of our military and innocent people in Iraq and around the world….Our country is in a mess….Bottom line there is no compromise of the constitution and my civil right’s…Sorry so few agree with me…At some point in time everyone must say enough, and I must do what is right for me and my country…We do not have any one running in this race that is good enough….We the people are suposto be the employer and they, the polatician’s are our employees….I can only see a handful in office now that are worth holding any office….Time to start firing the traitor’s in our mist and refuse to hire those unworthy…Blessings all.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:38 am
I don’t think it matters much anymore. Whoever winds up in office will be a part of the divine plan and things will go God’s way, no matter what we humans try to do.
This is not to say I believe the new president will be a child of God as Bush W. thinks he is, but, perhaps, just a tool. You know, like some of the other condemned humans in The Bible that were used by God to carry out His plan.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:55 am
And blessings to you Witch1. If everyone were a voter of integrity, which the europeans wished we were, then either we’d see the naked face of this monster or it might have to go back in it’s cave.
And Morley, welcome back:) No monkey wrench for you? You say, “[The simple, reality-based truth] the American people do not want to hear …” Are you sure you’re not another victim blamer? Most of those not telling it are doing that in their interests, not to save our feelings. And it’s not the people who are most threatened, it’s the system of lies that is.
Don’t get drunk on I-told-you-so.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hello, Morley, I’ve been missing you the past few days or so.
Thank you for your eloquence here. I don’t see what you have written as
necessarily contradicting most of what others have written, insofar as
mass pressure can sometimes succeed in forcing small compromises
from the American/multinational corporations. From that point of view I
too hope that someone gets what Andy has written onto Obama’s desk along
with similar writings from many others. In fact, now that I think of
it, perhaps I will take it upon myself to write him also.
Larry
July 1st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I agree with you, mommly, that Obama should not be viewed as a Messiah, or infallible leader, but there are a number of issues on which Obama could have changed his position, but on the telecom amnesty bill, I’m afraid there is no silver lining here. To support the telecom amnesty bill is to tacitly support everything Bush has stood for. It encompasses everything wrong with this adminstration and the direction the nation is heading. To support this bill is to support the undermining of the rule of law in order to protect the powerful at the expense of the people, it decimates civil liberties, the Constitution; supporting it offers consent to the collusion of the corporate sector and government, endorses and validates the premises (the bogos “war on terror”) upon which these programs were implemented, and the radical interpretation of executive war powers.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I must have expressed myself clumsily, Duane. All populations are deluded by their power structures to identify with the interests of power rather than the interests of the people ruled by power.
This is enevitable because power structures promote their own power interests under the guise of promoting those of the population. this is an historical tendency; the people are not responsible for believing the power delusions, because we are miseducated, misinformed and misentertained from childhood to do so.
For most of recorded history people have been deluded by religious delusions of gods, other realities and unearthly lives. Instilling belief in Divine power also instills the belief of respecting earthly power. This has been done historically in all polities.
In the US the public dialogue is partitioned up into mainstream Progressives and Coservatives who both support the power system, the mainstream progressives being a Loyal Opposition. Like Obama. The population is not to blame for this historical tendency, but, rather, the histsorical deceits of the power structure.
But this assumes a dualistic or dialectical view, the population on one side, power on the other. This view is obscured by reference to one’s ‘country’ or ‘nation’, conflating both the power system and people in a simgle concept. In the US the power structure is currently driving the American people into the ground. Obama is part of the power structure.
***
Religion is esstential to society, Larry, since the rituals celebrating birth, marrage, death, etc arise from a natural need to commemorate them. And the spirirtual aspect of people is perhaps the noblest.
But it is assumed that religion must be irrational and delusive, as traditional religion has been historically. This isn’t true, and modern religions are arising that are godless and less delusive.
But if people are to learn emotional truths that do not conflict with the reality based truth, you have to attack the power delusions that keep the population in thrall. Possibly this conflicts with the legal tendency to find a compromise in opposing ideological assertions.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Morley said,
What you say is probably very often true–not absolutely, but too often. I think you’re speaking of authoritarian personalities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality . And I don’t think you understand Quakers very well after all. Us Quakers don’t have preachers, and we don’t much care for preachers imposing themselves on other people We are really quite independent types. But most of us do believe in some form of divine power.
Larry
July 1st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Your religion is a well known progressive form, Larry, but would you say that it is the mainstream of traditional religion held by the majority of the religious. 90+per cent of religions DO have preachers or priests or rabbis imposing dogma throughout history.
There are always a few counter examples of every form, just as there have been Dem leaders who have been honest and courageous. At least for a while. And the Berringan brothers were extremely admirable, dedicated religionists.
But the simple historical truth of the matter is that the great majority of religion of every kind has fostered irrationality, delusion, oppression and perverted values. And Obama has just come out for increasing Bush’s program for ‘faith-based inititives.’ Somehow I don’t find this inspiring even if it includes Quakers.
It is religion that creates and validates authoritarian personalities, and this is the historical case even though you are obviously not authoritarian. I don’t think most people are to a great degree, Quakers no doubt among the least. But are Quakers historically typical?
July 1st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
More great post’s.Thank you all for posting and allowing me to post as well…..This witch believe’s in the constitution and in the seperation of church and state…All people should have the right to worship or not as they choose….Imposing any church mandate from one faith is bound to damage other’s…Freedom from relegion should be important here along with all our other right’s. other wise we end up being dictator’s to some one, or group…Harm none..Blessings
July 1st, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Pandering to the religeous right in the country seems to be the latest Obama affront to me personally. Perhaps he feels he needs this to capture some of the one third of the country that might find that message appealing. I think that this is a flawed calculus. The seperation of church and state is a most fundamental precept of our constitution. To see this assertion by Obama that he will provide more support for faith based institutions sickens me.
I fear that John McCain is inevitable in November because the Republican machine has yet to ramp up to its true level of destructive power over minds of most Americans.
Come on Obama- Stand up and inspire us to view a positive future!!! – if you truly have it in you?
July 1st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I’ve read somewhat further into this “faith-based” business, ROss, and I think that there’s no betrayal here, that there’s a care Obama is taking about this that may well pass a reasonable church-state-separation test.
It is, in any event, continuous with things that he’s been saying for a long time, including in his book THE AUDACITY OF HOPE.
Not every move that isn’t to the left should be regarded with alarm, methinks. What we need from him mainly is real integrity, more than we need him to be ideologically correct on all matters.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:38 pm
You’ve mostly just repeated what I’ve already agreed is very often or too often true. Yes organized religions of [almost] every kind have fostered irrationality, delusion, oppression and perverted values, apparently for the sake of increasing the power of the leaders. I think you’re still carrying it a bit too far though, even though you’ve backed off from your initial statement that instilling belief in divine power also [always] instills the belief of respecting earthly power. I don’t think either of us knows how much under the thrall of church leaders most people who still go to church at all these days are. The mouthy right wing Christian authoritarian types are only about 27 percent of the population–something like that. Other Christians tend to be quieter, so their thoughts are not as well known. My brilliant sister–smarter than I am–is a Catholic now–married into it and converted. She thinks for herself, believe you me!
She has never said anything like “The priest says this” or “the priest says that.” Being non-judgmental is one of her personal trademarks. She was a Quaker for awhile once upon a time, though, so she may not be a typical Catholic. Actually I think there are many variations among Catholics these days. Her husband’s family, all Catholics, also seem to say what they think without ever citing religious authority. He just makes a practice of voting against incumbents. 
I have another sister who goes to a small town little white church on the corner on many Sunday mornings–Protestant, but not evangelical or otherwise highly charged emotionally. I have enjoyed going there to sing with that congregation a few times. I would say she thinks for herself also. I’ve had many connections with quite religious people, and yes they have their shared traditional rituals that tie them together as communities, and I have participated with some of them, various Christian denominations, various Jewish traditions, and even pagan. But in general it has not appeared to me that they have tried to push their religions on me even a little bit, with the exception of members of the evangelical denominations. So I just don’t know that almost every religious person in the world or even everyone in America is an authoritarian personality type these days. I think it’s the minority that we have to look out for.
Morley said,
We totally agree there. I am a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and have just gotten onto their Lawyers Network to offer to assist in their legal work. http://www.au.org
I doubt the government’s “faith-based initiatives” include any Quakers. Quakers have not, historically, been very popular with the government. They’ve tended to protest things too much. lol
Larry
July 1st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Interesting comments, all. I wonder if anyone else is connecting this essay with some of the consternation on this site that declared Hillary Clinton had gone over to the Dark Side?? How far does Obama have to go from what we expect of him for us to declare him “evil”? Does anyone else think that when we use such words as “darkness” and “evil” to describe human failings that we set ourselves on a path that ultimately leads to a Manichean mindset where each one of us is suspect? I’m presently reading Audacity of Hope and I fully understand our need to find a person who can lead the nation to a better place–and I hope Obama can do this. But he is human and he’s not always going to do things we like. Further explanation of his position might shed a different light on the stand he took on FISA. A friend of mine says if it’s not fatal, it’s not final.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:10 pm
The thrust of the opinions here is that Obama has been a principled opponent of Bush on civil liberties and has sold out on this issue.
No he hasn’t, and to sell out you need to have something to sell. He is perfectly happy to support the Bushites. He says in AUDACITY OF HOPE:
“…Dem audiences are often surprised when I tell them that I don’t consider George Bush a bad man, and that i assume he and the members of his Administration are trying to do what they think is best for the country.”
I say this not because I am seduced by the proximity to power. I see my invitations to the White House for what they are–an exercise in political courtesy…”
This after the lies, torture and other law breaking.
He has two scant references to civil liberties in the whole book.
“We won’t have popular support to…meet the challenges of globalization or terrorism without resorting to isolationism or ERODING CIVIL LIBERTIES” (my emphasis)
“…even the wisest president would struggle to balance… the need to uphold civil liberties.”
That’s it. As he says, progressives read into him what they want to see, but he is not violating his princples to support spying on the American population. And he may well do worse.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Andy, you are perhaps right on the church state matter with Obama. I guess only time will tell. The FISA issue is however, very troubling, as you so aptly point out. I for one will do whatever I can to see that the Democratics take control of our wayward government however I know that much of this Obama slippage is disappointing to many suporters and we can only hope he sees that to compromise his basic principals will probably lead to a defeat. That message needs to get to him LOUD AND CLEAR!
July 1st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
“…even the wisest president would struggle to balance… the need to uphold civil liberties.�
Is this supposed to show Obama’s got fascist inclinations?
Balance of that sort is part of the American tradition. Freedom of religion doesn’t include human sacrifice. You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater.
What matters is whether the balance is done right.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Allison Kilkenny posted a blog in a similar vein on Huffington. I believe most hard core Progressives never went for Obama, however the basic Dem and Progressive-lites followed him like he was the Messiah/Pied-Piper…..because Americans are so hungry for a hero the rose colored glasses were super-glued on.
Now that he is comfortable in his nomination, he is getting more flagrant in letting his true self show….and the gasps are deafening. Some will say “I told you so” and some will say “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.
However no matter at this point….when it comes time to vote (or not) what is a lefty to do? We are up the river without a candidate
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 am
Morley, that first quote is a little sinister. It sounds like junior senator diplomacy but the object he avoided with that sharp turn to point out he’s undazzled is too large to ignore. Does he say anything about that object?
That second quote seems strange. Could you post the whole thing? As it stands he’s saying popular support is for “meeting the challenges of globalization” with isolationism or erosion of civil liberties. Three things:
* Popular support for erosion of civil liberties is not one of their primary accomodations to globalization.
* Isolationism is not a way to meet the challenges of globalization, it’s a rejection of it.
* What of the perspective that “globalization” is all in favor of capital but not of rights?
As it stands this is sort of sinister (the lefties are always getting a bad rap – it’s built into the language) because it obscures any popular support for left responses and lays credit for avoidance of right responses to our government.
Have you any intriguing deconstructions from “The Audacity …”?
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 am
I’d be interested to hear your response, Morley, in regards to a question I have about what you call “capitalist plutocracy.â€? Suppose Sen. Obama can use his talents to surround himself around other talents who have the ability to flesh out all this capitalist talk more effectively. Suppose John Edwards and others begin aligning themselves with big policies that emit a different and much more progressive message than what Bush/McCain would tell the people about capitalism. I have no problem with your usage of “plutocracy.â€? Decadence in the West IS what it is. A movement in culture seems to happen slowly, even when only happening over a few years, because we’re waking up to newer ways. It’s even very possible that in the long-term, say 8 years from now, U.S. plutocracy will be looked at differently as well. But in terms of “capitalism” don’t you think Obama will exhaust every effort to avoid anything close to resembling what the U.S. has looked like on the world stage over the last several years? Obama’s not the only progressive around these days. Let’s just see where Obama wants his Legacy to lead him. My guess is that he has a fairly good sense of the personal standards his political vision must be at. That’s not too bad of a model for a U.S. President. And all the better that there’s similar minded men and women around him. Should be interesting to see how he sprinkles them in.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
This paragraph from a recent blog by Glenn Greenwald. I agree with his combination of ingredients here, supporting Obama’s election while vigorously protesting his errors and sell-outs:
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Some liberals won’t be satisfied until Obama’s campaign slogan is “Screw you, conservatives, and especially you stupid Evangelicals.”
I find it fascinating that conservatives are better at getting behind a guy they don’t like than we are at backing a guy we do like?
Now is the perfect time for all Democratic factions to march in the streets clamoring for their particular axe to grind. It just isn’t enough that liberals help give a Democratic Congress a 13% approval rating.
If we work it right, we can get McCain in office and lose a house of Congress so we can satisfy our lust for self-righteous venting.
Go McCain! We’d rather complainn than win!
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Obama’s comments on why he backed the FISA bill can be viewed at http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/20/155023/880.
I’m dismayed that so much has been said without addressing his explanation for his actions. (of course, i didn’t read every word above so i have missed something)
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Problem is, Sam, that Obama’s explanations don’t hold water. I’ve followed everything he’s said on this subject lately, and as much as I’d love to be persuaded, I haven’t managed it: as I said, either he doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he is saying things he knows is not true.
While I’m not 100 percent positive about this, I haven’t seen any substantial grounds for uncertainty.
Take a look at Greenwald’s posting “Obama advisor Greg Craig: Adding insult to injury” at http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ to get a pretty clear picture of this.
Believe me, it gives me no joy to suggest to you that your comment about “without addressing his explanations…” misses the point.
But yes, I agree that it’s important that it be Obama and not McCain who takes the oath of office next January.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
In answer to Duane and Steve, my opinion is simply a stronger version of Andy’s quote of Greenwald. In contrast to Sam’s consistent belief that the only important matter is the election of Dems, and that we shouldn’t critique them in public, Greenwald feels that their are policy matters that are as important as winning and election. Sam feels they are less important and I feel they are more important.
Obama is not a princpled reactionary, or princpled against civil liberties. He has no political principles at all. He may well be in favor of civil liberties in an ideal world.
But what he really is interested in gaining power and anything else, issue-wise, is far less important. He is a talented and intelligent black Bill Clinton. He says and does what gives him a greater chance of winning the election running either as a progressive, a conservative, a reactionary or a combination of all three.
He is running in a power system that has been gangsterized by the Bushites. The traditional American power system is dead. Indeed, it is dying in the European countries as well, Sweden just passing the same sort of spying on the population. There over two million people protested out of population of 9 million.
The labor party of Britian just voted to imprison the British population 42 days without charging them with a crime. Blair wanted 90 days, but the British protested.
But the Amereican population do not have an active political culture, watching TV more than 30 hours a week. So Obama must take this into account running a campaign. The American people’s concern on being spied on by the Amereican power system without effective laws, is like Sam’s. He is against it but the important thing is something else, in his case that the Dems and Obama win.
And if he wins, he is beholden to the money that put him there. Al Gore, in his latest book THE ASSAULT ON REASON, states that elections are won by playing 30 second spots on TV hundreds or thousands of times. Each one costs many millions of dollars, some of them twenty million. The more money you have, the better the artistry of the spots, the more you can play them.
So he must go begging to Wall Street. the hedge fund managers are mostly Dems who loved Clinton and are funding Obama. Wall street’s money has moved to Obama from Bush. In addition there is oil money, military money, and religious money, mostly Zionist. Obama’s policies must accomidate his backers.
As for you, Steve and Duane, hell, you probably don’t have even a hundrend milliion dollars to your name. That is 1% of the ten billion dollars that ruling class people like, say, Blumburg have, having bought the New York mayor ship with less than 1% of it.
obama has political debts if he wins. He must now formulate policies that will allow him to win the next time when the media is Republican. So like Clinton he will triangulate, using Gop votes when he has to pass poliicies like Clinton did to destroy welfare and unions in passing Nafta.
HE HAS TO. The political forces are aligned that way.
So his presidency will be a third term of Bush, more intelligently managed.
To avoid defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan he will stay there, and continue to expand operations to Pakistan and Iran. People will object so will neutralize opposition by concilaiating the right and continuing to impose a police state. HE’S NOT BETRAYING HIS VALUES BY DOING SO. He pretty much says as much in his book. He is in favor of power, like Clinton, and this is the intelligent way to get it.
But progressives, and especially Dems, read into him what they want to see. Just as anti-war activists did into Dean when Dean supported the war. Dean made a nice phrase I’M HERE TO SUPPORT THE DEM WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY which is sufficiently meaningless but emotionally resonant to attract political junkies starved for someone they can support, so they are temporarily deaf when I said he supported the war. They didn’t want to hear it. People who love Obama emotionally don’t want to hear political realism subverting that emotion.
But I’ll vote for him. McCain is even worse. But it is necessary to understand that it is necessary to start thinking seriously about transforming the American power system.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
In response to Obama’s FISA speech, ( Sam’s link) there is a comment by a guy whose name is: ‘Bloody Hell’. I think he has a point and so I copied and pasted part of his comment.
“I do not see what else he can say, he said, in other words, that this sucks and he will try to fix it. Being a Senator I don’t really see what else he can do, he cannot veto it. Just because any attempt by him may go by the waist side doesn’t mean his position sucks.”
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 am
Dear Katrin–
Just for clarity, I have rewritten part of your quote to read as I think it was intended:
My response is, Obama could have said he doesn’t support the “compromise” bill. Sorry.
Larry
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 am
As always Morley’s analysis of the ‘crude world’ is right on. He rightly demolishes the vague dreams and images of the childlike liberals.
It’s when it comes to solutions that he shows himself to be still one of them there vague dreamers himself.
Where have you been Morley ? Sounds like you have been to the dentist again !
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 am
“Obama is not a princpled reactionary, or princpled against civil liberties. He has no political principles at all.”
To paraphrase the old riddle: Who posts ideas that are black and white to be read all over again?
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
I agree, Alex. Obama does not have all the answers, for sure, and I have heard him say this more than once. But this sure does not mean that he has no political principles. How would one even know enough to make such a heavy accusation?
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Larry, what if he does not support the compromise bill, and which I thought he doesn’t? But does he have a choice? he is not President yet and he is in the process of getting to know whom he is dealing with, and forming relationships. Would it be rise for him to ‘scream and yell’ publicly just how horrible it is that he had to do this against his will? Wouldn’t that make him look like a pathetic man that shows how little control he has at this time? The guy mentioned that at this point Obama is really only one senator.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I am on vacation and so have not and do not have the opportunity to read all the comments. But this FISA position and his new position on Faith based programs are just some of the reasons to prefer other Democratic candidates. I don’t claim to have known of these positions before he locked the nomination but I did not feel as good about his as I did about Hillary, even with her warts, which were much more visible than Obamas. I will vote for him and support him, but still believe there were better choices but we were seduced by the message of change. Nevertheless, Obama will be much better than McCain and so I support him and will vote for him come this November.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Would you high-minded liberals be glad to know that every news shows i watched today delighted in “reporting” that the left and right are united in condemning Obama for turning out to be just another typical politician?
If our nominee was a democrat chimpanzee, we should still get forcefully behind it, because the alternative is the further dismantling of democracy in the nation that for a century represented democracy to the world.
Would it be too big a sacrifice for liberals to stop griping about “principled action” until after the election. Then write Obama every day, if you like, to demand what you want.
Democrats should be defending Obama as trying to bring a divided country together. The GOP and its media put out daily lies, distortions, and myths to create a false impression of Obama and Democrats. Why aren’t you all focused on that?
I’ve said this a million times – conservatives would rather win than do what’s right, and liberals would rather lose than be in the wrong.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I agree with you, Sam, and more and more so. Sure, I myself would much rather lose than be in the wrong, and I would also rather see Obama lose than turn out to be the opposite as we thought he was, and a liar and power hungry creep.
The thing though is, that I do not believe he is a creep, or power-hungry, or that he has no political principle and that
he is just playing games, and all that.
Many will tell me that I am in denial, or plainly wrong, as the proof is in the pudding. (his words are enough evidence that he betrayed us and lied)
But I totally disagree, and I have enough respect for Obama that I will trust him unless it proves he is not trustworthy. We are not even close to the ‘pudding’, or otherwise, we have been in the ‘pudding’ from the beginning.
We have put up with Bushite evil for years without not only any successful intervention, but without even trying to intervene, or do anything about anything.
And after whining for eight years, we now find a man who seems to be not only a man of integrity, but more so, a man who came forward because he believes that he can work with this mess we have. Not someone whose dreamed his whole life of becoming the most powerful man in the country, but one who graduated from law school and went to work cleaning up the community, and that with great success. A man who says he would not be here if everything was in order, and he will not be here for the next election either, nor is he willing to wait until he is more mature and experienced. Why? because his moment, and his offer is now.
After winning against Hillary, we should have noticed that the ‘real world’ is back, and that he is about to walk in there pretty much alone, into this great mess, and all we have remembered, are his words. The wish to unite, the wish to work together, to get away from the split. he said he will listen, and he will not allow as an example, the EPA to get away with completely destroying the environment and only lending lip service. And, people like myself have a basic trust in Obama. it’s hardly worship, and it’s not suspicion, either. i try to put myself in his position.
Suddenly the whole country is screaming because Obama has said a couple of things that are horrible lies from what he said before, and betrayals. We switch on the man
like a blade, and some of him are ready to trash him as completely untrustworthy.
I don’t get it! Do we expect Obama to walk into this war-zone that we as an entire country have not managed to influence in eight years, and that we have come to conclude is evil and in the worst shape ever, and corrupt and contaminated to the max, and come out moments later with a signed deal for Paradise and Perfection. Do we expect him to be a magician, somehow, and demonstrate every moment success, and accomplishment, and perfect harmony with his visions, and all that he spoke to us about?
Did he say this would be easy? Did he say he needed not only our support,but for us to work hard? Is it possible that by that he also meant that we trust and understand that every second of the way will be really hard work, and really hard work? is it hard work to scream and shout about what a liar he is? I think that is what an infant or toddler does in a temper tantrum. I did not hear him approve of all this FISA business, and I did not hear him say this was a great success, and that he loved his work and the influence he had. More than anything, I did not, (and that is true, I did not) listen to, and hear every word Obama said because i was too busy reading between the lines and also paying attention to what he did not say.
Obama now needs not only us to help him, but he also now needs to work with Washington, and a broken house and Senate, and all that. i trust if anyone knows how to work with a ‘broken community’ such as our Government, it is Obama. not only has he shown interest in this work but also success in the past. I am sure he did back then a lot of listening first, and he tried to work with people in order to gain influence.
There needs to be trust, and real things make progress slowly, and do not happen as they do on TV, or when winning the lottery.
Cannot you at least give him the benefit of the doubt that he has his reasons for some of his statements that are different from those he made when he was free to engage with us, but now he no longer is engaging with Washington? I don’t mean to say he is a slave, but he is working with and along with others, and we don’t know what he is dealing with, really. but id we truly know what we have said we know about Washington, then please give me and him a break. He does not need this crap right now. As for us, what is so very difficult about trusting him, and which is not the same as seeing him do magic? Why on earth would anything that happened in these past two weeks prove that he a liar, and just another sociopath? it’s just the craziest thing I have ever heard. I can trust him without having to be sure that I am right. I can trust him even if he does not succeed. But I can also trust him that he at this time is not only focusing on pleasing us with sweet words but rather trying to negotiate and accomplish other important things with more insiders.
Is the problem that we just cannot wait another minute, and that we don’t have the time to forgive any statement this man makes that does not remind us of a saint?
We have all the time in the world, actually, because no matter how sure you need to be that he is everything you thought he may be not, our only alternative is McCain.
And why does McCain not look so bad any longer compared with Obama? WHY?
July 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Maybe, Katrin, because McCain is still McCain, and with a long record . .
and Obama ? Who really IS Mr Obama ?
(just watching . . plan to sit this one out UNLESS McCain has a really good vice-pres running mate. That could make all the difference)
July 6th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Well, after posting the above comment it struck me that he, too, isn’t quite the same. When he flipped on the dreadful matter of torture he just didn’t seem to be the same John McCain.
But them America doesn’t seem to be the same anymore either.
(still just watching)