The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad

Amy Goodman recently interviewed Tariq Ali, who has a new book out called The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad. At the top of her interview, Goodman commented, "Some might say that’s a little harsh." The following are Tariq Ali's opening responses:

I know some of his supporters might feel it’s a little harsh, but I think that we’ve had two years of him now, Amy, and the contours of this administration are now visible. And essentially, it is a conservative administration which has changed the mood music. So the talk is better. The images of the administration are better, the reasonable looks. But in terms of what they do—in foreign policy, we’ve seen a continuation of the Bush-Cheney policies, and worse, in AfPak, as they call it, and at home, we’ve seen a total capitulation to the lobbyists, to the corporations. The fact that the healthcare bill was actually drafted by someone who used to be an insurance lobbyist says it all. So, it’s essentially now a PR operation to get him reelected. But I don’t think people are that dumb. I’ve been speaking to some of his, you know, partisan supporters, and they’re disappointed. So the big problem for Obama is that if you do nothing and promise that you would bring about some changes, you will not have people coming out to vote for you again. And building up the tea party into this great bogey isn’t going to work. It’s your own supporters you have to convince to come out and vote for you, as they did before. I can’t see that happening. . . . it’s interesting that they are incapable of dealing with the right. With the right, it’s conciliation. That’s what they feel they have to appeal to. With critics from the left, they tend to be very harsh, as if they are saying to us, "You don’t know how lucky you are." But why are we lucky? I mean, you know, we judge people not by how they look or what they say, but by what they do. And what Obama has been doing is, you know, to put it mildly, extremely disappointing at home, and abroad it’s murderous. On Palestine, on Iran, no changes at all. So, one has to spell this out, because if they don’t realize that they’re doing this, they’re going to get more shocks. And Rahm Emanuel refers to people on the liberal left who are critical of Obama, and he uses a bad swear word and then says, "effing retards"—well, we’ll see who the retards are after the midterms, Amy. That’s all I can say.

Continue ReadingThe Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad

Some Of What Follows Is Hyperbole

Christine O'Donnell is one of those public figures that emerge from time to time that make any writer of fiction envious of reality. Only a truly gifted writer could make someone like this up and then sell her as a plausible character. At the heart of it, she is the problem with the Tea Party. Here's the thing I've never understood about the far right: fiscal responsibility is well and good and certainly we could do with a lot more---we could have used some for the last thirty years, certainly, a period during which Republicans (and by inference conservatives) have been largely in control of Congress---but how come is it we can't seem to get candidates who are just about that without dragging all the social issue crap along with them? I for one am tiring of having my alternatives clipped because some whack-a-do who may well have a sound fiscal policy in mind is also hell bent on "correcting" the lax, immoral, godless state of the country. Now we get right down to the basic issues with Ms. O'Donnell: jacking off. It's destroying the country. People are going blind from this, divorce rates are record high because selfish people are doing themselves at the expense of the shared relationship god intended they have. Abstinence means all of it! Tie those peoples' hands behind their backs! Put those genital safety belts on those young fellows who can't leave johnny alone! Why, if we root out the evil of self-pleasuring, we'll be on the road to sound financial policy and security in no time! Then of course there's the usual slate of absurdities---she's a young earth creationist. (What, may I ask, does this have to do with fiscal conservatism? Well, in her case, apparently, a difficulty with basic math...) Naturally she opposes abortion and since she's so down on pud pounding, we may presume she hasn't much use for birth control of any kind, sex education, or possible female orgasm. She is that perfect contradiction of modern far right womanhood---someone who probably thinks women's place is in the home who is attempting to establish a powerful political career in order to legislate herself back into a state of chattel bondage. And then there's the Libertarian wing of the Tea Party that basically believes people ought to be free to choose their own lives without interference from anyone, especially the government, and eventually they will create the fissure in opposition to the Talibaptist contingent who want more than anything to tell people how to live decent lives. It may do this country good to elect some of these folks into public office so we can see, really see how they perform. How they make their philosophies mesh with what most Americans really want. It's a sad time for American politics. We're in a depression (why they insist on continuing to call it a recession is purist political cynicism), Obama has not miraculously fixed that, and people are pissed off. They are in a "Throw the bastards out" mood, but unfortunately they have little to choose from. The Republican Party, self-deluded that they may ride this tide back into power for "all the right reasons", has so bankrupted its credibility right before, during, and since W that even conservatives must hold their noses to vote for them. The Democrats have failed once again to define an American Ideology behind which the people can get and although right now they are probably on the right track fiscally, it will take time for their actions to result in anything fruitful. (Didn't Obama say all along it would take a long time? Didn't he say this would not be painless? Didn't he say a lot of work would have to be done before things started drifting back to something good? Didn't he? But he's been in office 19 months! My god, just how long is a long time?) They haven't "fixed things" so people don't like them either. So there's the Tea Party. This is bottom of the barrel time. These are the screeling, apocalyptic, neo-revisionist, founding-principled-though-illiterate gang of conspiracy theorist candidates who have gained momentum through sheer quality of nerve, who intend to save the country from our foreign-born Muslim president and the anarcho-socialist intellectual elite. They are the ones who wish to remove all the interfering laws and restrictions that hamper the marrow-deep entrepreneurial American essence and allow people to make millions on their own or starve in the gutter with their families because while Darwin was wrong about biology he was right about economic policy and the weak ought to perish so the strong can dominate. These are the folks who would free us to be dominated by Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banking, and Big Insurance. These are people who believe corporations are people, too, and back the American dream nurtured in the heart of every kid who wants to grow up to be a corporation. Or an oligarch. But first, they have to curtail masturbation. The country has had enough of people jacking off. Time to get them back to work.

Continue ReadingSome Of What Follows Is Hyperbole

Andrew Sullivan on what it means to be part of the Tea Party

Glenn Greenwald's asked: What sets Tea Party politicians apart from the radical right-wing republicans who preceded them? Here's part of Andrew Sullivan's response:

I think what the tea-partiers would say is that they are for real - that, unlike Bush, they won't spend the country into oblivion, that they won't bail out the banks, that they won't pass unpaid-for entitlements, that they actually will make sure that abortion is illegal, that they will round up illegal immigrants and enforce the border, and will not pretend that we are not fighting Islam in a civilizational war. And that they will refuse to raise taxes even if it means the most radical dismantlement of the entitlement state since the New Deal. Now you can argue that this kind of extremism was always part of the picture, but the Rove method was to use these convictions, not actually share them. Bush increased spending radically, added a huge unpaid entitlement to the next generation, pandered to Hispanics, favored immigration reform, did nothing to prevent legal abortion, felt awkward demonizing gays, pretended he wasn't torturing prisoners, did not kill enough Iraqis, and made a major point about not having a fight with Islam as such. The base wants to get rid of any of these nuances and get the real thing.
But here's more to the inner-psyche of at least some Tea Party advocates. Each of the following positions have been promoted by Christine O'Donnell (this excerpt is by John Farrell):
Darwin was wrong, the earth is 6,000 years old, and creationism should be taught in the public schools. God wouldn't want us to lie to the Nazis, even to save folks from concentration camps. Onanism is a pressing social issue. She's going to Washington to fix the federal budget, but can't seem to pay her own bills and taxes, or compose an accurate resume
I do suspect that these sorts of positions are intentional displays of ignorance in order to impress similarly situated others regarding one's loyalty that that group. It's much like wearing saggy pants or professing belief that Mary was a virgin who had a baby. I don't suspect that the Tea Party advocates necessarily really believe many of the things they say--I suspect that they don't really feel strongly about Onanism (masturbation) or lying to Nazis, for example. But it's not really about Onanism or Nazis. These purported positions are more about attempting to coordinate the energies of many individuals in order to make a power grab as a group. Not that they wouldn't then try to pass some laws along these lines, in order to further their displays to each other, in attempts to prove sincerity. This could create a dangerous situation where intra-group stroking is the impetus for enacting self-destructive laws.

Continue ReadingAndrew Sullivan on what it means to be part of the Tea Party