In the past, I wished upon a star that Obama’s election to the American presidency would pop the idealism cherry of a new generation. I can’t help but noticed I missed something. At least so far.
After Obama was elected, everyone was happy he wasn’t Bush. And why not? Bush was a tyrant. Bad things deserved to happen to the nether regions of George Bush as some kind of karmic retribution for all the terrible things he did. But what people fail to realise is that Obama has been no better.
And no, let me preface the following by saying that I really don’t care about Obama’s “socialism” or whatever else certain American demographics have falsely branded the guy with. (hint: the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” immediately spring to mind)
Seems like a good dose of “he isn’t Bush,” is more powerful than rohypnol. After all, if Bush had carried out raids on anti-war activists, half the world would be up in arms.
As Cindy Sheehan wrote in a blog post for Al Jazeera,
“These raids have terrifying implications for dissent here in the US.
First of all, these US citizens have been long-time and devoted anti-war activists who organised an anti-war rally that was violently suppressed by the US police state in Minneapolis-St. Paul, during the 2008 Republican National Convention. Because the Minneapolis activists have integrity, they had already announced that they would do the same if the Democrats hold their convention there in 2012.
I have observed that it was one thing to be anti-Bush, but to be anti-war in the age of Obama is not to be tolerated by many people. If you will also notice, the only people who seem to know about the raids are those of us already in the movement. There has been no huge outcry over this fresh outrage, either by the so-called movement or the corporate media.
I submit that if George Bush were still president, or if this happened under a McCain/Palin regime, there would be tens of thousands of people in the streets to protest. This is one of the reasons an escalation in police state oppression is so much more dangerous under Obama – even now, he gets a free pass from the very same people who should be adamantly opposed to such policies.
Secondly, I believe because the raids happened to basically ‘unsung’ and unknown, but very active workers in the movement, that the coordinated, early morning home invasions were designed to intimidate and frighten those of us who are still doing the work. The Obama regime would like nothing better than for us to shut up or go underground and to quit embarrassing it by pointing out its abject failures and highlighting its obvious crimes.
Just look at how the Democrats are demonising activists who are trying to point out the inconvenient truth that the country (under a near Democratic tyranny) is sliding further into economic collapse, environmental decay and perpetual war for enormous profit.”
So, let’s just recap;
- Bombing campaigns conducted inside allied country’s borders — yes, we can!
- Continuation of Bush era legal doctrines to maintain government cover-ups — yes, we can!
- Increased support for secret special forces groups to conduct extra-judicial killings in Afghanistan — yes, we can!
- Extra-judicial executions of American citizens abroad– yes, we can!
- Scaling up almost decade long war in developing country for access to resources (minerals) — yes, we can!
- Declaration of “victory” in Iraq despite continued American presence — yes, we can!
- Raids on anti-war activists for being anti-war — yes, we can!
Who knew the inspirational phrase, “yes, we can” would have such a downside? Then I can’t imagine the world would be much safer with McCain leading America, either. “No leaders” probably doesn’t seem like such an radical proposal for those across the pond.
Found this great article at The Superfluous Man discussing how Obama is no different from the average, big name political pundit, but also the inability for critiques from all corners of statist politics to grasp exactly this fact.
Why on earth wouldn’t he? He’s blowing hundreds of billions on the stimulus so that he and his political allies can fund pet projects, justify the exercise of greater influence and power over society and pass out government swag to friends, allies, and supporters. He’s doing the standard, normal thing for someone with political power to do – he’s just able to do more because of the circumstances he finds himself in.
He wants to raise taxes on higher income brackets? So does every other center-left politician cultivating his “friend of the people” persona. He wants to increase federal involvement in this or that sector of the economy? He’d be a bizarre anomaly if he was a major American politician who didn’t.
The same can be said of questions raised by faltering or disenchanted Obama supporters: Why hasn’t he shown interest in liberalizing drug laws? Why isn’t he renouncing the Bush era’s offenses against civil liberties and separation of powers? Why is he handing out wagonloads of boodle to big corporations?
Why would it be otherwise?
The problem D’Souza has- and that many conservative critics of Obama have, and that many liberal admirers of Obama have- is this: He thinks there must be some interesting, unusual, or complex explanation for what is actually entirely mundane, typical behavior with a mundane, typical explanation.
The conservative reaction to Obama’s programs are remarkably similar to the liberal reaction to George W. Bush, which also tended to ridiculously exaggerate the novelty of what Bush was doing by acting as if incremental changes building on established precedent were new and shocking.