It’ll Still be Politics as Usual Under Obama

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

A black president – it happened. Anyone who didn’t feel a twinge of emotion as Barack and his beautiful family came out to greet the crowds in that Chicago park officially has a heart of stone. In many ways it was a profound moment in history: the end to the centuries of white supremacism that has moved from slavery to Jim Crow to the still-existing economic exploitation – progress within what was all along referred to as “civilization.”

There on stage was the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world, the son of a Kenyan farmer and a single white mother from Kansas, beaming from ear to ear. It was as improbable as it was moving. And we should never forget the slaves who revolted against their masters and the civil rights activists who were shot dead in the 1960s; it was their sacrifices that furrowed the rocky path to this epochal moment. It was imagining their incredulity at such progress that really made the loins quiver on that night.

But Obama’s got a lot on his shoulders now. If you hear his supporters talking about his presidency, you might be forgiven for thinking Obama was the messiah, the untouchable Second Coming of Christ, who will cleanse us from the sulphureous scent of Hades, or George W. Bush, as he is more commonly known around the world.

And it’s a nice change for a world that has become accustomed to being ruled by nutcases. When Bush was elected I was 17, so most of my adult life has been lived with the most powerful man in the world as an unadulterated force for violence and pain. Whatever Obama becomes, at least he’s not mad, or stupid.

But I’m not holding out much hope about the next four years. Not because of Obama. I think he is probably an upright, nice guy. Certainly his writing seems to be sensitive and thoughtful. But what people don’t seem to understand as they undertake the flights of hope-infused rhetoric is that the president, while powerful, is often merely a vector in a vast tapestry of powerful forces that govern government policy. No matter how good, nice or genial he is, he is being pushed by decidedly malicious influences from all sides.

Most crucially, state power is nearly indistinguishable from big-business interest, limiting what a democratically elected leader can do. Essentially they are beholden to what Noam Chomsky has called “private tyrannies”: corporations and big money. They are private tyrannies because they have no democratic input and are driven by one sole motivation: profit.

This was revealed in stark terms with the financial bailout of the world’s biggest investment banks, where money was redistributed upward with no stipulations that the capital be used for loans, resulting in vast amounts going to shareholders, not the attested “stimulus.”

But while this was a particularly egregious case that has admittedly elected anger across the political spectrum, the same thing happens all the time behind closed doors. It’s how state capitalism works. There is a revolving door between big business and government in policy-formation and personnel. Dick Cheney went from the board of Halliburton to the executive branch of government like an oily fish, and will probably go back the other way. And look who benefited in Iraq.

Every superpower through history has sought to dominate lesser powers and make them pliant to their own economic interests. This has happened whether the superpower has been communist, socialist, capitalist, Nazi, whatever. The common denominator to all superpowers is that they have extraordinary amounts of power, and power by its nature will try to dominate. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides expressed this timeless maxim most baldly in his History of the Peloponnesian War. “Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power,” said the Athenians to the Melians. “While the strong do what they can, the weak must suffer what they will.”

That fundamental dynamic has not altered since his time and probably never will. So essentially in the two-party system the individual leader is irrelevant to the real big picture. Be it Barack Obama, or Tony Blair or George W. Bush, the empire and power structure will continue to run unimpeded, with only variations in style. Political scientist Robert A. Dahl famously called this system polyarchy: a competitive elite ruling the rest of us.

That doesn’t mean that Barack Obama has tweaked his opinions to get into office, it means he couldn’t have gotten there if he believed anything different. As Comment Factory writer Laurence Witherington pointed out, it’s hypocritical of people to say that Obama is going against his principles; in fact, Obama has been consistent in his support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the war in Lebanon in 2006.

And there’s more too. If we can stretch our memories, we should remember that Obama suggested he would bomb the sovereign nation of Pakistan during his primary campaign, he has said he is against Iran enriching uranium even for energy purposes even though Israel is not part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and he has proposed a surge in Afghanistan. He has also most egregiously gone in front of the vile outfit AIPAC and said Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, a position even hardened Likudniks like Ariel Sharon would gasp at.

Real change this election season didn’t begin and end with Obama. The Green Party had the first all-people-of-color ticket in history, as well as the first all-female ticket too. But how many people have heard of presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney or vice presidential candidate Rosa Clemente? They were given a complete media blackout because they posed a real threat to the corporatocracy that runs American politics. The change they proposed wasn’t a cosmetic retouching of an imperial system, but the overhaul of a democratic system, which is saturated in private dollars that aren’t given altruistically by lobbyists, but are seen as an investment, like treating the federal government as a hedge fund.

Ralph Nader was another who provided a real alternative, but was ignored. Without the corporate backing he received one percent of the vote.

Maligned by both the “left” and “right” in the U.S. mainstream, he is one of the most principled individuals in politics. Here is his verdict on Obama: “Well, obviously we all congratulate Barack Obama. We wish him well.”

But the precursor to his election has not been very encouraging, and he has repeatedly taken up the positions of the corporate supremacists, not just his latest vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, but a whole string of votes and policy positions. He opposes single-payer health insurance. Well, the HMOs and the insurance companies do, too. He wants a bigger military budget. So does the military-industrial complex. His idea of a living wage on his Web site is $9.50 an hour by 2011. That would make it less than it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation.

He matched McCain in the third debate — belligerency for belligerency — toward Russia, toward Iran, more soldiers in Afghanistan, supporting the Israeli military repression and occupation and blockade of Gaza and the West Bank. And virtually nothing about 100 million poor people in this country. That’s why I really fault him; that he played the Clinton linguistic game by talking constantly about the middle class and not mentioning the word “poor.”

And we expect more of him. And I don’t think he has a public philosophy of where corporations must operate in this country. How? Under what rule of law? Under what regulation? Under what vulnerability to litigation in the courts? He’s proud of tort reform, supports the nuclear industry, supports the coal industry. So we’re really talking about just more of the same, in terms of the corporate domination of Washington.

I detected no concern, no quaking of concern, among the drug industry, oil, gas industry, nuclear, coal industry, Wall Street, over his probable election in the last few weeks. Usually, when they’re really worried about a politician, they will issue warnings. But Barack Obama has raised far more money than John McCain from Wall Street interests, corporate interests and, above all, corporate lawyers. And the question to be asked is, why are they investing so much in Barack Obama? Because they believe he’s their man. So, prepare to be disappointed, but keep your hope up.

Until people like Nader, and Bob Barr on the other side, are able to stretch the narrow political spectrum in the U.S., and likewise around the world, we will never be able to hope for change and not in the back of our minds think that in fact nothing ever changes.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

Blame It On the Lame Duck

By SARAH N. LYNCH, Correspondent

Senator John McCain can take solace in one thing when he thinks back on his recent electoral defeat: Senator Barack Obama’s win does not really say that much about John McCain. Instead, Obama’s resounding victory was a referendum on President George W. Bush.

Shortly after NBC projected Sen. Obama the winner of the evening, people from around the world poured into the streets. They were excited to be witnessing a piece of history as voters overwhelmingly elected the nation’s first black president. But more importantly, they wanted to let the current administration know their true feelings.

The people are tired of this unjust and inhuman war that was spawn on a lie. They are struggling beneath the crushing weight of the economy that has come crashing down on them thanks to the lax regulations that let Wall Street cannibalize itself. They are sick of the United States using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit.

The crowds that gathered on Election Night were a stunning sight. They cheered in Kenya, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, New York City and Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

Here in Washington, a large crowd stood in front of the White House – not because it represents Obama’s future home for the next four years, but because they wanted to send Bush a message.

Yes, those crowded rejected John McCain, but it was not personal. Sure, it didn’t help that McCain ran a God-awful campaign.

He failed to vet Sarah Palin and wound up isolating independent voters and even some staunch conservatives who felt she was unqualified for higher office. He then yet again failed to vet Joe the Plumber, thrusting the man into the national spotlight for his criticism of Obama’s tax policy before he eventually discovered that Joe doesn’t even pay the taxes he owes now.

McCain resorted to petty arguments over why Obama was not fit for the presidency. He ran too many negative ads. His reaction to the collapse on Wall Street was chaotic and embarrassing to the GOP.

But none of that really mattered in the end. The truth is, no Republican had a chance of winning this election. George W. Bush’s disastrous policies have essentially left the Republicans with a large scarlet A on their chests.

Just ask John Sununu or Elizabeth Dole. They were both casualties of war. They finally lost their seats thanks to Bush, who hijacked his party eight years ago thanks to a stolen election in Florida.

John McCain should know this better than anyone. And although Palin was definitely the wrong pick, his aides should stop putting so much blame on her for their loss and instead direct their anger toward the right person: our lame-duck president.

That means that now, more than ever before, is the time for John McCain to truly be the maverick he claims to be. It means he must publicly reject the Bush legacy, call for his fellow GOP colleagues to do the same and steal his party back.

Only then can the Republicans hope to pick up the pieces and regain the confidence of the public.

Sarah N. Lynch can be reached at sarahnlynch@gmail.com.

Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

Most political scientists agree senior citizens are the kingmakers in national elections. And, for much of the campaign, those 65 and older eluded Barack Obama’s steady sweep across the country, especially in the swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania. But in the final stretch Sen. John McCain found it difficult to keep this older demographic, which eventually leaned toward the Obama column. One of the reasons this happened, according to some experts, was that voters found Obama’s health care proposal more agreeable than McCain’s. Health care has always been one of the leading priorities for seniors.

A week before the election, Elizabeth Edwards was at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., addressing an audience of nearly 300 on health care, her cancer and Obama’s plan. She said she took on this role because the issue had taken a “back seat” during the campaign. The financial crisis and the wars in the Middle East had eclipsed the matter. But, she explained, “the financial crisis would be solved through health care” reform.

After her husband dropped out of the presidential race, Edwards became one of the ambassadors of Obama’s health care plan, which called for, among other things, universal coverage by 2012.

“Sometimes you get politicians who dig their feet into the sand and aren’t willing to listen to another voice. That’s not the case with Senator Obama,” she told National Journal On Air. “I think that’s a very encouraging sign about him.”

Edwards would not confirm rumors that she would have an active role in the Obama administration. Sources have told National Journal on background that Edwards would be called on to join the new administration.

Edwards, a Center for American Progress senior fellow, was diagnosed with breast cancer in October 2004. Two years later, she wrote “Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers,” a book about her son’s death and her battle with cancer. Then, in the spring of 2007, she announced her cancer had returned, and in a 60 Minutes interview she said doctors told her the cancer was treatable but not curable.
Mammograms are recommended for women beginning at 40, earlier if there are risk factors or a history of cancer in the family. Overall, she advocates a greater emphasis on prevention.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the Congressional Budget Office’s former director, headed McCain’s health care team. Holtz-Eakin could not be more different than Edwards. He seemed uncharismatic, and too much of a suit-and-tie Washington insider. Holtz-Eakin pushed McCain’s proposal, which focused less on maintaining the employer-based health care system than on giving individual incentives to buy insurance. Edwards criticized McCain’s plan for relying heavily on insurance companies, which she said were being shortsighted about costs.

“In response to me, [McCain] added a new section [to his health care plan] which was to put people with pre-existing conditions in high-risk pools,” Edwards told National Journal On Air.

Edwards dismissed comments from the audience at the George Washington University forum that consumers should be making their medical decisions without government support, stressing that the issue is much more complicated.

“It’s a moral imperative,” she said. “It’s immoral to know that [the health care system] is disadvantaging good people and not do anything about it.”

Eugene Mulero may be reached at eugene.mulero@gmail.com.

Palin Didn’t Know Africa Was a Continent

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

When piranhas run out of food, they start to devour themselves. That’s how the McCain and Palin staffs are acting lately. Their attacks on each other over which team F’ed the campaign have become vicious.

The latest assault came from the McCainers, which using Fox News’s Carl Cameron as proxy, ridiculed Gov. Palin for her geographical ignorance. Cameron reported on the O’Reilly Factor that “senior” sources told him Palin could not identify NAFTA’s members, she failed to prepare for national interviews, and at one point she was unaware Africa was a continent. The sources apparently said Palin thought Africa was a country—you mean it’s not a country?! (Kidding.)

All this doesn’t change my view of Palin. It has the opposite effect.

I am even more disappointed at the Maverick and his team (Steve Schmidt & co.) for being naïve. Why the heck would they pick a candidate who did not know NAFTA, had zero foreign policy experience and was unproven nationally?

Also, let’s remember, there are many Republican governors with more political readiness than Palin (ie, Connecticut’s M. Jodi Rell). I don’t think Palin cost the GOP the presidential election. President Bush did that.

Palin was a small town mayor, who came from humble beginnings, who loves the outdoors. Yes, we all recognized her acute ego, which blinded her from her political immaturity. But Palin was slowly building her GOP base to eventually make it inside the Beltway. The McCainers were the ones who brought her to us. And now they intend to destroy her (what are friends for).

After Tuesday, Maverick should be really aware that W. ruined his chances at the White House twice. In 2000, Karl Rove and his politicos destroyed his reputation in South Carolina. In 2008, Bush had destroyed the country’s confidence in a GOP White House, which made it impossible for a Republican to succeed him.

So while Palin spends the next four years studying Africa and cramming Wilsonian doctrine for a run in 2012, the Maverick should stop blaming the Hockey Mom for his demise.

Eugene Mulero may be reached at eugene.mulero@gmail.com.

Elephants in the Room: Hip-Hop Republicans Speak Out

By JERRY LAGUERRE, Editor

The term Hip-Hop Republican is one some would consider the definitive oxymoron. Hip-Hop is young, urban and cutting edge. The Republican Party … not so much. So upon first hearing the term several months ago on CNN.com, I almost fell off my chair. Were these people for real or was this some Saturday Night Live spoof?

Sure enough, it was real. It was as if I discovered that unicorns or mermaids existed. I had to find out who they were and how on earth could they infuse the message of hip-hop with the ideals of the Republican Party.

I honestly do subscribe to the theory of never judging a book by its cover. But to be perfectly honest, I have to admit sometimes I slip and find myself prejudging. However, it’s at those moments that something happens that will remind me why I should never, EVER jump to conclusions.

There are about 500 strong (with an age range from about 20-45) who associate with this movement in some form, gathered largely through social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. With their numbers growing and their philosophy and message gaining respect, Hip-Hop Republicanism seems to be just scratching the surface of its potential.

My initial reaction as a young black Democrat is something that the people of the Hip-Hop Republican movement deal with on a regular basis.

“They think we’re frauds. They think there’s no way you can be a true hip-hop head and a Republican,” said Lenny McAllister, a 36-year-old community volunteer from North Carolina who is firmly entrenched in Republican activism and a contributor to hiphoprepublican.com.

After talking with Lenny about the blog, I understood that it was more than just a term, more than just music. The ideology of Hip-Hop Republicanism goes way beyond beats, rhymes and traditional Republican themes. It speaks more to how the Hip-Hop generation views the world.
“They view race differently. They view gender differently. They view limitations differently. They view the box as being something you can regularly jump in and out of it. You don’t have certain rules that other generations felt themselves having,” McAllister explained. “As a matter of fact you look at the youth generation throughout American history, it was generally those movements, especially the last 75 years that changed the dynamic of how America engaged.”

After interviewing McAllister, who does a weekly spot on “Fox News Rising” in Charlotte, N.C., and talking to Richard Ivory (who founded the blog about four years ago), I noticed a driving force in both men that proved to me how passionate they were about this cause.

Ivory, 30, founded the site because of former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. While on the campaign trail in 2004, Steele centered his platform on urban issues. He received the backing of Russell Simmons and LL Cool J, and was dubbed a Hip-Hop Republican by The Washington Post. Steele was Ivory’s inspiration and in the years since, Ivory has learned that a number of young African-Americans also back the Republican Party.

“A bright spot for the Republicans is that most African-Americans under the age of 30 agree more on paper with Republican ideals than Democratic ideals,” said Ivory, citing a 30-page report from jointcenter.org, a national political and economic research institution whose work focuses on people of color. Ivory added that the reason why you don’t see more black Republicans is because of the stigma associated with the term, not because of a disagreement with policies.

There are 64,000 registered black Republicans in Florida, according to an Associated Press story published in August, and 3,000 black Republicans registered in Harlem, according to JoLinda Cogen, former Republican district leader.

Turns out black Republicans aren’t as rare as I thought. And even those who aren’t down with the movement are still tipping their caps toward it.

“Actually, most of the venom we receive comes from white liberals,” Ivory said. “The black community may not always agree with you, but they respect you once you’ve explained your opinion. Older black Republicans use to stay quiet. But we’re out constantly spreading our message.”

From being featured in publications such as, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, to radio spots for everything from NPR to Hot 97, a New York City hip-hop station, they seem to be popping up everywhere.

Their goal extends far beyond just letting people know that the Republican Party has a young, black bloc. They want to change the party from the inside.

“(Through our philosophy) we can bring about several changes,” McAllister said. “The diversification of the Republican Party, the inclusion of the Republican Party, the reinvigoration of the Republican Party within the core, energetic youthful voters (and using) free-market values and conservative principles to (address) the urban issues we face today. … (Issues) such as black-on-black crime … black under-education and underemployment in urban America. We can take a new approach and break the trends that we’ve been finding with Democratically-controlled city and state governments for the last 40 years.”

Ivory added that he never understood how some people could blame what they viewed as a white, racist government for their problems, but then look to that same government to fix those problems. “It starts from the community (not government),” said Ivory, who spends a lot of time working with Harlem’s underprivileged.

“Government can’t keep funding the same solution to problems that aren’t getting solved,” Ivory said. “I grew up in Richmond, V.A., and every year it was the same Democrats running the city. … Oftentimes the response is that people are in their situations because of racism and slavery. And I’m like ‘No, it’s not. Because why aren’t you in that situation?’ ”

Ivory and McAllister talk about how desperately change is needed in urban America. So I had to know, would either of these men be voting for Mr. Change, Sen. Obama? After all, they do share a common thread as African-Americans involved with community activism. And both men share an appreciation for the candidate’s charisma and ability to inspire.

“I support Obama historically. … But to me he’s too far left for me to support as a presidential candidate in 2008,” said McAllister, citing Sen. Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience, record on abortion and his history of voting “present” over 100 times as a state senator. “If he goes up for reelection in 2012 or loses and runs again in 2012 and he’s more center, it’s a different type of evaluation process.”

“I always look at it as, if I had a daughter who was very ill and there were two doctors, one very charismatic young doctor who has a great medical degree from an Ivy League school … who came out of nowhere and is getting a lot of attention, and another doctor who has been tested and tried based on his experience, who would I choose to save my daughter’s life?” said Ivory, who is backing Sen. John McCain mainly because he believes the primary issue facing America is foreign policy, not the economy.

Ivory pointed out that history has been unkind to many presidents. “Bush initially talked about unilateralism and letting foreign countries be. … Obama may find himself in the same situation as Bush. We may see ourselves in anti-war rallies against Obama.”

Despite backing McCain, both men admitted to feeling conflicted about not voting for Obama because of what his presidency would mean for the country from a historical standpoint. But at the same time, they’ve chosen to vote their conscience, which is something I can’t knock anyone for. I also can’t knock a true grassroots effort because it makes me think of what American politics should be. Hip-Hop Republicans aren’t about assimilation, but diversification.

“The older generation of black Republicans wanted to look like the party. We want the party to look like us,” Ivory explained.

Not only do both men expect the movement to grow, they also see it expanding to where it is a recognized voice among the Republican discourse – despite the party’s current unwillingness to embrace the Hip-Hop Republicans and similar groups – highlighting the party’s historically poor record of reaching out to minorities.

“I can’t even name the minority director for the Republican Party right now. Republican Party outreach to minorities is sad. It’s just a sad, sad story,” Ivory said.

McAllister attributes the problem to the party’s inability to grow their image outside of the ’70s and ’80s – which has put the party in the position it’s in now: staring at the possibility of the Democrats controlling the presidency and Congress. He believes that had the Republicans tried to engage young voters and diversify its image years ago, the brand name wouldn’t be so weak.

So the Hip-Hop Republicans are doing the outreach the party has failed to do. Ivory believes that the reason why Republicans are failing at outreach is not racism, but a lack of understanding in terms of how to go about it.

“They’re just not comfortable talking about [race]. But they have a responsibility to bring in people who are,” Ivory said. He believes the party shouldn’t be afraid of change because it has always been changing throughout its history. His philosophy: Republicans have some core beliefs that unite them, but it’s OK for differences among the group. He went on to talk about the Hip-Hop Republican movement having many different types of Republicans from conservatives to libertarians. And that’s the point – more ideas will result in more solutions.

“(Hip-Hop Republicanism) is not a moniker. It’s not meant to just be cute. It’s meant to show a growing movement of urban Republicans voicing diverse opinions that will impact the Republican Party internally and impact our communities externally,” McAllister added. “This is something that’s not going to go away. And it’s something that’s for the benefit of America. … The message of hip-hop is always about keeping it real and telling the story about what people are going through so that somebody can be the ambassadors to help move people past those challenges.”

With an Obama presidency apparently looming, McAllister stressed the importance of the African-American community not to become complacent. And Ivory believes that an Obama presidency could help strengthen the movement because it would force the party to examine itself and in turn, hopefully become more inclusive.

“There are some people who say a President Obama proves that affirmative-action is not needed. That’s the furthest thing from the truth. … We have black youths that are given up on in the third grade (in our public schools),” McCallister said, adding the fact that despite the growing number of black mayoral and gubernatorial leaders over the last 20 years, the issues in urban America remain the same. “He’s America’s president, not just black America’s president.”

Jerry Laguerre may be reached at TakingBackPolitics@gmail.com.

McMaverick Reaches New Level of Desperation

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

I’m not funny. It took me about 13 years to accept that fact. Some people may laugh at a few of my comments, but I’m not one of those guys capable of commanding a room during a stand-up routine – I know, ’cause I’ve tried (it was awful).

I hate not being funny, because I love comedy. I always have. I grew up worshipping Rodney Dangerfield and would stay up late to watch HBO comedy specials, especially of George Carlin.

I remember one night, coming home from a PTA meeting with my mother when I was in fifth grade, I turned to her and said, I’m hosting Saturday Night Live one day.

She laughed, looked at me, and remarked, “I don’t think so.”

I resented that reaction because SNL was my second education. I grew up when Wayne’s World was still a new skit, Dennis Miller owned the Weekend Update desk and Dana Carvey transformed into President George H.W. Bush.

Now fast-forward to the spring of 2000: I was a senior in college and wrote an opinion column for The Setonian, the college newspaper. I was following the presidential race, and concluded in a brief 300-word piece that none of the presidential candidates impressed me. If I recall correctly, I described W. as “daddy’s boy,” Al Gore as the “robo-candidate,” Ralph Nader as “the old guy off his meds,” and finally John McCain.

For McCain I wrote: “He has such a bad temper, he reminds me of one of those guys who sells steak knives late-night on QVC and shouts at the cameras urging viewers to buy.”

Fast-forward again, to last weekend.

As a watched the SNL intro, McMaverick stood next to Tina Fey as Gov. Sarah Palin, in an infomercial skit. Then at one point, he turned to the camera with a set of steak knives by his side, “This is to cut the pork-spending…,” he said.

At that point I knew it was over for the Maverick. There was no way of winning, defeating Obama. When a campaign reaches the point that it dramatizes a lame joke found in a college op/ed, it’s time to call it a night.

I mean, I swear I just slapped that column together in a few minutes eight years ago, without really giving it much thought.

And here, at the eleventh-hour, the smartest guys in politics for the Republicans (ie, Steve Schmidt & Co.) let their man walk around the set of the most liberal forum in politics. And I wonder, for whom was the appearance appealing? Obama’s people would not change their minds just because Maverick was on their ‘fav’ TV show. And SNL does nothing for the GOP faithful.

Yes, I’ve heard the saying by the old American philosopher Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over, ’til it’s over.” But it’s over!

SNL is not the kingmaker. The show is where candidates go to launch their careers as pundits. Just ask Hillary and Giuliani. Maverick, who has hosted the show, should’ve known better.

Speaking of which, I just moved to a new apartment and need a set of steak knives.

Eugene Mulero may be reached at eugene.mulero@gmail.com.

Nonsensical Hitchens Has Become a Joke

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

I remember the first time I read Christopher Hitchens. I wasn’t that old, maybe 13 or 14, but even at that young age I recall being dazzled by his command of the English language, his razor-sharp mind and the courage he demonstrated in unashamedly taking on society’s sacred cows – those institutions or individuals elevated to sainthood by popular culture for reasons often divorced from reality. Hitchens has dispatched Henry Kissinger and Mother Theresa with righteous ferocity during his career.

I had been bought up on a self-inflicted diet of George Orwell, and, as a kid, I remember wondering what it might be like to have a mind of Orwell’s caliber when talking about current events. Hitchens was not Orwell, but I trusted him in the same way, believed that he had an independent mind; that he would not lie if he knew the truth.

As an ex-pat British journalist now living in the United States, just like Hitchens, I still follow his career and writings with keen interest. He is now a big, bright star in the American media firmament, talking on endless chat shows and lending his writings on politics and literature to a host of august journals.

Back when I first started reading him Hitchens was on the left, but that wasn’t what attracted me to him. He used his journalism to take on the powers that be, whether they were left, right or center. He had a disdain for platitudes, for lazy narratives and baseless hearsay. He had written expertly on the criminal Turkish occupation of Cyprus, the subject of his first book; he penned acerbic polemics on the criminal U.S. war in Indochina; he vented against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Hitchens was never a bien-pensant on the left, however: he supported the Falklands War, and intermittently came out with shock positions that would offend his comrades. But even if you disagreed with him, you had to concede he was thinking for himself, and his equations had some equilibrium.

Hitchens is a different man now. His facile word skills are still there, his fearless attacks on venerated institutions, his quick mind, but he’s not serious like he was. His pronouncements make no sense and have no inherent logic. Instead of expressing rational thinking in cute phrases, he now, in the words of Norman Finkelstein, dresses up flatulence in bouquets.

I’ve been watching him during the 2008 election and his illogical and strange pronouncements have really been embarrassing to watch. It’s telling that the point when his political bearings went off-kilter was the same point when the establishment started to accept him with open arms. Now he is everywhere; you literally can’t turn on the TV without his brash private-schoolboy schtick in your face.

His position in the 2008 election is that you have to support Obama because, (a) John McCain is senile, for which Hitchens provides no evidence, apart from a few linguistic lapses, which are inevitable as the factor of speeches goes up on the campaign trail. And (b) Sarah Palin is a religious fanatic hostile to reason and science.

On (b) he is undoubtedly correct and any right-thinking person couldn’t disagree (probably she doesn’t even). But, wait. Hitchens himself voted for George W. Bush in 2004. Yes, the same president who doesn’t believe in evolution, wants creationism taught in schools, is against stem-cell research and acted like a zealot in the Terry Schiavo case. Doesn’t that qualify as religious fanaticism? Why does he suddenly care now about religious fanaticism when Bush’s pea-in-a-pod Sarah Palin is the vice presidential candidate?

The only reason I can think of is after supporting the Iraq war, he just doesn’t want to be caught on another sinking ship.

Just think about it. McCain is Hitchens ideological bedfellow:

(1) Hitchens says he used to be a single-issue voter on the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to the Western world. Well, McCain is probably even more hawkish than Bush (if possible) and wants to bomb Iran. Surely that would get Hitchens on board, especially as Barack Obama wants to – shock, horror! – talk to the leaders of Iran before bombing them.

(2) McCain, like Hitchens, had a religious fervor when supporting the war in Iraq and the surge. But Obama was against both.

(3) And Hitch, if religion is your problem, McCain is much less fanatical than Bush. Even McCain’s foreign policy is closer to Hitchens than Bush. Bush recently took the slave state North Korea off the terrorist list, against McCain’s wishes, and I’m assuming Hitchens’. Obama has said he would talk to Kim Jong-Il.

So Hitchens’ ideas are nowhere; he is scrambling to patch together his disintegrating platform and it shows. He has used Palin’s fanaticism – nothing worse than his previous favorite for top office, Bush – as an excuse to go against a presidential candidate who is actually in agreement with all his ideas. It’s cheap and see-through, but hey, this is Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens nowadays is even too dense to have an opinion on domestic policy. Nowhere does he comment on taxes, or health care; he just doesn’t care. Why? Well, foreign policy gives his ego full license to wander off on macho rants about murdering scum fascists, but you don’t get any of those primal screams on domestic policy because it’s not some abstract fantasy about Good and Evil, about democracy and fascism or any other puerile oppositions.

The descent of Hitchens into some fat joke, the risible and edgy plaything of the American right wing, has really been solidified by his weird performance in the 2008 election. Conservatives in the U.S. have expressed surprise at his about-face, and this is a perfectly legitimate emotion. Hitchens disgraced himself by backing Bush in 2004, but perhaps, worse now, he has now shown himself to have no spine, his faculties of clear thought and logic have been jettisoned in clear daylight by not backing McCain.

It’s not tragic though. Hitchens is good for a laugh. Watch him on a show and he will be arrogant and rude, he will make funny one-liners, he will give you all the good branding he has worked on so assiduously. But that’s what he is: a stand-up comic, not a political thinker.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

McCain Meets with Chilean Dictator in 1985

By TOMÁS DINGES, Correspondent

On Thursday, the Huffington Post published an article showing that John McCain had a secret meeting with the dictator Augusto Pinochet of Chile in December 1985. That same year various human rights reports condemned the country for violations against personal freedom and political liberty, not to mention torture.

Below are three paragraphs from the original article posted on the Huffington Post.

“The trip was arranged by Chile’s ambassador to the United States, Hernan Felipe Errazuriz. According to a contemporary government document obtained from Chile, Errazuriz arranged for a special government liaison to help McCain while in Chile for the ’strictly private’ visit, and described him as ‘one of the conservative congressmen who is closest to our embassy.’

“McCain, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, made no public or private statements critical of the dictatorship, nor did he meet with members of the democratic opposition in Chile, as far as could be determined from a thorough check of U.S. and Chilean newspaper records and interviews with top opposition leaders.

“McCain’s visit with Pinochet took place at a moment when the Chilean strongman held virtually unrestricted dictatorial power and those involved in public, democratic opposition were exposed to great risk.”

It came also at a moment when “methods of torture reported include beatings, electric shocks to the genitals and other parts of the body and rape of women prisoners,” according to an Associated Press report.

Only 12 days later Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy was welcomed with eggs and a road blockade when he visited in a show of support to the Catholic Church and human rights groups.

That year the current Miss Chile was born, John Denver visited and the brothers Vergara were killed.
It is also the year in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights published a review of the human rights situation in Chile, from 1973 to 1985.

It was published in September 1985. Here are some excerpts.

Under the section, Right to Personal Liberty:

“As may be seen from the foregoing account, the right to personal freedom has suffered a sustained deterioration because of the measures adopted by the Government of Chile during the period covered by this report. The periods of preventive detention have increased, from 48 hours under the earlier system to 20 days in the situation the present regime provides for. ”

That might seem of interest to McCain.

Under the section, Political Rights at Present:

“The intolerance of any form of opposition by the Government of Chile that follows from the exposition in Section C of this Chapter, and the absence of channels of participation of the Chilean population as a consequence of the rigid application of the provisions of the 1980 Constitution, have helped to generate serious social problems which have begun to emerge more forcefully since 1983.”

So in case the situation in Chile is not clear enough, a final section from the report concludes: “It must therefore be concluded that the right to personal freedom has been and is seriously violated by the Government of Chile, which is consequently creating a pervasive state of insecurity in the population and giving rise to conditions for the commission of extremely serious violations of the right to physical integrity and life, as follows from the accounts contained in the respective chapters.”

That also might be of some interest to McCain.

1985 also was the year in which a team of five doctors visited Chile as a delegation of the American Human Rights Committee. According to press reports at the time, the group, citing firsthand accounts of torture victims, said that Chilean physicians were aiding the Chilean security apparatus in an effort to kill fewer victims and make torture more effective. The job … “examine the blindfolded victims to assess before, during and after how much torture the victim is able to withstand.”

An Associated Press report from 1985 states the following:

“Since 1981 the U.S. State Dept. has recorded 286 cases of torture in Chile with the number increasing each year. Statistics kept by the Chilean Commission for Human Rights are more than three times higher.

In the past six months, however, the focus of the torture has apparently shifted from extracting information from political prisoners to “communicating with the population about the reign of terror that now exists, said Dr. Robert Lawrence, chief of medicine at Cambridge Hospital.”

McCain. How could you? What has changed in your judgment between then and now?

Tomás Dinges can be reached at tdinges@gmail.com.

How ’Bout a Juicy McMac?; Celebs, Ads Don’t Sway Voters

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

What have we become when a vice presidential nominee has to make an appearance on Saturday Night Live two weeks before an election and a presidential candidate has to do a makeup appearance for getting on David Letterman’s bad side?

Why does David Letterman’s or any celebrity’s opinion matter to us? He can’t even beat out Leno, but scathing remarks after being stood up by a candidate causes a dip in the polls?

Celebrities don’t care about us. There are a few who are genuinely nice and care about mankind, blah, blah, blah. But most have had to step on the faces of rivals to get where they are and the most important thing to them is staying on top.

Have you ever stopped to think that the endorsing celebrity could have concerns about taxes, education or any number of issues in direct opposition to your own?

Let’s not forget that it’s also an issue of ego as well. Liberal celebrities have had it handed to them by the Bush administration for the last eight years. Their egos have been bruised because no matter how hard they’ve campaigned for the opposition or pointed out his obvious flaws, Ol’ Dubyah has kept right on truckin’. These self-important asses want to feel like they can actually have an effect on the direction of the country as much as, if not more than, they actually care about the well-being of the country.

As I watched Palin bobbing her head to the beat I wondered if Gerald Ford ever had to yuck it up with a few talking heads on some cheesy network morning show. I don’t recall Big Bush dropping by SNL and surprising Dana Carvey.

Just as I began to feel queasy over the thought that an appearance on late-night television could be a deciding factor in an election I realized something … that really hasn’t happened yet. Despite all the pulling and prodding by the media we always seem to elect whoever we want. Advertisements and appearances just serve as supplements to keep us interested until Election Day. I can’t think of a time in history when we’ve let outside opinions change our minds about candidates. Whoever you wanted to vote for when the nominations were accepted is probably the same person you want to vote for now.

Which makes me wonder, does any amount of campaigning ever change a person’s mind? We’re only interested in the evidence that supports the decision we’ve already made. We form our opinions based on the sum of our experience and don’t usually change our minds no matter how compelling the argument. So for now I have found some peace by convincing myself that people aren’t directed by the media when they cast their ballots.

So why was Palin on SNL this week?

I prefer Coke over Pepsi. The difference between the two is negligible, but I’m always choosing Coke. In my mind no amount of advertising is ever going to change that. That’s the point. Whenever I made my cola decision advertising played a big part in it. Now that I’ve picked my side it’s up to them to remind me of what a great choice I made. I want to back a winner and be affirmed that I’m a winner for making that choice as much as possible. I even go as far as to root for Coke to have better commercials and higher sales.

Of course no one is going to decide who to vote for because of a boat, but somewhere someone felt good about seeing it and said to themselves, “I haven’t seen any Obama sailboats out today.” The candidates need to keep reminding their supporters that they’ve made a good decision.

It’s our nature. We want our candidates to be superhuman. We want them to be the most amusing when telling jokes, the most eloquent when debating and the most intelligent when discussing policies. They do whatever they can to sustain that image. Whether it is charming late-night appearances, well-scripted commercials or kissing babies in minimalls. We will always love them for doing it.

Politicians know something that we don’t. In the end they are all just people like you and I. That’s why Palin can laugh off Tina Fey’s impression of her and kick it with Lorne backstage at 30 Rock. That’s how Obama and McCain can have a heated debate one night and act like a couple of open-micers the next. Most of us have this thought stuck in our heads that Democrats and Republicans are these two competing factions in an all or nothing battle for supremacy.

In reality, they’re no more different from each other then McDonald’s is from Burger King. Either way you’re still going to go get that delicious, fatty garbage in you. All elected officials have the same goals ― try to accomplish something positive and not get booted before you’re ready to go. They respect and relate to each other the same way employees at Mickey D’s relate to their contemporaries at BK.

They know we are as influenced by the image created around a candidate as we are by their actual accomplishments. Obama’s the smart, young, contemplative diplomat we need to unite the country and turn things around. McCain is the strong-willed, experienced, maverick that will buck the system and lead us to a better tomorrow. Big Mac, Whopper.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

U.S. Policy on Latin America Changing for Better

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

It may sound grandiose, but I think it’s true. Right now we are seeing the biggest political shift in the Western Hemisphere since the genocidal thief Christopher Columbus thought he had arrived in the Indian subcontinent, but had actually “discovered” the (already discovered) Americas.

The idea came to me most powerfully when I was watching the latest presidential debate and the topic turned to the last remaining outpost of the U.S. Empire in Latin America, Colombia. McCain did his usual bluster: “So Sen. Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,” said McCain. “The same country that’s helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that’s killing young Americans.”

Now, in a heavily doctrinaire public discourse in the U.S., criticizing the Colombian government is like criticizing Israel, you don’t do it, despite the despicable human rights records of both countries. You just don’t go there.

Knowing Obama’s acquiescence to the Israel lobby, I was expecting the usual formulaic response about Marxist guerillas, etc. But he came out with this: “Actually, I understand it pretty well. The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions.”

Now, this is all true, but truth has never been a prerequisite for this election season, so to see Obama come out with it without being jumped on indicates a genuine shift in how the U.S. has been made to see Latin America. No longer, it seems, under a President Obama, will the country support any regime that subjugates its people and represents U.S. business interests. A brief history lesson is required to show how astonishing this really is.

Since 1823 and the so-called Monroe Doctrine, the Western Hemisphere has been designated by American planners as “our backyard,” a vast resource-rich expanse open for pillage and exploitation for the gain of the elite class in the U.S. and a handsomely rewarded quisling elite in the raped countries.

This dynamic has been constant and unbroken for two centuries.

President James Monroe obviously didn’t put it in these bald terms when he made his address to Congress on December 2, 1823, which forms the basis of this so-called doctrine. Monroe said that day that countries in the Western Hemisphere “are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power,” which sounds like a good idea for the subjected peoples – until you realize Monroe instead gives his own country the right to take over from the European powers. “We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers,” he continues, “to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.”

He was telling the European powers simply, “It’s ours now!” Under this naked imperialism dressed up in fusty diplomatic language, the U.S. took Cuba from the Spanish in 1852 (the U.S. still illegally occupies Guantanamo Bay today), and then Puerto Rico from them in 1898 (which the U.S. still owns today).

As the European empires broke down completely after WWII, the idea of imperialism became increasingly untenable as indigenous movements removed their oppressors at a rapid rate. But as Europe lay in ruins, the U.S. was rising to its superpower status, and the elites weren’t going to lose control of their “backyard” during the ensuing Cold War with the Soviet Union. Occupations were frowned upon now, not least by an American population culturally averse to empires and imperialism. So instead the intelligence services turned to subverting any Latin American government that did not support American business interests away from the attention of the American people.

First went Guatemala in 1954, a coup against the center-left President Jacobo Arbenz who had the gall to redistribute land to landless peasants from the United Fruit Company. The CIA stepped in and installed a military junta and started one of the most horrendous civil wars in history that left 200,000 people dead.

Any country that elected any sort of left politician would incur a terrorist war of anti-democratic aggression. Brazil went down in 1961, Dominican Republic in 1963, Chile through the ’60s and eventually culminating in 1973, Nicaragua in the 1970s, and on and on. All the governments I mention were democratic, and many times they were replaced with a collection of open neo-Nazis, fascists and other dregs of humanity. It was all cloaked under the guise of the war against the “Evil Empire:” Soviet Russia. Much like today where Islamic fundamentalism gives the U.S. an excuse to do whatever it wants.

Millions upon millions of peoples were slaughtered across Latin America with the support of many U.S. household names: John Foster Dulles starting the Guatemalan bloodbath, Henry Kissinger backed the dictatorship in Chile, Ronald Reagan supporting the fascist Contras against the democratically elected Sandinistas in Nicaragua. These figures are all hailed as great heroes to this day in mainstream American culture, although not by the rest of the hemisphere, for obvious reasons.

John Perkins, who worked as an “Economic Hit Man” for a U.S. corporation for decades, has written a book exposing the type of work he did. He puts it succinctly: “Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring — to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It’s been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It’s only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.”

But even with this tragic history of exploitation and mass murder, I want to now sound an optimistic note. The Western Hemisphere — especially Latin America — is finally taking off the shackles of the imperial bully, and this time they will win.

No longer will democratically elected leaders from Chile to Bolivia to Brazil to Venezuela allow their sovereign nations to balk under the giant upstairs. When they propose economic plans to actually give the wealth of their lands to the people that live in it rather than rich corporations and exiles in Miami, they no longer take the U.S. trying to overthrow them with a shrug, they are ready.

In Bolivia recently, when the fascist paramilitary groups in eastern provinces like Pando massacred indigenous peasants and the pale-skinned traditional elite tried to start an uprising against the democratically elected president, Evo Morales, he didn’t stand for the encouragement the U.S. was giving. He kicked out the ambassador. And he also brought the governor who had incited the massacre to justice. On top of this stern action, all the newly independent center-left leaders of the Latin American bloc came to Morales’ aid at the U.N. They knew together they were a powerful force that couldn’t be crushed under the boot of the American government.

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela even followed suit and kicked out the ambassador there. And who can blame him? In 2002 when he himself was ousted temporarily by a U.S.-backed coup that put a billionaire businessman into power and suspended the constitution and democracy, the people of the Venezuelan barrios fought back; marching in their hundreds of thousands for the first leader that had ever considered them worthy of their own minerals. He had to be reinstated because the people of Venezuela were too powerful and alive to their plight to be raped again by another lackey of the U.S.
On top of this, the new independence is being entrenched through the new Bank of the South, which will gradually bring Latin American countries away from their reliance on the agents of Western governments, the IMF and World Bank. And then there is Telesur, a Latin American analogue to Al Jazeera, a continent-wide news network that undercuts the corporate media bias of the U.S. and their supporters in Latin America. These are important developments that will outlast any individuals, which is the kind of change that is truly needed for this new independence to be resilient.

There are a number of reasons for the U.S. losing grip of its backyard. First, this generation of left-wing leaders have learned from the past. They know about the dirty tricks of the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy and other agents of the U.S. government. They are aware that they have a constant battle against reactionary elements supported by the U.S. But in Bolivia, for example, the indigenous communities are equipping themselves to fight back; there will be none of Salvador Allende’s erroneous belief in pacifism. “If the right-wing tries to liquidate democracy we will fight you to defend civility,” is now the message.

The second important factor is that because the Cold War has ended it is harder for the U.S. government and their conduits in the corporate media to paint any politician who is vaguely left of center as an agent of Soviet Russia. Admittedly the New York Post, without shame, does describe Chavez – one of the most frequently elected leaders in the world – as a dictator. The childish invective against him comes from all over the narrow media spectrum in the U.S. But when they try to destroy democracy, like in 2002, the old Cold War lie doesn’t work. The left in Latin America are using this to their advantage by accentuating their independence from anyone and building alliances all over the world from Iran to China.

The third reason is that the U.S. imperial project is so bogged down in the Middle East — where support for dictators has been equally obscene — so they have in many ways taken their eye off the ball. It’s arguable that without September 11, Chavez would be history by now, as well as Morales.

The fourth reason is that when the U.S. helped set up Operation Condor — a continent-wide terror network — with their surrogate General Pinochet, they could count on the compliance of the security states they had helped set up. Now the tables have turned. With Fernando Lugo’s election in Paraguay, the whole continent is a left-wing independent bloc, so they can’t be subverted as easily and a strong alliance has been built between all the leaders, who now come to each other’s defense against subversion.

For the first time in centuries, down in Latin America things are looking up. Democracy, economic justice and dignity are returning to the continent that has been crushed under the U.S.’ boot for so long. This time they will win.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

Next Page »