Media Mayor Cory Booker Bombs in Home Town of Newark

By Linn Washington Jr., This Can’t Be Happening!

Newark's mayor Cory Booker is more popular outside of Newark than in the city he runs

Newark’s mayor Cory Booker is more popular outside of Newark than in the city he runs

Cory Booker, the charismatic Democratic mayor of Newark, NJ currently considering a campaign for the U.S. Senate, enjoys extraordinary media exposure — exposure that exceeds that of many top-tier entertainers and professional athletes. However, that fawning media coverage from CNN to Vogue Magazine of this mayor rarely reports facts like the increasing ire among Newark residents over Booker’s practices and the right-wing political roots of this politician who is generally portrayed as possessing solid center-left credentials.

Those right-wing roots, for example, provide an under-examined explanation for Booker’s lashing out at President Obama last May after a campaigning Obama criticized economic deprivations caused by hedge fund manipulations when he took Mitt Romney to task for the then GOP candidate’s tenure as head of venture capital firm Bain Capital.

Journalist Glen Ford has reported extensively on Booker’s conservative connections for over a decade, beginning with Booker’s September 2000 New York City address at the Manhattan Institute, one of America’s leading right-wing think tanks.

“It’s amazing that most people don’t see this background,” Ford said.

“You must understand that the Manhattan Institute is not some eclectic entity,” Black Agenda Report co-founder Ford said. “This is what makes Cory Booker different from other right-wing Democrats. He comes from the bosom of the right-wing…he started there.”

Ford’s coverage includes Booker’s alignment with the conservative school voucher movement that seeks to siphon government funding from public schools into corporate and religious coffers – a defunding movement that has a profound detrimental impact on large numbers of minority students and minority professionals in public schools.

Favorable media coverage of Booker explains why most people across New Jersey and nationwide view him as progressive. That coverage portrays a mayor who saved a neighbor from a burning building, sustaining second-degree burns during that rescue. It focuses on him for raising more than $250-million in donations for projects in his beleaguered city.

“Most people in Trenton and South Jersey look at Booker as a great mayor because they see him on CNN and other television shows all the time,” Trenton, NJ community activist Daryl Brooks said. “But in inner-city areas of Newark, residents don’t view Booker as a great leader. There is a feeling that he is more interested in his national and international image than in doing something for poor people.”

A December 2012 New York Times article contained rare mainstream media criticism of Booker, citing growing complaints in Newark that Booker is “a better marketer than mayor.”

The telegenic Booker,43, a Yale Law graduate and Rhodes Scholar, counters criticisms like that from Trenton activist Brooks by citing polls showing 60 percent support for him in Newark.

But Bessie White, a 50-year resident of Newark who lives in the city’s South Ward, said, there is a great deal of disappointment regarding Booker, particularly around his leadership in the delivery of city services.

“We expected changes when [Booker] became mayor,” White said (Booker became Newark’s mayor in July 2006). “He is the first mayor to lay off police. We don’t have a sense of security anymore.”

The Newark Star-Ledger newspaper, in a July 2012 article, documented that Mayor Booker spent nearly a quarter of his time outside of Newark during an 18-month period ending in June 201.

While Booker boosted Newark during many of those trips (some of them day-trips), he also boosted his personal bank account with speaking fees estimated between $250,000-to-$500,000, that article stated.

Ras Baraka, the City Councilman for Newark’s South Ward, said he feels Booker’s “personal ambitions” have always exceeded his commitment to solving problems in Newark.

“The Mayor’s basically been a media darling and that has prevented him from tackling issues,” Baraka said. “The lack of jobs drives crime and other issues. Things can be done without millions or the need for rocket science. But we need leadership.”

Newark’s unemployment rate, hovering around 15 percent, is dramatically higher than the NJ rate, a statewide rate that is the fourth highest in the nation. The current unemployment rate in NJ’s largest city is also five points higher than when Booker took office in 2006.

Foreclosures in Essex County, which contains Newark, are the highest in NJ, the state with the nation’s second highest foreclosure rate.

New corporate business, construction projects and jobs are flourishing in Booker’s Newark. An October 2012 Bloomberg News article applauded Booker for bringing $700-million in new investments into his city, including the relocation of corporate headquarters, opening new factories and erecting affordable housing.

But benefits from all that economic development centered mainly in Newark’s downtown are not effectively trickling down into neighborhoods around Newark…at least that’s the perception that is driving rising disenchantment with Booker among increasing numbers of Newark residents.

Mayor Booker’s office did not respond to requests for comments and information despite promises to do so.

Interestingly, for a man garnering so much uncritical media coverage, Booker is often quick to bash his critics by contending their criticisms of him are crass efforts to garner favorable media coverage of their own.

When the ACLU-NJ sued Booker in 2011 for his refusal to release documents requested by a Newark parents group seeking details about the $100-million gift to Newark public schools from Facebook billionaire founder Mark Zuckerburg, Booker blasted the ACLU for seeking media “publicity” by attacking him.

Booker initially denied the existence of those documents, and then shifted, admitting the documents existed but asserted that mayoral executive privilege permitted him to withhold them. Booker also tried to blunt that lawsuit by claiming his acceptance of the Zuckerburg gift on Oprah’s then television show was not an official mayoral act.

A judge, in December 2012, ordered Booker to release the requested documents, rejecting Booker’s executive privilege and other claims.

Booker’s stonewalling on releasing the Zuckerburg gift documents and his failed November 2012 effort to install a candidate he backed into a vacant City Council seat (that trigger a mini-riot inside the Council chambers) seemingly contradicts positions he advanced during that Manhattan Institute address.

During that luncheon address Booker blasted Newark’s then political power brokers for constantly seeking to expand their “sphere of control, always hoping to control more and more resources and authority.”

Three weeks after Booker used an arcane procedure to install that Council candidate, a judge ruled Booker had no legal authority to vote on that candidate’s behalf.

One curious aspect overlooked in media coverage is that some of Booker’s harshest critics are former friends and/or political allies who use words like ‘betrayal’ when describing him.

Newark City Councilman Ronald C. Rice ran on Booker’s 2006 ticket. Rice even opposed his own father, who stepped into that mayoral race against Booker following the last minute withdrawal of the incumbent mayor.

“There are a majority of folks who like the man personally,” Rice said. “But those are the same people who are angry with conditions in this city.”

Rice joined the lawsuit voiding Booker’s Council candidate action.

“I don’t begrudge [Booker’s] celebrity, but he needs to do the non-glamorous work,” Rice said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

While not yet quite old enough to collect Social Security, Linn Washington Jr. has been in the news business long enough to have seen both the introduction of computers into newsrooms and the current strangling of the news media unleashed not by the rise of the Internet but largely from greedy investors whose snatching of financial resources from profit-generating news operations has crippled news gathering. A columnist for the historic Philadelphia Tribune, the nation’s oldest African-American owned newspaper, Washington is also Associate Professor of Journalism at Temple. Washington also holds a law degree from the Yale University.




The Horseshit Whisperer

FROM OUR ARCHIVES—WEEKEND EDITION DECEMBER 9-11, 2011 
Pulling the Trigger on Trigger
by RANDY SHIELDS

The chief function of American presidents is to “break” unruly working class resistance to American capital whether in Middle Eastern deserts, Latin American jungles or the streets of Oakland and Cincinnati. Eight years of Bush/Cheney fear-training gave way to the current horse shit whisperer-in-chief whose vague soaring Rorschach rhetoric encourages his followers to believe they’re  getting their own personal nods and winks about what he believes and what he’ll do if he just gets a “chance.” And, often, when he gets the chance, he’s worse than Bush. To wit:

Just in case my liberal Democrat animal-lovin’ friends missed it: last week Barack Humane Obama signed a bill legalizing horse slaughter for human consumption in the United States after it was outlawed six years ago, thus betraying his 2008 campaign pledge (yawn) to keep it illegal.

 

Seventy percent of Americans wanted to keep horses off the menu but, in a flowering of demockracy — genus venus americanus flytrapus — the POTUS and the Congrossest kept their bipartisan unbeaten streak alive: the working class majority must never, ever get anything we want, no matter how tiny. Obama’s favorite movie is said to be “The Godfather” and, figuratively, he just put 200,000 horses’ heads each year into the beds and nightmares of anyone who cares about them. Hope and change you can tuck into. The particulars of this merciless outrage, including our old friend: private profit/socialized cost, can be found at  Our Compass.

[pullquote]

We regularly rerun articles of compelling and lasting interest. We wish the truths told in such articles had become obsolete, had been retired by social change and good leadership. Unfortunately that rarely happens.  This is one of such essays. 

[/pullquote]

(Here’s some free advice for you Republican presidential yahoos: if you can put a pole ax in Obama’s hand and a thoroughbred horse on the other end of it, you’ll win the election. Poster: “Uncle Tom Obama wants YOU to go the knackers!” Remember all the letters congress received several decades ago when the military was gassing beagles? Give it a try, Mitt and Newt — it only requires that, for once, you refrain from out-gooning Obama. You can’t excoriate Obama because he didn’t waterboard the horses before he killed them.)

Vegan nags like me point out that horses shouldn’t be eaten any more than cows, chickens, pigs, fish, deer, whales or humans. Others correctly say that American capitalism’s current Death-Mask-In-Chief murders Pakistani, Yemeni and Afghan children on a regular basis so why be surprised when he pulls the trigger on Trigger.

So why is Obama’s marching of Mr. Ed into the terror and cruelty of the slaughterhouse any more irritating than numerous other things he does? It probably has to do with the fact that he keeps pretending, just like his liberal supporters keep pretending, that he and they are some kind of superior enlightened humane beings wholly unlike their barbarous right wing opponents who we’re supposed to be petrified of. It’s the liberals who shop around for both “humane meat” and “humanitarian”  “good wars” and other oxymorons — and that grates. The lack of revolutionary class/vegan-conciousness among people on the left — revealing their cowardice, shallowness, hypocrisy and stupidity, and the attachment they have to failure — is one of the biggest impediments to anything positive happening in America. What’s true of health is also true of ethics and revolution: you can’t buy it, you have to live it.

And now I have a special treat for you, an exclusive draft of a screenplay I’m  sending to Pixar called “Barack O’Celery.”

White liberal child: Mommy, come quick and look in the refrigerator! The organic Barack O’Celery is spoiled! He’s all slimy.

White liberal mom: Oh I know, honey, and we paid so much for him — what a waste. He was so fresh and healthy-looking when we bought him four years ago at the Whole Foods election market.

Child: Can we throw him out?

Mom: No, we’ll probably just keep him for another four years.

Child: Mommy, there’s some cockroaches  having a sit-in on the lower shelf, protesting the Barack O’Celery and he just pepper sprayed them! Everything in the refrigerator is ruined.

Barack O’Celery: Will you two shut up and close the door! I’m trying to build a coalition of carrots, radishes and kohlrabi to attack some bok choy — the security of this entire refrigerator depends on it!

Child (coughing): Mommy, he’s making a mess in there and the longer he hangs around, the whiter he gets.

Mom (coughing): God only knows what he’ll be like four years from now.

Child: Mommy, can we go riding today?

Mom: No, Barack O’Celery just killed your pony. I don’t know how he did it from inside the refrigerator – he had to really go out of his way — but he did it. Sorry, pumpkin.

Child (horrified): Liberal mommy, is that my dead pony wrapped up in the refrigerator?! I don’t think I can take four more years of Barack O’Celery! And you need to get the hell up out of here too!

Randy Shields can be reached at music2hi4thehumanear@gmail.com




The perils of false equivalencies and self-proclaimed centrism


horiz grey line

tgplogo12313

BY GLENN GREENWALD


Even when sincere, liberals miss the mark by a wide margin. Most liberals are not serious students of politics or history, nor do they understand how the two chief opposing classes—capitalist and working people—interact. By his pretentious and painfully egotistical actions Jon Stewart illustrates the limitations of centrism, and why centrism, so easily derailed into irrelevancies, can never cure a serious crisis.

BY GLENN GREENWALD | SUNDAY, SEP 19, 2010
(updated below)
New York Times,Thursday:
.
 
McClatchy, June 18, 2008:
.
.
Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg Trials, Closing Statement:
.
The central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together, is the plot for aggressive wars. The chief reason for international cognizance of these crimes lies in this fact.
.
.
.
.
NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP CLICK HERE

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationWhat will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?


black-horizontal

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Please see our red registration box at the bottom of this page

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary. In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.

horiz-black-wide
REMEMBER: ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal

THE GREANVILLE POST

For media inquiries contact us at greanville@gmail.com




Obama Shares Bush’s Goals

A VISIONARY PIECE

Hossein Derakhshan, MRZINE

NATO-Obama-NATO-Summit-wales:Photo- Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]arack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, has adopted the rhetoric of change which has captured the imagination of many Americans and non-Americans around the world.

But when it comes to the foreign policy, there are enough reasons to remain sceptical.  Will he adopt a foreign policy with objectives which differ from those of George Bush, the current US president, or will he merely change Bush’s strategies and tactics?

Some, like French political theorist Raymond Aron in his book The Imperial Republic, hold that the US is essentially founded on two principles — Empire and Republic.  Its foreign policy, from the start, has therefore consistently been torn by the tensions between Empire and Republic.  In 1903, Beckles Willson made a similar argument in his book The New America: A Study of the Imperial Republic.

National Endowment for Democracy

At the height of the Cold War, in 1983, Ronald Reagan, the late US president, ordered the establishment of the bi-partisan, private, and non-profit National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

“We must work hard for democracy and freedom, and that means putting our resources — organizations, sweat, and dollars — behind a long-term program,” Reagan said in its inaugural speech.

“I just decided that this nation, with its heritage of Yankee traders, we ought to do a little selling of the principles of democracy,” Reagan added.

NED’s brief history shows that Reagan’s notion of selling principles of democracy was in fact the practice of funding opposition groups in unfavorable states to destabilize and ideally topple their governments.

These governments would then be replaced with US-allied local politicians who in many cases had already risen to fame through the work of NED-funded local human rights, labor, or democracy NGOs.

Coups

This has long been one of the main missions of the US intelligence organizations such as the CIA.

In fact, NED admits on its own website that what it is doing now was being done by the CIA: “When it was revealed in the late 1960’s that some American PVO’s [or NGOs, as they’re called today] were receiving covert funding from the CIA to wage the battle of ideas at international forums, the Johnson Administration concluded that such funding should cease, recommending establishment of ‘a public-private mechanism’ to fund overseas activities openly.”

The most famous example of NED’s work came as a coup against Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, in 2002.  But this eventually failed.

In Eastern Europe, however, NED’s attempts have been more successful.  In the past few years, Ukraine and Georgia’s ‘Orange and Rose revolutions’ have effectively transformed the two countries into the most faithful American allies in Russia’s backyard.

NED’s funding and consultants, along with funds and support from similar American organizations such as George Soros’s Open Society Institute, largely contributed to their metamorphoses.

In fact, as reported in 2004 by the Guardian, NED and its subsidiaries such as the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI), as well as United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Open Society Institute (OSI), and Freedom House, were involved in financing and organizing those campaigns in Serbia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia.

Since 9/11, NED has expanded its operations in the Middle East and has slowly and quietly been training and expanding networks of pro-American civil society and human rights activists, journalists, and labor unions.

“Our future and the future of that region are linked,” Bush said in a speech on the 20th anniversary of the establishment of NED.

NED in Iran

NED’s interest in Iran was initiated in 1995 in the form of a fellowship program.

Among the first group of Iranian Fellows was Haleh Esfandiari, whose research was focused on women’s issues in Iran.

She later became the director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s program on the Middle East and kept close contact with Iranian women’s NGOs.

In 2007, she was detained and charged with “conspiring against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” but was released on bail after three months.  Interestingly, Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden were among the senior US politicians who called the arrest unjust and explicitly demanded her release.

Around the same time of Esfandiari’s detention, Kian Tajbakhsh, another Iranian-American was also detained, charged, and freed on bail.

The ministry of intelligence said he was identified with the help of Esfandiari as the representative of the OSI in Iran.  OSI later confirmed in a statement that Tajbakhsh has been indeed a consultant to the organization in Iran.

Ramin Jahanbegloo, who was a Reagan-Fascell fellow at the NED in 2001 and continued contributing to NED’s Journal of Democracy, was detained in 2006 (according to the Iranian Fars News agency over his ties with NED) and was charged with acts threatening the state.

The Iranian ministry of intelligence, reported by IRNA, stated at the time that the Woodrow Wilson Center’s activities and program related to Iran were sponsored and financed by the Soros Foundation (or Open Society Institute) which had played a key role in the ‘color revolutions’ in the former USSR republics in recent years.

Obama and NED

While Obama objects to military intervention, he is, like Bush, a big supporter of the kind of activity that NED is doing — and interestingly enough, more avidly than Bush.

In an interview with the Washington PostObama said that he would “significantly increase funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other non-governmental organizations to support civic activists in repressive societies.”

He promised to “start a new Rapid Response Fund for young democracies and post-conflict societies that will provide foreign aid, debt relief, technical assistance and investment packages that show the people of newly hopeful countries that democracy and peace deliver, and the United States stands by them.”

Joseph Biden, Obama’s running mate is not much different.  In an article for Washington Monthly in 2005, he criticized Bush for not putting his money where his mouth is: “Promoting democracy is tough sledding.  We must go beyond rhetorical support and the passion of a single speech.  It’s one thing to topple a tyrant; it’s another to put something better in his place.”

“The most effective, sustainable way to advocate democracy is to help those moderates and modernizers on the inside build democratic institutions such as political parties, an independent judiciary, a free media, a modern education system, a civil society, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and a private sector,” Biden said.

It was the same Joseph Biden in 2002 who, in a ceremony for the NED’s annual Democracy award, introduced Mehrangiz Kar, a ‘reformist’ Iranian women rights activist who now lives in the US.

Continuity

The similarities between Bush and Obama’s view of the American role and duty towards the rest of the world might be striking, but for those whose concept of history goes beyond searching Google, there is no surprise.

In his book, Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky cites John Stewart Mill, the British philosopher and one of the champions of the American notion of liberty, and shows how the same rhetoric of liberty and democracy has been used by the British Empire to justify its attempt at hegemony over the world.

Mills describes England as “a novelty in the world” who is committed to create an “idealistic new world bent on ending inhumanity.”

He refers to a selfless country that only acts “in the service of others,” even though the fruits of its success will be shared “in fraternal equality with the whole human race.”

Chomsky traces this non-partisan ‘altruist’ foreign policy in the US back to Woodrow Wilson, who served two terms as the American president from 1913 to 1921.

“The primary principle of foreign policy, rooted in Wilsonian idealism and carried over from Clinton to Bush II is ‘the imperative of America’s mission as the vanguard of history, transforming the global order and, in doing so, perpetuating its own dominance’,” wrote Chomsky.

In his 1968 book, Woodrow Wilson and the Modern American Empire, Norman Gordon Levin, puts this eloquently: “The needs of America’s expanding capitalism were joined ideologically with a more universal vision of American service to suffering humanity and to world stability.”

Talking to Iran

When it comes to Iran, Obama’s tactics indeed look quite different from Bush’s — engagement versus isolation.

But their goals are no different; both want to replace the only independent oil-rich state in the Middle East with an obedient regime, similar to the infamous Anglo-American coup in 1953 when Iran nationalized its oil industry.

Obama’s tactics are perhaps best articulated by Abbas Milani, an influential ‘liberal’ researcher on Iran who co-directs the Iran Democracy Project at the conservative Hoover Institute and is a supporter of Obama.

He said to the New Yorker Magazine in 2005 that the Americans should talk to Iran “but with the purpose of overthrowing them.”


Hossein Derakhshan is a London-based media analyst and freelance journalist.  He writes about Iran in a bilingual blog in Persian and English at hoder.com which is blocked by the Iranian government.

 

•••••


NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO OUR PERIODICAL BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES.  




Hope, Change, and Pissing in the Wind

By Patrice Greanville with Jason Miller
Note: This is a repost.  This essay was written by TGP’s editor in chief in 2008, years before the founding of The Greanville Post. 


obama-newTribuneofthePeople

Obama at the Democratic National Convention, 2004. The corporate media and fellow politicos simply consecrated him, overnight, as the new “tribune of the people.” His nomination was more like a coronation.

 

Bstcyrano.org/ Thomas Paine’s Corner
3/19/08

“Of Obama, Democrats, and the Power Elite”

Barack Obama is the living embodiment of his vague, ethereal, and tantalizing messages of “hope” and “change.” To the millions upon millions of US Americans desperate to purge the naked imperialism and blatant criminality of the Bush administration from the White House, Obama IS hope and change. Yet like many establishment liberals before him, Obama is no cure for the malignant creep toward fascism plaguing our nation. If elected, at best he will merely serve to postpone the inevitable a bit.

To understand why Obama and the ilk he took with him to DC would be little or no better than the human excrement currently occupying the tangible, visible positions of power in the US, let’s examine various facets of Obama(1) and of our rotten-to-the-core sociopolitical and socioeconomic systems.

Issue one is that Obama or no Obama, we are still stuck with a bourgeois democracy. Which means that despite all the rhetoric and mythologies about equality, freedom, meritocracy, opportunity, and a host of other lies that placate the masses and maintain the social order, the United States is a nation of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Even if we suspend our critique of Obama for a moment and pretend he is a man of saintly virtue, trusting an Obama or a JFK or whomever to do the right thing by the nation, the environment, the people, etc. rests on the assumption that the American president is indeed an all-powerful figure capable of enacting or precipitating policies of tremendous consequence for the country. This illusion holds when the person in the executive office is moving within the traditional confines, values and methods of the capitalist system, which even such a “radical” as FDR observed. It would not hold for long, or at all, should the miracle happen and a true radical was actually elected.

In the case of a within-the-system-boundaries reformer of FDR’s magnitude, the media would not align and uniformly attack him and there would not be a capital strike (as savage capitalism has waged against true left reformers like Allende); we’d just see a sectoral division within the ruling class, and factions would develop—but the policy dialogue would remain within the historically acceptable parameters of capitalists elites. This is in fact what happened during the FDR years. Their principal interest would be to maintain and preserve as many of their privileges and as much of their way of life as possible. That was fine for FDR’s time.

However, let’s look at the larger picture we traverse today.

In the current circumstances we face we see a rapidly degenerating empire, in which the logical evisceration of FORMAL aspects of democracy proceeds accordingly. The prospect is for endless wars, more super-exploitation of the planet, and so on. If any “remedial” policies are implemented against judicial abuse, planetary death, or human/non-human animal exploitation in various contexts, these cannot take hold and neutralize the overarching slide toward worse because “toward worse” is embedded in the dynamics of the system—and how could it be otherwise in a socioeconomic structure premised on greed and selfishness? There are systemic contradictions at play that almost force the hand of capitalists to do what they do–for example they are now trying to roll back the social democratic gains of the European working class during the postwar period. Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi, and Sarkozy are no accidents. They represent the concerted effort of the European bourgeoisie, egged on by the American elites(2), to push back on the working class and take it all back under the pretext of “remaining competitive” and a plethora of other fraudulent reasons.


In the current circumstances we face we see a rapidly degenerating empire, in which the logical evisceration of formal aspects of democracy proceeds accordingly. The prospect is for endless wars, more super-exploitation of the planet, ore immiseration, and so on.


 

Capitalism faces insoluble issues. As the world’s population continues to grow, it cannot hope to cure unemployment—ever– because the dynamic of modern capitalist industry is toward ever larger portions of machine labor replacing human labor. Neither science nor technology can be stopped. And advancing technology naturally makes work production routines continuously more efficient, thereby reducing the need for human workers. This phenomenon can be seen nearly everywhere now (it was always there lurking right under the surface, but remained hidden from most via cultivated ignorance, lies, and the complicity of the media) including in “cheap labor” zones such as India and China, which at last count had more than 150 million unemployed. In many places in Europe one paycheck has to be spread among 2 or even 3 “employed” workers. That means that 2 jobs have vanished and the fiction of smaller unemployment is kept alive by musical chairs, a trick which is becoming increasingly transparent to many.

The American people, in keeping with their reputation as the most misinformed people on the planet, have been the slowest to recognize that as citizens of a clearly fibrillating bourgeois democracy they are perpetually teetering on the brink of fascism. Meanwhile, while the world edges ever closer to the edge, the media–including those revered phonies on the PBS Lehrer Newshour—rarely talk about these things and the politicians even less (both out of sheer ignorance and a sense that such topics are taboo), which enables the cancer to grow unchecked. What we do receive are fictions like those of Robert Reich and his ilk, who go about preaching the pseudocure of “better education” and job retraining for technological unemployment. Reich–a terrifically intelligent fellow—may really believe his own message, but either way, it doesn’t matter because the solution is no solution. This is not to say that under any and all circumstances it’s not better to be educated. However the structural aspects of a capitalist economy at this point make that posture moot: all the titles in the world will not get you a job when the economy says it needs only 5 PhDs and 10 skilled technicians while there are 25,000 PhDs and 15 million technicians clamoring for jobs. (Check out Jeremy Rifkin’s THE END OF WORK, to get a taste of what this is all about).

Those who bank on stopping the slide to fascism through a liberal president are deluding themselves, because the American president is powerful ONLY when he’s playing with the consent of most of the ruling class and the institutions it controls. Such personal power deflates rapidly when playing against the values and consensus of the US power elite, at which point a “rogue president” would likely suffer a wave of opposition that would literally bring them down–via impeachment or through a coup orchestrated during a state of tumult created by capital strikes, agents provocateurs, and the media. Not to mention even a military takeover.

Further, we must recall that the slide to fascism is both a witting and unwitting choice by the bourgeoisie in power. The very essence of capitalism is anarchy: anarchy in production, anarchy in distribution and so on. Military precision may rule the day within each business entity, but from the larger societal perspective there is little coordination, and much waste of resources and human power, inherent in the selfish dynamic of the companies in play. Hence the horrific duplication and waste we see. For example, in the health care sector up to 1/3 of costs are squandered on paper-shuffling and marketing alone. None of this is likely to change until one deals with the fatal flaws of capitalism, which an Obama is about as likely to do as a lion is to go vegetarian.

Remember that FDR’s reforms (FDR representing the classic example of the “savior” liberal president), radical as they seem now (and denounced at the time by many fellow capitalists as sheer communism and rank “class betrayal”) were never such; they were simply realistic measures to save the store that remained at all times totally respectful of the rights of private big business property. Thus FDR never really went deep into the question of workplace democracy, production choices, income distribution, or many other issues that would have meant a true clash of class interests. And WWII of course obscured all that. Sure, FDR entered the war against the Axis, and MOMENTARILY a segment of official propaganda shifted to demonize the Germans and Japanese insteads of the “Reds”, but those were not so much antifascist/anti-imperialist sentiments as nationalist power calculations.


obama-and-bill-clinton-at-democratic-national-convention-2012

The above means that if the ruling cliques deem it necessary to take the “nice mask” of democracy off (a big gamble since they may never restore the “legitimacy” they retain through this ruse), it will happen, no matter who’s nominally in charge at the White House. In the case of the Bush/Cheney duo, they were born to stage the perfect friendly fascist coup and have almost pulled it off in slow motion over the last eight years. But if confronted with a less cooperative president, the power elite would find a way to neutralize him. We’re dealing with a huge cast of actors here, many with colossal stakes, and who have enormous resources at their disposal to create all sorts of mischief, which they have done at taxpayer expense all over the world for years. These criminals will not give up their accustomed ways without a fight. In fact, they will do as Bush/Cheney have done and go on the offensive in a nearly transparent way.

What the world needs—desperately (and we are using this word sans hyperbole here) are dramatic changes in policies and top personnel and new models of advanced democratic enfranchisement. That means real democratic restructuring, proportional representation, certifiable elections, workplace democracy, a disenfranchisement of the power and income rights of the reigning plutocracy, and an effective global program of ecological respect and sanity. Do you see that being initiated under ANY establishment politico, including “Mr. Change” himself? Do you see any of these radical (yet utterly necessary) changes being implemented without a HUGE fight from capital and its affiliated elites around the globe?

Even if, and that is a big if, Obama wanted to institute beneficent change, he would be facing impossible odds. Need proof? Consider one of the ugliest and most absurd contradictions of American capitalism. Despite frontpage acknowledgment by the crypto-fascist WSJ in 1973 that 68% of US Americans supported a universal, single-payer healthcare system, the fact that even fellow capitalist nations have such a system, and the reality that our existing health care system is ruining many capitalists in the US (especially those in the small and middle sectors but even making corporate giants like GM uncompetitive), the health of the masses remains tertiary to the profits of health-care industry giants and to the availability of the gold standard in health care to a relative few. Think Obama and his family don’t have the best medical care known to man?

The American people must de-link themselves from our farcical presidential election circus, turn their eyes to a different kind of electoral politics, leave electoral politics entirely, or develop and field new forms of oppositional struggle. This may and will probably entail the formation of mass mobilization instruments such as a real popular party. In all these tasks, the Democrats like Obama just stand in the way, beguiling the people with illusions and sucking up precious oxygen. That long journey has to be made, and the sooner the better. Trying to avoid the arrival of fascism by appealing to the “good cop” of the bourgeoisie is an illusion; fascism can only be stopped when the masses are organized—and fully aware.

Some think we gain time for such organization under the Democrats. Problem is, the Democrats and their half measures that appear to thwart the capitalist juggernaut are what keeps the masses enthralled with the system and in effect dissuade them from joining the struggle against it. The public will not do what needs to be done until professional and charismatic charlatans like Obama are revealed for what they are. Band-aid solutions by the Democrats will not stop the slide toward the disaster and chaos guaranteed by the dynamics of the system.

Simply look at what has happened with the subprime crisis, an abortion that wriggled and writhed its way directly from the foul womb of a freewheeling, mature, ultra-cynical crony capitalism. It was a deep-rooted phenomenon that happened as inevitably as the transformation of undifferentiated cells into cancers. Politicians could not see it or stop it because that’s not their job under the traditional task distribution of the system.

Obama or anyone else in the establishment can’t cure the myriad ills of capitalism. These ills can never be cured from within or through playing by the accepted rules of the world’s plutocracy. That’s why all American politicians are into tinkering and superficialities. Their programs and “solutions” to the most glaring and obvious aspects of a severely broken system are complex, almost ludicrous Rube Goldberg contraptions (the health system comes to mind yet again). Obama and his fellow liberals are incredible illusionists: they give the people the distinct impression they are acting to cure the very disease that provides the life-blood to the opulent class whose interests they strive so hard to preserve. This would be obvious to most US Americans and the WaPo, the WSJ, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, the NY Times and even the CIA headquarters would have been stoned and razed to the ground already if so many of us were not braindead and kept in that vegetative state by the corporate media, an entity that more aware Latin Americans justly call, the “falsimedia.”

So if Obama–let alone Hillary–won’t and can’t guarantee the defeat of friendly-fascism in America, what’s the point? Sure, Obama very intelligently trades on HOPE. And many people, us included, are always loath to give up on hope. Hope is a powerful drug. Cyrano is in itself a work of HOPE. So this is tricky territory.

But hope must always be tempered with reason, especially in politics and war. And no reasonable human being could conclude that putting Obama at the helm of the USS Titanic will avert disaster for anyone but him and his cronies in the first class berths.

Suddenly Ralph Nader doesn’t sound like such a ridiculous option, unless you’re a plutocrat or a corporado.


ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Patrice Greanville is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s founder and editor in chief. Jason Miller is CJO’s Associate Editor and Editorial Director of Thomas Paine’s Corner, Cyrano’s largest blog.

Further Reading:

(1) Check out radical historian and activist Paul Street’s thorough deconstruction of Obama at: http://www.bestcyrano.org/p.streetonObama2.2.07.htm

(2) For a penetrating analysis of the power structure of our bourgeois democracy, take a look at this excerpt from C Wright Mills’s “Power Elite:” http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Excerpts/HigherCircles_PE.html

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


 

APPENDIX: On the next page we present a great example of modern, p.r. managed, snake oil. Read and see how convincing this kind of oratory can be in the hands of an expert and gifted demagog.


 

Barack Obama’s Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

July 27, 2004 at 12:00 AM EST

TRANSCRIPT

BARACK OBAMA: On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, land of Lincoln, let me express my deep gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention. Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant.

But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place; America which stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before. While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor he signed up for duty, joined Patton’s army and marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised their baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through FHA, and moved west in search of opportunity.

And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter, a common dream, born of two continents. My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or “blessed,” believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich, because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential. They are both passed away now. Yet, I know that, on this night, they look down on me with pride.

I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents’ dreams live on in my precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe or hiring somebody’s son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted — or at least, most of the time.

This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers, and the promise of future generations. And fellow Americans — Democrats, Republicans, Independents — I say to you tonight: we have more work to do. More to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that’s moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father I met who was losing his job and choking back tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn’t have the money to go to college.

Don’t get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don’t expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. That man is John Kerry. John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and sacrifice, because they’ve defined his life. From his heroic service in Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we’ve seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.

John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded. So instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he’ll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home. John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves. John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren’t held hostage to the profits of oil companies or the sabotage of foreign oil fields. John Kerry believes in the constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties nor use faith as a wedge to divide us. And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world, war must be an option, but it should never be the first option.

A while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, 6’2” or 6’3”, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he’d joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. As I listened to him explain why he’d enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us? I thought of more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one’s full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or with nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga.

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper — that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism here — the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don’t talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a mill worker’s son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!

In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead. I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us. America!

Tonight, if you feel the same energy I do, the same urgency I do, the same passion I do, the same hopefulness I do — if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as president, and John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president, and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come. Thank you and God bless you.


 

 

 

 

NOTICE: YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO OUR PERIODICAL BULLETIN) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES.