From Kennedy to Obama: Liberalism's Last Fling- John Pilger

From Kennedy to Obama: Liberalism's last fling
29 May 2008



Writing in the New Statesman, John Pilger refers back to his travels with Robert Kennedy to describe the false hopes offered by those, like Barack Obama, who exploit the appeal of liberalism then present a very different reality.

...

Kennedy’s campaign is a model for Barack Obama. Like Obama, he was a senator with no achievements to his name. Like Obama, he raised the expectations of young people and minorities. Like Obama, he promised to end an unpopular war, not because he opposed the war’s conquest of other people’s land and resources, but because it was “unwinnable”.

Should Obama beat John McCain to the White House in November, it will be liberalism’s last fling. In the United States and Britain, liberalism as a war-making, divisive ideology is once again being used to destroy liberalism as a reality. A great many people understand this, as the hatred of Blair and new Labour attest, but many are disoriented and eager for “leadership” and basic social democracy. In the US, where unrelenting propaganda about American democratic uniqueness disguises a corporate system based on extremes of wealth and privilege, liberalism as expressed through the Democratic Party has played a crucial, compliant role.

...

The vacuities are familiar. Obama is his echo. Like Kennedy, Obama may well “chart a new direction for America” in specious, media-honed language, but in reality he will secure, like every president, the best damned democracy money can buy.

...

What is Obama’s attraction to big business? Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy’s. By offering a “new”, young and apparently progressive face of the Democratic Party – with the bonus of being a member of the black elite – he can blunt and divert real opposition. That was Colin Powell’s role as Bush’s secretary of state. An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent.

...

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=489

while some of his observations may be true, I'd think his pessimism could drive folks crazy.

by pessimism?

I've always found Pilger to be one of the most perceptive and grounded of journalists on the planet.

Tick tock, tick tock.

drivel that Limbaugh, Rove, et al say...we're still going strong.

"T.Ruth2power". Brilliant disguise.

I hate to think where else you post to spew your hatred.

I don't think ripping Bobby Kennedy here on DU will get you far. Or Obama, anymore. Go crawl into your hole. You're finished, and you know it.

You seem upset by what Pilger has asserted.

What points in the article bothered you or are you not interested in such "nonsense" as words from one of the world's most renowned journalists but only in your personal attacks?

"World's Most Renowned Journalists." OK. I get it now. Here's a Big Picture to put over your pillow.

You are obviously being a reactionary.

nor is he a conservative fascist. We just need someone who is balanced and who has commonsense.

Obama is not 'Liberal', he is more grounded in reality I think.

Are you saying 'liberals' are not grounded in reality?

And are you also implying that Obama is to the right of what we consider to be liberal?

The way the word 'liberal' is used by some as a negative, is what I mean by 'Liberal'.

Yes, I think Obama is going to be far more centered then lean one way or the other.

Good god.

Liberalism is all about compromise to corporations and moneyed elites. Band-aid measures to keep unrest down and prevent real change (the people taking power away from the corporations and the wealthy) from ever happening.

if they and Obama fail to deliver on real change I seriously doubt the left will fall silent.

They come back with their own young Turks, candidates young enough to make Obama look old, the ones who have been waiting for the BFEE to relinquish its grip on the Republican party and its power.

Two years to make a difference or goodbye.

But, seriously, he sounds so much like Nader...and Tim McVeigh, if it comes to that. Hoping horrible stuff will force us to rise up and overthrow our shackles.

But Obama as a Great Liberal Hope is laughable and always was. Another reason I preferred Hillary. Not being the subject of idolatry meant it would legitimate to question her policies and legislation. With Obama? The smallest disagreement means you're a racist fascist. That ain't good for democracy.

We made a bad choice but we are going to have to live with it.

She'd be much more effective in the Senate.

Not.



I am not as impressed with John Pilger as you, perhaps because I grew up having him around. While he is an excellent writer and has great personal integrity, he's too much of a crusader for my taste; once one outrage is played out or resolved, it's onto the next. This in itself is not unworthy, but Pilger's problem (as a journalist) is that he's only able to criticise. He knows people read his stuff to get fired up and annoyed, so Pilger will never, ever tell you about When government Gets It Right.

The above is a prime example; it starts with the thesis that America is the devourer of nations, and then tries to build a theory that Obama is the new smiley face logo above the devouring mechanism (but without the tedious chore of actually addressing his policies).

As for the New Statesman...well, let me put it this way, it's heart is in the right place.

some specifics?

Pilger is pretty consistent in covering colonialism in all it's forms if that's what you mean.

What aspects of American foreign policy over the last 80 years do you find admirable?

How do you think Obama embodies these admirable aspects of US foreign policy?

Your last sentence is rather condescending.

I sense from your tone you're looking for things to pick at. Why waste time writing several paragraphs on why I think, say, engagement with China turned out to be a good idea when you'll just come back with a 1 or 2-line (non)rebuttal, of the form 'Oh, then I guess you approve of (bad thing) too?'?

I find the New Statesman rather condescending itself. I think it would serve its readers better if it concentrated a little more on informing its readers and letting them make up their own minds.

What the industrialists and bankers have established in America will take decades to dismantle if it is even possible without a violent revolution akin to France 1789.

One president can't do it alone. To think so is truly an exercise in "false hope."

People want something different, but I doubt the people have come to the point where they could articulate a direction that isn't any further left than Obama, simply because people disagree on policy, and Obama is the best they can do given the lack of information and outright misinformation the corporate news outlets have pumped out over generations.

I wish my life was as "devoid of accomplishments" as young Robert Kennedy's or Sen. Obama's. :eyes:

But that being said, there is some truth to the article. I don't know if the writer is coming from a place of opposing liberalism from the right or the left, but he does expose the inherent weakness of liberalism, which is that it seeks to protect and ensconce moneyed elites while paying lip service to progressive ideals with a few symbolic scraps -things like "Unpaid Family Leave" or "Don't Ask Don't Tell", while the money elite agenda items of bombing Iraq or passing NAFTA pass with little more than a whimper from the left.

Of course, many of us know that Obama is no liberal, nor was Clinton - there hasn't been a liberal in office since at least Johnson, and even he was a mixed bag.

Obama is clearly a status quo candidate, despite all of his "change" rhetoric. The only "change" will be the immense sigh of relief that we are no longer under the control of the most corrupt and incompetent cabal to ever steer our country. But even that counts for a lot. The last 8 years have been very traumatic for our country. McCain would mean 4 more years of an uninterrupted onslaught on the the middle and working-class and probably more pointless wars. We desperately need a break and to refocus on rebuilding our own country. He may not be a true liberal, but hopefully he will be able to better refocus our energies in these directions.

There was always something that kicked the US back onto the wrong track and off the right track whenever the US did find the right track. It's almost like saying water is wet or the sky is blue. The rich have it too good not to let it go. I'm talking about the rich being those in the top one percent of income earners in this country.

They will concede nothing unless they are forced to give it up, and the last president who tried that was almost overthrown by the same industrialists he taxed to pay for the New Deal.

For every Wagner Act, there's a Taft-Hartley Act that gets passed.

I'm not saying change for the better is impossible, but history seems to favor entropy.

...but looking back on the Clinton years, even though they represented no more than a lull in the continued rampage of Reaganomics, psychologically they were good times, and there was at least SOME measurable improvement in conditions for the poor and working people during the period.

We have spent 7 white-knuckle years with one bad thing after another happening, and instead of trying to heal us (as Clinton did after the OKC bombings) Bush has done nothing but stoke fear and anger and stifle discourse. It's almost impossible to expect ANYTHING to be achieved in this atmosphere.

I think the change in tone will make a significant difference in the country's mood and direction, even if Obama's policies on paper are hardly any different than Clinton's.


Of course, getting Obama elected will be no easy task. I think resistance to a black president is still a lot higher than many recognize. It's good that Obama is so charismatic - he'll need every drop of charisma he's got to overcome the right-wing attack machine and voter bias.

NAFTA and the Telecom Act of 1996 showed where Clinton's bread and butter lay. And the replacement of AFDC with TANF coined the phrase "working poor." The 1990s saw median wages stagnate compared to gains seen in the previous 40 years. Of course, that's not entirely Clinton's fault, since Congress was opposed to him most of the time, and Reaganomics was carried by the majority Repubs, but where it counted such as with free trade or telecommunications regulation, he let them pass when he should've blocked and fought. Clinton is better than GWB, but he wasn't the man to put this country in the right direction.

Until things get so bad that people rise up and utterly overthrow the present form of government, I think our choices will be status-quo republicanlike democrats vs. full-tilt privatizing/warmongering/police-state-expanding repugs. I just think that right-wing truisms like "small government" and "the private sector does everything better because of competition" and "consumer choices=freedom" and voters as consumers rather than citizens have taken hold so strongly in people's minds that the electorate are almost hopeless. Eventually, enough people will be impoverished by the way things are going that a backlash is inevitable, but by that point I don't think that elections will reflect the people's sentiments anymore.

I don't know - we'll see, but I really have no faith in the system anymore, so I'll be happy to take a lull in the nightmare until the real shit hits the fan, so to speak.

Democracies, historically, are suicidal. They weaken, atrophy, decay, and then they vote themselves out of existence and become dictatorships and oligarchies, and the process is reset when the whole edifice is removed by the people, typically and unfortunately in very violent fashion, and the process starts over again.

for our present difficulties.

I am now vocally supporting Obama, but I don't think he represents "real" change. In fact, I wrote a blog six months ago about all the Obama/Kennedy comparisons, and concluded that I hope he ISN'T the next JFK. JFK invaded a sovereign Cuba; authorized the use of napalm in Vietnam; etc., etc., etc.

He's certainly better than a Republican, but - Pilger is right.

He actually went after the really bad guys. And his visits to places like Appalachia were a real eye-opener for him.