Barack Obama VS Those Craaaazy Republicans: Is He the Lesser Evil, or the More Effective Evil?

By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

The last refuge of Obamaphiles is that no matter how many times the First Black President double-crosses us by cutting Medicare and Medicaid, no matter how completely be betrays his voters us by ignoring black unemployment, by deporting one million Latinos, by protecting the banksters responsible for the foreclosure crisis and by invading, bombing, occupying and subverting even more countries than the Cheney-Bush regime, his white supremacist tea party opponents are far worse. But what if Democrat Barack and the Republican tea partyers are just playing different positions on the same team?

Barack Obama VS Those Craaaazy Republicans: Is He the Lesser Evil, or the More Effective Evil?

By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

The corporate politician's job is to deliver those voters, those constituencies to their campaign contributors, so they can enact the policies their financiers desire.”

The corporate moguls who run the US empire and its political processes are not fools. So when the Republican party deliberately pushes forward certifiable clowns like Michelle Bachman, Richard Perry, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum as its presidential contenders, we can be certain that matters are not quite what they seem. These pandering lunatics are only inmates of the asylum, which is run by the corporate entities that fund the careers of Democratic and Republic politicians alike --- the energy and insurance industries, corporate media and real estate, military contractors, and of course, Wall Street.

In the words of economist and financial historian Michael Hudson, the job of corporate American politicians is not to enact the policies their voters want. The corporate politician's job is to deliver those voters, those constituencies to their campaign contributors, so they can enact the policies their financiers desire. The fact therefore, that Democrats compared to Republicans, and sometimes even Democrats compared to other Democrats appeal to varied groups of voters accounts for why they sound different from each other. But the fact that they all depend on the same class of wealthy corporations and individuals to finance their political careers means that no matter what they tell their voters, the policies they enact once in office are pretty much the same.

This accounts for the fact that although the Democratic presidential candidate won his nomination by telling voters he opposed the war in Iraq, by the time he sewed up that nomination, he was appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show to praise the war in Iraq and endorse the Cheney-Bush “surge”. It explains why candidate Obama, after promising (but mostly only before labor audiences) to renegotiate NAFTA, walk a picket line and pass legislation that would make more unionization possible, president Obama pushed to extend “free trade” agreements everywhere, cracked down on federal workers, demonized teacher unions and more. It explains why Obama literally claims to walk in Martin Luther King's footsteps when it suits him --- on the campaign trail he declared himself “Joshua” to Dr. King's “Moses” --- but manages to ignore black unemployment and mass incarceration, the wave of foreclosures which are inordinately concentrated among nonwhite households, and maintains the US position as in King's words “...the number one purveyor of violence in the world today.”

Only the First Black President could have disbanded the peace movement and rolled into town promising to “cut entitlements” without provoking a firestorm of protest.”

The 2012 Republican presidential candidates are indeed different from most (but not all) Democrats. They are intolerant religious zealots and Dominionists. They are anti-Muslim and anti-gay bigots, and open white supremacists. Their debate audiences raucously cheer the prospect of more executions and the undeserving poor dying for lack of medical care. But these are all about cultural, not policy differences. What Republicans call “Obamacare” is the same insurance company boondoggle governor Mitt Romney imposed on Massachusetts in the 1990s, and the poor are indeed still dying for lack of care in Massachusetts. The rhetoric Republican candidates use to round up and corral their base voters should not be confused with Republican policy objectives.

Since the forces financing Republicans are the same as those financing Democrats the directors of US political theater have the power to play games with us. For them, Obama is the preferable alternative. Only the First Black President could have disbanded the peace movement and rolled into town promising to “cut entitlements” without provoking a firestorm of protest. Only the First Black President could have accepted a Nobel Peace Prize with a war speech, and invaded an African country without millions of protesters in the street worldwide. Only the First Black President with a strong Democratic majority in Congress could have resumed offshore drilling after the Gulf BP disaster, and blocked any new regulation on the oil industry. Only the First Black President could have given GM back to its managers after sticking the unions with its underfunded health care and pension load. Only candidate Obama could have come in off the campaign trail in September 2008 to whip Democratic votes in the Democrat-dominated congress for the $3 trillion Bush bailout, and only the First black President could have quintupled down on that bailout, giving the banksters $15 trillion more once in office.

From their standpoint, Obama needed, and continues to need two things. First, Obama needs running room to his right. In order for Obama to enact the neoliberal policies of his militarist and bankster sponsors, the policy demands of Republicans had to move further and still further rightward. In other words, he needs Republicans to play crazy and crazier, so that wherever he lands can credibly be claimed to be a little better than what might have been under a Republican regime, even when Obama's position is actually to the right of Bush or Reagan. Secondly, the bankster favorite Obama needs to distract the attention of his voter base with a loud and persistent clamor over cultural issues and sustained furor over instances of personal (but not institutional) racism among Republican candidates and supporters. Like in any production, every actor has a job to do, and everybody does their job.

Having the same class of shot-calling big money contributors means that Republicans and Democrats alike tend to enact the same policies...”

With these elements in place, our Black Misleadership Class and others responsible for marshalling support for the president's re-election effort can, and are already claiming that no matter how bad Obama's policies have been for black people, that we still owe him our unquestioned support because he's running against a pack of fanatical white supremacists. Obama may not be much good, but opposing the right, they will tell us, is fighting the far greater evil. Americans, and especially black Americans, are long accustomed to choosing between greater and lesser political evils.

But does that choice apply in 2012? Probably not. Having the same class of shot-calling big money contributors means that Republicans and Democrats alike tend to enact the same policies, justifying them with different sorts of rhetoric. While we're looking for lesser and greater evils, the real choice is between the less effective and the more effective evil.

When Republicans invade new countries, global public opinion can put millions worldwide in protest demonstrations in the street. When Democrats invade, there are no demonstrations. When Republicans propose social security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and try to regulate unions out of existence, public outcries and near general-strike situations loom. When Democrats do the same, all is quiet. Republicans could not even pass their own bailout bills with a Republican in the White House. So between bigoted, bumbling tea party Republicans, and level-headed, competent corporate Democrats, which is the greater evil? And which is the more effective evil?

Bruce Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report and based in Marietta GA, were he is one of the principals in an internet technology partnership and a state committee member in the Georgia Green Party. He can be reached at [email protected].


Did Glen just endorse Paul?

I noticed that Ron Pauls name was missing from the list of crazy republican candidates.I'm very tempted to vote for him.Any republican who denounes Reagan, as Paul did in the last debate,can't be all bad. To say nothing of his skepticism on the officilal 9-11 story and position on American militarism, and banking.

Currently Paul's the Only Anti-War, Anti-Wall St Bankster & FED

In the absence of Nader, Kucinich [Note- both Kucinich & Nader have shown a willingness to work w Paul on certain issues where they agree IE: ending these wars, & reigning in the FED & the Banksters -&- the MIISC], Sis Cynthia McKinney, etc - Currently Paul is the Only Anti-War, Anti-US Empire, Anti-Wall St Bankster & FED, Anti-Police State Candidate for Pres w a real track record on those positions for either Party -like it or not. Many people don't like Paul because he's 'technically' a GOPer [but many in the GOP & the so-called main-stream media don't seem to like him either], & his positions on limited Gov't - which means he's against Depts of ED, FDA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare, etc -&- I basically disagree w him on those positions -BUT- Corp lobbyists have seized effective control over many of those Depts [IE: the FOXes are guarding the Hen-House] so currently many of those supposed Gov't watch-dog agencies are working in the interests of Corps- NOT the People! And Paul, like most of his peers, expresses a belief in the US & its Constitution - some might think thats a 'good' thing - some probably don't [but if you don't, why even bother voting - especially for Pres who ain't even elected directly by the people's vote anyway]. 

With Ron Paul what you see is about what you get - you have to decide if you can live w it or not. With Obama people thought they were getting a so-called 'liberal-progressive' anti-war candidate. Man were they fooled! So now its the 2nd time around - 'Fool me once Shame on You - But if I let you fool me twice...!'

We as Black folks have got to learn that if we're going to play this Dim vs Repug poly-trickal voting game, seldom, if ever, are we going to find a candidate for US Pres who perfectly [if even closely] represents our interest. All of the Presidents we were taught to revere have a whole mythology built around them [bar none]: The so-called 'Fouding Fathers' [many / most of whom were Slave Owners]; Lincoln the 'Abolitionist Pres' [NOT]- leading to the GOP being at one time called the Party of Lincoln- to which Blacks were faithful to for 6 decades; then FDR [the Dems became known as the Party of FDR's 'New Deal'] who was an Elitist & definitely showed a racist side w the wholesale detention of Japanese-Americans on the West coast [NO so such detention for German & Italian- Americans of the East-Coast]; JFK & RFK [this week's piece by Sis Margaret Kimberley cuts into the myth about the Kennedys supposedly being 'civil rights champions'], Slick Willie [who some Blacks once called the 1st 'Black Pres' - Mr 'I Feel You Pain'- as he pushed NAFTA, fake well-fare reform, de-Regged the Wall St Banksters, contributed to the Rwandan & Congo Genocides & helped maintain Haiti's Misery] & now Obama. It seems that Blacks voted for these guys based on the [manipulated] loyalty of our hearts- as much, if not more so, whether it made actual tactical-strategic sense [based on Real research into what type of guys they Truly were - not just going on their poly-trickal hype]. Well, unless a TRUE [IE: Not phony - ala Obama] Progressive steps up to the plate. maybe its time to vote tactically rather emotionally - or simply give-up on this phony 2-Party Dim vs Repug merry-go-round & just not vote at all - especially in the presidential race!

I vote for the latter.

Meaning forget about the dog & pony show "elections", they're meaningless and a waste of time. Because not only will there be no candidate that we're allowed to vote for who perfectly or even closely matches our interests, there will be no candidate that can even remotely be expected to enact any sort of a progressive agenda. That's the way the system is designed to work I'm afraid. If there was a candidate who actually represented a real alternative to the Republicrat "good cop/bad cop" routine he or she would present a mortal threat to the billionaire ruling elite which is why said candidates are never on the ballot. The only ones that the rich will fund and back with the corporate-owned media megaphones are ones that are guaranteed to already be in their hip pocket since before you or I had ever heard of them. The only reason we're even allowed to vote in this country (and I mean any of us, African-American, white, Latino, Asian, whatever) is because it won't make a damn bit of difference to us or to the wealthy. We are essentially picking the toady of the billionaires that we trust the most, the one that "speaks to us" and is most effective at lying convincingly to us. That ain't worth getting out of bed for.

All that American elections are are just an elaborate, expensive puppet show put on every few years to make the average citizen feel like they have some kind of a say in what governs them. It allows the elite to have the best of both worlds: all the stability and predictability of any military dictatorship combined with a thin veneer (though thick enough to fool tens of millions of rubes every few years!) of democracy to placate the non-wealthy masses, make us feel like we have some kind of  a connection with the (billionaires' puppet) government and give good P.R. in the international scene, portraying this awful, racist, murdering, torturing, fascist police state as some kind of nation that cares about the well-being of its slaves, er, citizens enough to let them decide on their rulers.

Voting for any candidate in this country, whether a mainstream Republicrat like Obama or Romney or one of the controlled "outsider" candidates like Ron Paul (who is a devotee of the soulless Ayn Rand by the way) or the castrated Dennis Kucinich, is nothing but an endorsement of the fake slate of choices we are given. It is saying "Yes, I'm dumb enough to have not yet figured out that no matter who I vote for they're all playing for the same team, the wealthy elite, not the average American, and to show my ignorance and my approval of the "choices" I'm being given I'm casting my vote for one or the other." Voting is precisely what the elite want us to do. What they clearly don't want us to do is boycott elections, take to the streets, occupy major cities and shut this rotten shit heap of a country down until radical changes are effected. Remember, the people in Egypt and Tunisia and Yemen didn't overthrow their corrupt, unrepresentative governments by voting for this or that elite-approved candidate.

Your Points Are Well Taken & The Future Looks Bleak-

Because too many Blacks are still mesmerized by Obama, who has given Rush Limp-Balls & Newt Grinch-witch hard-core FOX types just what they called for - A failed Presidency - [based on Bush Jr's 3rd Term - IE: COG- Continuity of Gov't]. And too many white folks are either phony 'liberal-progessives' who are actually Obama-Dim apologists & enablers, or Tea-Bagger White Nationalists [IE: racists] who rather 'shoot themselves in the foot' &' cut off their own nose to spite their face' - just for the chance to 'stick-it' to Blacks & Browns [or even white progressives for that matter] - all of which of course plays right into the hands of the Power Elites - [who are convinced {w good reason} they can control so many whites by "Playing the 'Race-Card' "]. 

And I understand your point about Paul & Kucinich being inside - 'outsiders' - the biggest clue to that is they still are  operating inside the GOP & Democrat parties [NOTE: Some have suggested that Paul is a racist- IMHO I think Paul is about as racist as Joe Biden, Billary, Harry Reid & Joe Lieberman!]. 

Even when it looks like there might be a popular up-rising against the status-quo [IE: People of WI vs Scott Walker]- when people were calling for a general-strike to shut the system down & shake it up big-time - That energy got diverted & distracted to calling for a recall vote- from which WI's Dems might have benefitted- except it failed to change the balance of power from Repug to Dims [IE: the WI Dems poly-trickal ploy didn't work out for them]. What it did do was distract the populous sentiment of WI's people from action to poly-tricks. 

For those 'conscious' folk who insist on voting - they need to do something to shake up this phony 'liberal vs conservative' Dem vs GOP 2 Party poly-trickal paradigm [box = trap]. To do that you need a situation where both the designated Corp Dim & Repug together receive less than 50% of the officially counted votes [IE: the corp controlled 2 party duopoly fails to get a majority]. That means voting for a real [not phony hyped] independent &/or Standardizing write-in voting nationa-wide so you can write-in someone / anyone of your choice [even yourself]- if you find none of the known candidates acceptable. The tipping point would be if the independents & write-ins together get over 50% of the 'official' vote count & thus both the Dims & Repug Corp 'main-stream' guys TOGETHER get less than 50% of that vote [IE: Dims & Repugs put together: 49%, 45%, 40%... - Everyone Else: 51%, 55%, 60%...]! That might begin the shake things up a bit, at-least it could put the status-quo in a bit of a dilema & possible grid-lock, which likely would be a significant improvement over whats occurring w this phony Corp controlled Dim vs Repug good-cop vs bad-cop poly-trickal theater of the absurd!     

BUT Of Course- This will never happen if most Blacks are still stuck on 'Obama & Dims Stupid' along w phony 'progressive' talking-head Dim apologists / enablers, & Hard-core FOX Tea-Bagger types - locking everyone into the status-quo!      

I'm Bruce, not Glen

and no.... I just forgot to mention Ron Paul, although the incident in which a Repub debate audience cheered the imaginary death of someone who hadn't bought health insurance they were applauding Ron Paul's answer to a question.

Paul is just about as batshit crazy as the rest of them, and easily as much of a white supremacist.

Please - language counts: "crazy" for political opponents is Ame

rican as apple pie and racism, and nasty consequences for people who are mentally ill/mentally disabled (stereotyping).  And I noticed that the blog was written by you, Mr. Dixon, when I read the comment to which you reply.  I very much liked the blog posting contents with the exception of calling political ideologues "crazy".  It's been in use since at least Lincoln's Presidential election campaign (as mentioned in David Herbert Donald's We Are Lincoln Men, 2003). 

And a small check is in the mail, because I appreciate being able to post comments on this website (one of the few places that I do), as well as supporting this venue as I can.

Ron Paul is an economic darwinist

His   views  on the  safety new ( minimum  wage,  health care,  etc.)  are  scary;  it  would  be  survival  of  the  fittest.

However, I  would  vote  for   Ron  Paul.  For  the  vast  majority of  Americans,  President   Paul  would  be  a  disaster; for  the  rest  of  the  world, MILLIONS of lives  would  be  saved in  Iraq, Afghan.,  Pakistan , Libya, etc.


Mr. Obama never changes. He is and has always been predisposed to denigrate Blacks and to worship Whites. I noticed that during his recent tour of his European "homeland", not once did Mr. Obama feel the need to lecture Europeans about their cultural or character defects or about anything else. He had nothing but love for a collection of cultures which have contributed more than their share to the misery of the peoples of this planet. He did find time, and the need to priaise Anglo-Saxonism while he was in Britain, in spite of its dubious history in dealing with both the Irish and African halves of his family tree. Don't expect him to lecture Jews or Israeilis about their complaining and grumbling about anti-semetism, or crying about the Holocaust either. 

Like most American and Western "leaders" President Obama is steeped in the ethos of White supremacy and has fully embraced the ideas of White entitlement and the belief that only Whites can claim legitimate status as victims of historical events and receive the reparations which come with that "sacred" status. In spite of this, he will always have the blind, unswerving support of the majority of the Black population in this country, and when he leaves office, they will pack his book signing and speaking tours, further enriching him and polishing his image as some kind of Black icon.

Other do-nothing, self-serving Black politicians will ape the Obama model to get elected and re-elected, thus saddling us with the disease of Obamaism for years to come.

Cornel West is calling for a primary challenge to obama:

But we here think that CORNEL WEST himself would be an attractive candidate! And we would like to see CORNEL WEST RUN TO BEAT OBAMA! Not to "correct and protect him."

Draft Cornel West 4 President 2012

Contact here:

WEST 2012... Obama must be defeated!

Maxine Waters: Obama remarks 'curious'

“I found that language a bit curious because the president spoke to the Hispanic Caucus and certainly they are pushing him on immigration and despite the fact that he's appointed [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, he has an office for excellence in Hispanic education right in the White House, they’re still pushing him and he certainly didn’t tell them to stop complaining,” she said.

“And he never would say that to the gay and lesbian community who really pushed him on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Or even in a speech to AIPAC, he would never say to the Jewish community ‘stop complaining’ about Israel.”

Waters appeared on CNN later on Monday morning, saying she did not take Obama’s words “as an attack.”

“It was not as if I took it as an attack,” she said. “I took it as having been successful and getting the president to talk about the joblessness in the African-American community. Many of those people in the room are civil rights people who have marched, who have worked. We don’t have bedroom slippers. We’ve been out there for years doing this kind of thing.”

“So we take it that he just kind of got off the teleprompter a little bit and got fired up,” she added.

On MSNBC’s “NewsNation” Monday afternoon, Waters again said, “I think he got carried away, got off script and got a little beside himself.”

“But I certainly don’t believe that he thinks that the Congressional Black Caucus is sitting around in house slippers or bed slippers or whatever the things are. I don’t own them and I don’t understand the image being described there,” she said.

Waters added that “I don’t think he really meant that, and we’re not going to hold it against him.”

But Waters also said, “I think the president can get to know the Black Caucus a lot better. I think there should be more interaction. I think we should work on strategies together. I think there’s a lot of room for a lot more cooperation, and I think the president wants to do that.”