No Dog in this Fight

by P Jerome

"We are given the
‘choice' between John ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' McCain and Barack ‘Threats in 100
different countries' Obama."

For those of us who are antiwar, anti-government
spying, anti-torture/rendition, and in favor of improving the lives of working
people, this election season has been a nightmare. Most presidential elections
are awful -- months/years of commercials, punditry, and lying -- but this year
is particularly terrible.

Contrary to the accepted "wisdom" of the electoral experts, Americans
are not so divided as we might seem. More than 80 percent of us oppose the war
in Iraq, with the majority wanting immediate withdrawal (not
"redeployment"). Larger majorities want an end to government
wiretapping (and vociferously opposed the wiretapping immunity bill), a
scaled-back military budget, and universal health care that excludes the insurance
industry. Further, almost no one outside the beltway or the NY financial
district bought into the "crisis" that mandated a $850 billion
bailout for Wall Street.

These are not complicated positions, but we are given the "choice"
between John "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain and Barack "Threats
in 100 different countries" Obama. McCain is beyond the pale for any but
the proto-fascists among us, and even they have reservations about his health
and sanity. But to question whether the potential ascension of "Saint
Barack" is a good thing, to put into the play of questions of his
militarism and support for authoritarianism at home, or to outright oppose his
candidacy based on lies and war-mongering, is to invite the wrath of the
"good liberal" majority.

"Mr. Obama has based his
candidacy no less on fear and militarism than the dreaded Republicans."

Beginning with his 2004 convention speech when he called for "missile
strikes" against Iran and Pakistan, through his 2008 convention speech
imploring America to recognize the "threats of tomorrow," Mr. Obama
has based his candidacy no less on fear and militarism than the dreaded
Republicans. After explaining to a liberal friend that Mr. Obama called
for an additional 92,000 troops for the military, for expansion of the genocide
in Afghanistan into Pakistan, and an accelerated war on terror in 100 countries
(up from Cheney's 60-country target list), she simply nodded and said,
"This is what you have to say to get elected." Say what?

I see. To appeal to the mass of the electorate, you have to take positions they
oppose. This twisted "logic" would also seem to include supporting
the Wall Street bailout and the wiretapping bill, in which Obama invested
significant time and energy. In my naivete, I thought that any compromise
geared toward "winning the election" by this logic meant taking
populist positions that a candidate might otherwise not adopt. Yet here, Mr.
Obama takes anti-populist positions to...win the election?

A candidate for office can only be judged on what he/she says he believes and
says he will do, and on his/her track record. We have nothing else. In the case
of Obama, we are supposed to believe he says and acts on motives other than his
core beliefs for unstated other reasons. This is, I respectfully submit,
nonsense.

"Obama's vision is of an imperial America on the
march, waging war in pursuit of unspecified ‘threats' with a bigger, better
managed military."

More Stories