FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

After the Obama Betrayal

From The New York Times to The Huffington Post, from Counterpunch.org to The Nation, the outcry is the same:  Obama is not the man he presented himself to be.

As he now panders to seemingly any right-wing group that can fill a room, his staff is arranging fundraisers where the cover charge is $30,000.  Bob Herbert of the NYT echos the “disillusion” of “many of Obama’s strongest supporters who are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry.”

Across the progressive spectrum, the consensus is that Obama has abandoned any prospect for a transformational presidency, breathed life into a moribund and discredited right-wing, and incomprehensibly placed his very election at risk.

Most crucially, Obama has made the utterly cynical calculation that there is no price to be paid for abandoning his base, that the mantra of Anybody But Bush seamlessly melds into Anybody But McCain, that progressives will simply surrender.

So sure is Obama that progressives will bear any insult that he has taken to channeling the odious Jeanne Kirkpatrick of the Reagan era, denouncing those “counter-culturalists” who opposed the imperial wars from Vietnam to El Salvador and Nicaragua as the “blame America” crowd.

If Obama’s analysis of progressives is correct, we can expect another depressing campaign, what Herbert calls “the terminal emptiness of politics as usual,” followed by a presidency that honors right-wing ideology while serving corporate power.

But what if Obama is wrong?  What if progressives have a breaking point?  We have seen a revolt against Obama’s FISA/Telecom betrayal play out on Obama’s website, but the candidate has already responded to those dismayed supporters by essentially blowing them off.  Is this a “deal-breaker,” he asks, as if to say, “What are you going to do about it?”

There are some who suggest doing something.  John Nichols of The Nation suggests a coordinated push to get Ralph Nader into a debate with Obama and McCain.  Google and YouTube are sponsoring a debate in New Orleans this fall, and the bar is set at 10% support.  Nader is at 6% according to CNN, and those who would vote for him if he were competitive was 14% in a recent Fox poll.  It is vastly easier to go from 14% to 30% than to go from nothing to 14%.

Nader would be — to say the least — a formidable presence in any debate.  Once one gets beyond the caricature of Nader promoted by the political establishment, one sees a candidate who has intimate knowledge of every aspect of our corporate government, because we learn about an institution not by yielding to it, but by opposing it, something Nader alone has done for decades.  Further, he is a man who has never flattered us, never pandered to our baser instincts and never lied to us.

The prospect of such a debate would get Obama’s attention; the reality of it might shift the center of our politics as nothing else holds the promise of doing.

For those who do not wish to go gently, there is an alternative.

GREGORY KAFOURY is a trial lawyer and political activist in Portland, Oregon.  He can be reached at kafoury@kafourymcdougal.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
April 19, 2018
Ramzy Baroud
Media Cover-up: Shielding Israel is a Matter of Policy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail