Strange Obama rhetoric

[BlackCapital]

To put it plainly, I am having a lot of internal conflict on trying to predict what exactly Obama's agenda is. In many respects his rhetoric seems like an only slightly improved version of W.'s, mainly when talking about situations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Gaza, Russia, ect.

The part that doesn't add up to me is his statements about economics and making subtle nods to inequality and class. Some of his quotes to give an idea of what I'm talking about:

"a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous"

“And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.”

I still maintain the belief that he is a reactionary capitalist, at best a reformist, but assuming that is the case why the hell is he using this kind of rhetoric? Is it really beneficial to him and his administration to bring these taboo issues up if he has no intention of confronting them?

[redguard2009]

What is even stranger to me is Obama's actions now that he's President.

Within a day of becoming President he has declared his intention to shut down Guantanamo Bay. And perhaps strangest of all, Obama's very first international call to a foreign dignitary was to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. His first call, as in, here he is now, leader of the United States, and his first inkling is to phone up Abbas and chat. Israel, too, has completely withdrawn all its forces from Gaza. This seems a very far cry from just a week ago when the US administration was intent on sitting back and allowing Israel to "do what it needs to do".

There's no doubt that Obama is still a representative of the ruling class, the ambitions if capitalism, so on and so forth. He will do nothing to challenge the monopoly on state power held by corporate interests. But he seems intent on tugging the US away from the brink of absolute right-wing tyranny and aligning it with more traditional liberal-social-democratic trends.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I still maintain the belief that he is a reactionary capitalist, at best a reformist, but assuming that is the case why the hell is he using this kind of rhetoric? Is it really beneficial to him and his administration to bring these taboo issues up if he has no intention of confronting them?

He uses that type of rhetoric to appeal to the masses that voted him in. To give the illusion that something has drastically changed. I think you wont be surprised when you find that his rhetoric is just that, and he has no substance or realistic proposals for any type of real change. Its not really beneficial to the Democratic party nor the state itself, its simply for their "image". Obama likes to keep his image of a charismatic leader who's going to "change" everything.

[Enragé]

if he had phoned Hamas, that would've been a change. Now he just phoned a collaborator of Israel.

Anyway, Obama is more right-wing than the VVD (liberals of the european kind, pro-business, pro-unbridled capitalism and authoritarian) over here, he will bring no change at all... unless people are going to hold him to his rhetoric. What is necessary in the US is a mass movement.

[Plagueround]

The very idea of an Obama presidency, from the very start, was to reign in the obvious excesses of the Bush era. America has been behaving in the same manner for some time, and for the most part the people weren't aware of it or didn't care. The Bush gang's only real crime as far American polictians are concerned was doing too much in too short of a time and getting caught (or not bothering to hide things).

If Obama makes a series of adjustments that look progressive, it will give his supporters the impression that we're heading in a new "21st century" direction, when really all we're doing is just steering the ship back to it's old course (or perhaps just slowing it back down a bit).

[BlackCapital]

You're absolutely right about the need of a mass movement. If Obama can be backed into a corner by the popular reinforcement of his own claims, then the capitalists days will be numbered.

I understand the "change" and PR bullshit of taking the country in a new direction completely, but I still find it very weird(unwise) of him to bring up class issues and acknowledging the exploitation and devastation of other countries because of the U.S. and presumably its allies. I don't think I've ever heard of anything like that come from a top tier of U.S. government and I don't understand why he would be so blatant about it.

My point is, its one thing to say Bush was awful and its time for a new direction, and quite another to say this country needs to stop serving the rich and exploiting other countries. Why would he say that if he has no intention of doing that? Why even put that idea in the publics head?

[Enragé]

if he hadnt brought up class issues etc. he wouldnt have become president, simply because those issues are impacting people's lives.

[BlackCapital]

During his campaign he didn't really bring up class issues like the ones he has recently been eluding to. He spoke a lot about helping small business and the working man/family and typical democrat bullshit with a little twist.

[RebelDog]

if he hadnt brought up class issues etc. he wouldnt have become president, simply because those issues are impacting people's lives.

Class issues ie 'real issues' are traditionally not brought up in elections among candidates for fear of alarming the business elite to whom candidates are really addressing.

[punisa]

Why don't we simply wait for a month or two and see what's really going on. Almost every party involved already made firm judgement about Obama, especially this left oriented community.

To media he is the saviour and the most charismatic individual ever.

And here majority of leftists already tagged him as a "corporate pawn" using slick skills like oratory, PR and lame advertising to accomplish the goals of his fat capitalist masters.

I say hold on, let the man do stuff. He won, democratically, now let's see what he's all about.

Don't be fooled, you can NOT even be in politics if you're not rubbing the backs of fat corporate bastards, imagine how many promises he had to give them to get this far. He even wrote about it in his book I believe.

But who knows, maybe he was faking the whole thing. I always thought that the slickest way to rule would be to trick this business jerks into thinking that you're one of their players and once being elected - change the story :lol:

So he says that exploitation must stop. He addresses this at the probably the most watched event in decades, 90% of the world watched the inauguration.
If he said that in some interview or something, ok... but he spoke about it when he was sure everyone was listening.

Pardon me for criticizing, but majority of you have become very clinical lately.
Give Barack a break, don't treat him like god given hero thou, let us monitor closely on what he says and what he does. Very soon we'll be able to have some real arguments upon which we can judge his presidency.

So far I'm pleased.
I just didn't like the fact that 150 million $ was spent on inauguration and the fact that he just memorized the speech that wasn't even written by him, but I guess that's just the "american" way :(

[Charles Xavier]

He's just saying in his speech what people want to here, he's a salesman he's trying to sell you a vision of US Imperialism to save US Imperialism. And lets pretend Obama is a hardcore communist. His party isn't the senate and the congress won't go along with it.

[Dimentio]

Why don't we simply wait for a month or two and see what's really going on. Almost every party involved already made firm judgement about Obama, especially this left oriented community.

To media he is the saviour and the most charismatic individual ever.

And here majority of leftists already tagged him as a "corporate pawn" using slick skills like oratory, PR and lame advertising to accomplish the goals of his fat capitalist masters.

I say hold on, let the man do stuff. He won, democratically, now let's see what he's all about.

Don't be fooled, you can NOT even be in politics if you're not rubbing the backs of fat corporate bastards, imagine how many promises he had to give them to get this far. He even wrote about it in his book I believe.

But who knows, maybe he was faking the whole thing. I always thought that the slickest way to rule would be to trick this business jerks into thinking that you're one of their players and once being elected - change the story :lol:

So he says that exploitation must stop. He addresses this at the probably the most watched event in decades, 90% of the world watched the inauguration.
If he said that in some interview or something, ok... but he spoke about it when he was sure everyone was listening.

Pardon me for criticizing, but majority of you have become very clinical lately.
Give Barack a break, don't treat him like god given hero thou, let us monitor closely on what he says and what he does. Very soon we'll be able to have some real arguments upon which we can judge his presidency.

So far I'm pleased.
I just didn't like the fact that 150 million $ was spent on inauguration and the fact that he just memorized the speech that wasn't even written by him, but I guess that's just the "american" way :(

Not speaking about Obama, but if I was to get an executive office, or even a work in a department, I would down-tone my radicalism several degrees, at least when I am speaking with my interviewers.

[punisa]

Not speaking about Obama, but if I was to get an executive office, or even a work in a department, I would down-tone my radicalism several degrees, at least when I am speaking with my interviewers.

Exactly my point:thumbup1:

[cyu]

When you're in the middle of an economic collapse, you have to either bring about drastic policy changes in order to save capitalism, or bring about drastic policy changes in order to save the economy. In either case, you need to convince people that drastic changes are needed - so it doesn't really matter whether you're pro or anti-capitalist, you still have to convince people of the need for big changes.

Obama obviously is trying to pave the way for big changes, but whether it's to "save capitalism" (which was the goal of Keynes) or not, you can't tell what's going on inside his head. And even if he wanted one thing, that doesn't mean other politicians and media organizations are going to let him do it.

Of course, no matter which side he's on, he realizes that if he does nothing, then capitalism will collapse and will be replaced by something he doesn't have a hand in.

[Forward Union]

I still maintain the belief that he is a reactionary capitalist, at best a reformist, but assuming that is the case why the hell is he using this kind of rhetoric?

Because it's popular.

Next.

[Psy]

When you're in the middle of an economic collapse, you have to either bring about drastic policy changes in order to save capitalism, or bring about drastic policy changes in order to save the economy. In either case, you need to convince people that drastic changes are needed - so it doesn't really matter whether you're pro or anti-capitalist, you still have to convince people of the need for big changes.

Obama obviously is trying to pave the way for big changes, but whether it's to "save capitalism" (which was the goal of Keynes) or not, you can't tell what's going on inside his head. And even if he wanted one thing, that doesn't mean other politicians and media organizations are going to let him do it.

Of course, no matter which side he's on, he realizes that if he does nothing, then capitalism will collapse and will be replaced by something he doesn't have a hand in.

It is also a saftey value for worker frustrations, Obama and his advisers are not stupid, they know the massive layoffs is creating a large powder keg that the US ruling class really doesn't want to go off, as long as the masses put their trust in Obama the US ruling class doesn't have to deal with growing frustration of the US working class.

[BlackCapital]

Because it's popular.

Next.

No, I really don't think that kind of rhetoric is popular, in the U.S. at least. Generally liberals don't even touch on class injustices and the obvious exploitation of other countries. These are subjects that just aren't brought up and for very purposeful reasons. Brought up so little that most of the public is offended or doesn't even know about them.

I agree with punisa, I am going to refrain from speculating about Obama and his intentions till I get a better grasp on him. I think theres a lot more to this then we're assuming (not sure if its good or bad however).

[DaughterJones]

To put it plainly, I am having a lot of internal conflict on trying to predict what exactly Obama's agenda is. In many respects his rhetoric seems like an only slightly improved version of W.'s, mainly when talking about situations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Gaza, Russia, ect.

The part that doesn't add up to me is his statements about economics and making subtle nods to inequality and class. Some of his quotes to give an idea of what I'm talking about:

"a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous"

“And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.”

I still maintain the belief that he is a reactionary capitalist, at best a reformist, but assuming that is the case why the hell is he using this kind of rhetoric? Is it really beneficial to him and his administration to bring these taboo issues up if he has no intention of confronting them?

It is absolutely beneficial to the Obama admin to appear to be aware of the class struggle especially in times like these where people are losing there jobs while ceo's fly around in private jets begging for money. People are starting to become more and more aware of the fact that the government works for the major corporation and they want to feel they can trust the governement. Obama is a smart man and he knows that which is why he is paying lip service to the working class. I doubt he will actually turn it about in a real and meaningful way but there may be slight improvements. People need to stop worshipping him as the answer and start asking questions. That should have been the lesson we took away from the post 9-11 bush admin.

[ZeroNowhere]

All I see in those quotes is, "Fuck Bush."

[eyedrop]

Politicians retoric doesn't mean shit. Our present government promised, in the Soria Moria declaration (2005), to abolish poverty and reduce the difference between people in society. Surprisingly enough they didn't follow it up worth squat. (I'll grant them that unemployment has actually fallen since 2005, but that can just as well be attributed to the high oil prices the previous years. I can't access more statistics now since the site is down.)


Regjeringen vil føre en politikk for å redusere forskjellene i samfunnet. Vi vil avskaffe fattigdom ved å styrke de offentlige sikkerhetsnettene og ved å gi ledige mulighet til å komme tilbake til aktivt arbeid. Kamp mot arbeidsledighet er en høyt prioritert oppgave. Arbeid til alle er det viktigste vi kan gjøre for å redusere sosiale forskjeller. Vi vil arbeide for et mer inkluderende arbeidsliv, med plass til ulike mennesker, og med en forventning om at alle kan arbeide etter evne.

Source (http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/smk/rap/2005/0001/ddd/pdfv/260512-regjeringsplatform.pdf)

Translation of the bolded part; The government will follow a politic to reduce the differences in society. We will abolish poverty by strengthening the public safetynets and by giving unemployed a possibillity to come back to active work.
Translation ended



I've got no doubt many of them wanted to do what they said they would, but they couldn't. Capitalism doesn't work that way.

In conclusion; don't trust any politicians words, not even Obamas. I'll start trusting their retoric when they start following it up.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

His rhetoric is influenced by a strange combination of '60s and '70s "radical" (relative to now) liberalism and '90s third-way liberalism. He's a master of utilizing the right words to flirt with different lines.

[Circle E Society]

No i am not one of those folks who bases their political views off of this show but a friend sent it to me and it pertains to this thread.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216538&title=changefest-09-obamas-inaugural

[ashaman1324]

obama has actually started off his administration with some pretty good reforms, freezing all white house salaries over 100k, closing guantanamo bay and all other CIA prisons, and proposing to greatly reduce the influence of lobbyists.(http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm) i was of a similar mind (and still am) with most of the posters here, but i notice im less critical of him.

[BIG BROTHER]

Obama is a corporate president, like any other US. president. He's justs smarter than Bush and knows how to use the proper rhetoric, combined with more moderate and diplomatic actions. But all to achieve the same thing, which is ensure that the capitalist mode of production along with its ruling class continue to exist.