What change? And how?
on the conservative talking point strategy to befuddle any attempts the
public might take to make sense of what ever is going on with the new Presidency. The talking points I’m seeing on those sites are
showing up here, of course. Some were already in the winds before this
election finally concluded. This next conservative move against
minorities and people who start on an unequal footing was already
telegraphed a few times during the campaign. Their argument is, now
that we have a black person in the highest office, all the affirmative
action laws are no longer necessary and can be repealed. One of the big
name pundit sites I watch, Townhall,
has pundits who have been saying it. The other predictable argument
that will be showing up, I believe, is the socialist/terrorist argument
that closed out the campaigns. Obama is a closet socialist/terrorist
who put on centrist clothing to get elected. The conservative ideology
has long been using the socialist labels as synonymous with the evil
mob who needs to be controlled. I think we can find the roots of that
in the elites who were aghast at the "anarchistic" democracy that began
to emerge after the war of Independence under the very weak Articles of
Confederation that allowed the states the "right" to deviate in
whatever way the people in them saw fit. These are intolerable
behaviors to authoritarian thinkers, no matter how much they toss
around the ideology of freedom and equality in their verbiage.
So the battle lines are forming, the questions about what kind of presidency this will shape up to be are arising.
This article, from infowars.com raises the left’s questions of exactly what change:
Here is a key point in that article:
Obama is no messiah, he is a representative, a
public servant, for those that elected him into office. Will those that
voted for him in the name of changing eight years of Bush
administration malfeasance hold his feet to the fire and demand the
repeal of the American police state that Bush has crafted, or will they
simply go back to sleep and consider their work done simply because
another Democrat is in office?
It implies to me everything about what the US is not as a
populist democracy, and cuts to the core of why Obama’s election is an
election of potential for change, not a mandate for an Obama the
leader, and whatever messianic purpose such a leader brings to the
imputed progressive "followers."
The US Constitution did not provide a structured voice for the people
as a body to participate in government. Holding a president’s feet to
the fire can actually occur how?
There are signs from the Obama campaign messages, maybe like coded
messages he sent to the many who hope, that this president really did
learn something from his experience as a community organizer. As some
have said, Michael Moore among them, all presidents break their
campaign promises. Let’s hope Obama holds true and opens his ears to
On a different slant regarding the public, Chomsky has been saying for
years that the public as a whole is far more progressive than the
politics in Washington. Exactly how he knows that, I don’t know. He
must watch and analyze a lot of different polling sources. But if it’s
true — and it’s worth finding out if it is — then the voice of what
the monied elites in this country call the "mob" should be able to push
Obama towards populist policies, if he listens. And of course Nader
articulated many of those, as did the Green Party candidates. So
there’s another front, and this front will be addressed in Congress
through our Congressional representatives, the seemingly gangrenous and
gradually deforming leg in our Constitutional balance of power scheme
as the near split in ideology in Congress for years has rendered it’s
voice nullified at nearly every critical turn towards a fascist right,
as an increasingly unitary president took control of government.
If Americans really want change, they must get active and find that now missing way.
Code words to look for from the elite who will argue against any
efforts to push a very centrist positioned Obama leftwards appear to
be: "socialism" "ignorant and unruly mob" "repeal affirmative actions"
(and that argument is further connected to any and all efforts to use
our government to positively enforce equality in any redistributive
sense of achieving an equal footing for all, which the conservatives
have already defined as a "liberal" (i.e. "socialist," i.e. kneejerk
"evil"..) goal of legislating and achieving the social ends of being
taken care of, not assuring an equal footing — "if Obama can make it,
then it proves anyone can now"..)
We are in the middle of an ongoing Orwellian propaganda war and it’s not going away.