Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate turned professional political sideshow, was interviewed by Fox News on Election Night and asked about this statement he'd made earlier on a radio show:
"To put it very simply, he [Barack Obama] is our first African American president, or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he is going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations."
Surely, you'd like to believe that Nader could have made his point without using a racial slur, wouldn't you? Or is he just a relic of days gone by and doesn't realize how stupid his statement was?
It is now time for Nader to slink away and live the remainder of his life out of the public lime light. What a sad way for someone who was a crusader, of sorts, to go out.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
Working in a retirement community I hear stuff I find abhorant every now and then, but I resign myself to the fact these people are old and will die off sooner rather than later.
i thought the same thing about nader when i heard. sad.
here's something fun.
Where to put this...
This is as good a spot as any. Sorry for the length; I just found it extremely interesting...
"Obama’s Challenge
November 5, 2008 | 1202 GMT
By George Friedman
Barack Obama has been elected president of the United States by a large majority in the Electoral College. The Democrats have dramatically increased their control of Congress, increasing the number of seats they hold in the House of Representatives and moving close to the point where — with a few Republican defections — they can have filibuster-proof control of the Senate. Given the age of some Supreme Court justices, Obama might well have the opportunity to appoint at least one and possibly two new justices. He will begin as one of the most powerful presidents in a long while.
Truly extraordinary were the celebrations held around the world upon Obama’s victory. They affirm the global expectations Obama has raised — and reveal that the United States must be more important to Europeans than the latter like to admit. (We can’t imagine late-night vigils in the United States over a French election.)
Obama is an extraordinary rhetorician, and as Aristotle pointed out, rhetoric is one of the foundations of political power. Rhetoric has raised him to the presidency, along with the tremendous unpopularity of his predecessor and a financial crisis that took a tied campaign and gave Obama a lead he carefully nurtured to victory. So, as with all politicians, his victory was a matter of rhetoric and, according to Machiavelli, luck. Obama had both, but now the question is whether he has Machiavelli’s virtue in full by possessing the ability to exercise power. This last element is what governing is about, and it is what will determine if his presidency succeeds.
Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him.
Obama’s Agenda vs. Expanding His Base
U.S. President George W. Bush demonstrated that the inability to understand the uses and limits of power can crush a presidency very quickly. The enormous enthusiasm of Obama’s followers could conceal how he — like Bush — is governing a deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. Obama’s first test will be simple: Can he maintain the devotion of his followers while increasing his political base? Or will he believe, as Bush and Cheney did, that he can govern without concern for the other half of the country because he controls the presidency and Congress, as Bush and Cheney did in 2001? Presidents are elected by electoral votes, but they govern through public support.
Obama and his supporters will say there is no danger of a repeat of Bush — who believed he could carry out his agenda and build his political base at the same time, but couldn’t. Building a political base requires modifying one’s agenda. But when you start modifying your agenda, when you become pragmatic, you start to lose your supporters. If Obama had won with 60 percent of the popular vote, this would not be as pressing a question. But he barely won by more than Bush in 2004. Now, we will find out if Obama is as skillful a president as he was a candidate.
Obama will soon face the problem of beginning to disappoint people all over the world, a problem built into his job. The first disappointments will be minor. There are thousands of people hoping for appointments, some to Cabinet positions, others to the White House, others to federal agencies. Many will get something, but few will get as much as they hoped for. Some will feel betrayed and become bitter. During the transition process, the disappointed office seeker — an institution in American politics — will start leaking on background to whatever reporters are available. This will strike a small, discordant note; creating no serious problems, but serving as a harbinger of things to come.
Later, Obama will be sworn in. He will give a memorable, perhaps historic speech at his inauguration. There will be great expectations about him in the country and around the world. He will enjoy the traditional presidential honeymoon, during which all but his bitterest enemies will give him the benefit of the doubt. The press initially will adore him, but will begin writing stories about all the positions he hasn’t filled, the mistakes he made in the vetting process and so on. And then, sometime in March or April, things will get interesting.
Iran and a U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq
Obama has promised to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, where he does not intend to leave any residual force. If he follows that course, he will open the door for the Iranians. Iran’s primary national security interest is containing or dominating Iraq, with which Iran fought a long war. If the United States remains in Iraq, the Iranians will be forced to accept a neutral government in Iraq. A U.S. withdrawal will pave the way for the Iranians to use Iraqi proxies to create, at a minimum, an Iraqi government more heavily influenced by Iran.
Apart from upsetting Sunni and Kurdish allies of the United States in Iraq, the Iranian ascendancy in Iraq will disturb some major American allies — particularly the Saudis, who fear Iranian power. The United States can’t afford a scenario under which Iranian power is projected into the Saudi oil fields. While that might be an unlikely scenario, it carries catastrophic consequences. The Jordanians and possibly the Turks, also American allies, will pressure Obama not simply to withdraw. And, of course, the Israelis will want the United States to remain in place to block Iranian expansion. Resisting a coalition of Saudis and Israelis will not be easy.
This will be the point where Obama’s pledge to talk to the Iranians will become crucial. If he simply withdraws from Iraq without a solid understanding with Iran, the entire American coalition in the region will come apart. Obama has pledged to build coalitions, something that will be difficult in the Middle East if he withdraws from Iraq without ironclad Iranian guarantees. He therefore will talk to the Iranians. But what can Obama offer the Iranians that would induce them to forego their primary national security interest? It is difficult to imagine a U.S.-Iranian deal that is both mutually beneficial and enforceable.
Obama will then be forced to make a decision. He can withdraw from Iraq and suffer the geopolitical consequences while coming under fire from the substantial political right in the United States that he needs at least in part to bring into his coalition. Or, he can retain some force in Iraq, thereby disappointing his supporters. If he is clumsy, he could wind up under attack from the right for negotiating with the Iranians and from his own supporters for not withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. His skills in foreign policy and domestic politics will be tested on this core question, and he undoubtedly will disappoint many.
The Afghan Dilemma
Obama will need to address Afghanistan next. He has said that this is the real war, and that he will ask U.S. allies to join him in the effort. This means he will go to the Europeans and NATO, as he has said he will do. The Europeans are delighted with Obama’s victory because they feel Obama will consult them and stop making demands of them. But demands are precisely what he will bring the Europeans. In particular, he will want the Europeans to provide more forces for Afghanistan.
Many European countries will be inclined to provide some support, if for no other reason than to show that they are prepared to work with Obama. But European public opinion is not about to support a major deployment in Afghanistan, and the Europeans don’t have the force to deploy there anyway. In fact, as the global financial crisis begins to have a more dire impact in Europe than in the United States, many European countries are actively reducing their deployments in Afghanistan to save money. Expanding operations is the last thing on European minds.
Obama’s Afghan solution of building a coalition centered on the Europeans will thus meet a divided Europe with little inclination to send troops and with few troops to send in any event. That will force him into a confrontation with the Europeans in spring 2009, and then into a decision. The United States and its allies collectively lack the force to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. They certainly lack the force to make a significant move into Pakistan — something Obama has floated on several occasions that might be a good idea if force were in fact available.
He will have to make a hard decision on Afghanistan. Obama can continue the war as it is currently being fought, without hope of anything but a long holding action, but this risks defining his presidency around a hopeless war. He can choose to withdraw, in effect reinstating the Taliban, going back on his commitment and drawing heavy fire from the right. Or he can do what we have suggested is the inevitable outcome, namely, negotiate — and reach a political accord — with the Taliban. Unlike Bush, however, withdrawal or negotiation with the Taliban will increase the pressure on Obama from the right. And if this is coupled with a decision to delay withdrawal from Iraq, Obama’s own supporters will become restive. His 52 percent Election Day support could deteriorate with remarkable speed.
The Russian Question
At the same time, Obama will face the Russian question. The morning after Obama’s election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia was deploying missiles in its European exclave of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. Obama opposed the Russians on their August intervention in Georgia, but he has never enunciated a clear Russia policy. We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention — and U.S. power — to bear.
Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can’t afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their “near abroad.”
Obama will have many options on domestic policy given his majorities in Congress. But his Achilles’ heel, as it was for Bush and for many presidents, will be foreign policy. He has made what appear to be three guarantees. First, he will withdraw from Iraq. Second, he will focus on Afghanistan. Third, he will oppose Russian expansionism. To deliver on the first promise, he must deal with the Iranians. To deliver on the second, he must deal with the Taliban. To deliver on the third, he must deal with the Europeans.
Global Finance and the European Problem
The Europeans will pose another critical problem, as they want a second Bretton Woods agreement. Some European states appear to desire a set of international regulations for the financial system. There are three problems with this.
First, unless Obama wants to change course dramatically, the U.S. and European positions differ over the degree to which governments will regulate interbank transactions. The Europeans want much more intrusion than the Americans. They are far less averse to direct government controls than the Americans have been. Obama has the power to shift American policy, but doing that will make it harder to expand his base.
Second, the creation of an international regulatory body that has authority over American banks would create a system where U.S. financial management was subordinated to European financial management.
And third, the Europeans themselves have no common understanding of things. Obama could thus quickly be drawn into complex EU policy issues that could tie his hands in the United States. These could quickly turn into painful negotiations, in which Obama’s allure to the Europeans will evaporate.
One of the foundations of Obama’s foreign policy — and one of the reasons the Europeans have celebrated his election — was the perception that Obama is prepared to work closely with the Europeans. He is in fact prepared to do so, but his problem will be the same one Bush had: The Europeans are in no position to give the things that Obama will need from them — namely, troops, a revived NATO to confront the Russians and a global financial system that doesn’t subordinate American financial authority to an international bureaucracy.
The Hard Road Ahead
Like any politician, Obama will face the challenge of having made a set of promises that are not mutually supportive. Much of his challenge boils down to problems that he needs to solve and that he wants European help on, but the Europeans are not prepared to provide the type and amount of help he needs. This, plus the fact that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq requires an agreement with Iran — something hard to imagine without a continued U.S. presence in Iraq — gives Obama a difficult road to move on.
As with all American presidents (who face midterm elections with astonishing speed), Obama’s foreign policy moves will be framed by his political support. Institutionally, he will be powerful. In terms of popular support, he begins knowing that almost half the country voted against him, and that he must increase his base. He must exploit the honeymoon period, when his support will expand, to bring another 5 percent or 10 percent of the public into his coalition. These people voted against him; now he needs to convince them to support him. But these are precisely the people who would regard talks with the Taliban or Iran with deep distrust. And if negotiations with the Iranians cause him to keep forces in Iraq, he will alienate his base without necessarily winning over his opponents.
And there is always the unknown. There could be a terrorist attack, the Russians could start pressuring the Baltic states, the Mexican situation could deteriorate. The unknown by definition cannot be anticipated. And many foreign leaders know it takes an administration months to settle in, something some will try to take advantage of. On top of that, there is now nearly a three-month window in which the old president is not yet out and the new president not yet in.
Obama must deal with extraordinarily difficult foreign policy issues in the context of an alliance failing not because of rough behavior among friends but because the allies’ interests have diverged. He must deal with this in the context of foreign policy positions difficult to sustain and reconcile, all against the backdrop of almost half an electorate that voted against him versus supporters who have enormous hopes vested in him. Obama knows all of this, of course, as he indicated in his victory speech.
We will now find out if Obama understands the exercise of political power as well as he understands the pursuit of that power. You really can’t know that until after the fact. There is no reason to think he can’t finesse these problems. Doing so will take cunning, trickery and the ability to make his supporters forget the promises he made while keeping their support. It will also require the ability to make some of his opponents embrace him despite the path he will have to take. In other words, he will have to be cunning and ruthless without appearing to be cunning and ruthless. That’s what successful presidents do.
In the meantime, he should enjoy the transition. It’s frequently the best part of a presidency."
George Friedman is the CEO of Strategic Forecasting and is someone I find to have their hand on the pulse of the whole wide world, which as you can possibly see, is on display here.
"Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him."
This is not as big a weakness as Friedman wants us to believe. McCain had 46 percent of the vote, with 2 percent left to the noise of the non-serious candidates. If you look at the actual popular vote numbers, Obama had 8 million more votes than McCain. The last president to have that big of a margin was Clinton when he was re-elected in 1996 with more than 8 million more popular votes than Dole. Now how far back do we have to go to find a first-term presidential winner who won by more than Obama did? Reagan? Nope! FDR? Nope! In point of fact, you cannot find one because there is not one. Go here to double-check if you don't believe me - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html.
And what about our last first-term president? Hell, he didn't even win the popular vote at all. What is Friedman's point with this other than to try to have something to back up his biases?
I can summarize Friedman's entire rambling essay in one sentence: You cannot please all of the people all of the time.
OK, everybody know this. What is the big fucking point?
Well obviously you missed it. This "rambling essay" as you say, was outlining the huge problems Obama faces as he becomes President from a world perspective and pinpoints the major problems he will face "when his feet hit the ground running". He is not rambling in a anti-Obama way as you seem to be saying. These are problems left to him by the reprehensible Bush. But they are problems nonetheless.
I find it interesting you would pick this quote from the essay as your bone of contention and leads me to think you are unaware of or uninterested in the rest of the "ramblings".
Stratfor is and intelligence organization, not a political action group. They generally are a couple of weeks ahead of the rest of the media, something I have tested for the years I have subscribed. Friedman knows taking a political stance would be detrimental to his organization, detrimental to the intelligence he provides.
I do not disagree with the problems he states, but with the way he chooses to state it.
Yes, Obama is inherited a mess. Yes, he may not be able to do many of the things he has talked about. Yes, things may get worse before they get better. Yes, Bush fucked the chimp the passed 8 years.
OK. Reasonable people know this. No problem with people pointing it out either. However, when pointed out in the manner the author chose in the beginning of the article it calls into question the intent of the piece.
This post was going to take some time so I waited until I had some time to post...
The day you made your last post on this thread csm, an interesting segment on the NPR show Talk of the Nation aired. It was a conversation with the NPR ombudsman(who happens to be female, ombudsperson maybe)on the coverage of the primaries and the general election by NPR. Everybody who called in had their typical gripes, but what was interesting was a scientific study by a UCLA professor she quoted which concluded that anybody who had staunch leanings would feel a bias in a particular story even if someone staunchly in the other camp had the exact opposite feeling of the same story. In essence, your bias will make you feel a perceived bias against your position in a story and the more biased you are the bigger the slight you perceive.
So I want to parse out the "rambling essay". Since you had the problem with the "beginning" of the essay and I don't know how far that goes in the essay and your example is in the fourth paragraph, that is what we will parse.
"Barack Obama has been elected president of the United States by a large majority in the Electoral College."
As far as I can tell that is pretty much indisputable fact. Agree?
"The Democrats have dramatically increased their control of Congress, increasing the number of seats they hold in the House of Representatives and moving close to the point where — with a few Republican defections — they can have filibuster-proof control of the Senate."
Fact.
"Given the age of some Supreme Court justices, Obama might well have the opportunity to appoint at least one and possibly two new justices."
Fact.
"He will begin as one of the most powerful presidents in a long while."
Now this could be construed by some as an opinion, but do you dispute it or really want to?
"Truly extraordinary were the celebrations held around the world upon Obama’s victory."
Again do you want to dispute this?
"They affirm the global expectations Obama has raised — and reveal that the United States must be more important to Europeans than the latter like to admit. (We can’t imagine late-night vigils in the United States over a French election.)"
This may be a problematic point for Obama's enemies, but again, don't you agree?
"Obama is an extraordinary rhetorician, and as Aristotle pointed out, rhetoric is one of the foundations of political power."
As far as I can tell, even his enemies admit this. Any problems so far?
"Rhetoric has raised him to the presidency, along with the tremendous unpopularity of his predecessor and a financial crisis that took a tied campaign and gave Obama a lead he carefully nurtured to victory."
I'll label this as fact. You tell me if I am wrong.
"So, as with all politicians, his victory was a matter of rhetoric and, according to Machiavelli, luck."
Now this is where I believe you start having problems. But if you were really honest with yourself, you would have to admit, as everybody seems to, that Obama played his hand perfectly, which luck is a part of.
"Obama had both, but now the question is whether he has Machiavelli’s virtue in full by possessing the ability to exercise power."
To me this is a legitimate unbiased question as Obama is going to be President for the FIRST time and has little track record in ruling an entity as large as this country. This would be a legitimate question for any first time President.
"This last element is what governing is about, and it is what will determine if his presidency succeeds."
Fact.
"Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him."
This is an indisputable fact as 48% of the people voted other than Obama. To rule effectively, especially in the foreign policy realm as this essay focuses on, a consensus is essential. Just look at his predecessor for the perfect example.
Now if there are any other aspects of this essay you would like to comment on, please let me know and I would be glad to discuss it.
Verification word: gamer
You know the part of the article I dispute, I've written about it already. You reiterating it and claiming it to be "an indisputable fact" does not change anything (nor does it make it an indisputable fact). The actual facts that I researched and quoted back up my point - and I stick to it.
I agree that Obama will have problems to deal with as he htis the ground running. But Friedman's "facts" about Obama's win being thin are very much disputable - and I dispute it!
Has anyone else noticed the news spots about all the apparently racist displays and threats that have been going on since the election?
According to Wiki, Obama had 66.8 million votes and McCain had 58.3 million votes. So what you are telling me is that 58.3 million people don't matter? Obama is going to have to form some sort of consensus if he is going to govern successfully, csm, whether you like it or not. And that means trying to get as many of those 58.3 million on his side while keeping his 66.8 million together. This is what Friedman is talking about. He isn't denigrating Obama's significant victory; he is just being realistic.
Bob,
There will always be racists because insecurity is part of the human condition. I just remember what my Mama used to say," consider the source." I'm sure Obama does.
What I found interesting was GW admitting he has regrets about some of the shit he pulled; not enough of course, but hey what can you expect from an asshole.
Bawdy, I agree. But what I find remarkable is just how virulent this bile is that has been revealed. Another thing I find interesting (to me, anyway), coming from Tennessee as I do, is that despite the common perception that racism is predominantly a southern thing, there were mock lynchings, cross burnings and such in Maine, in Pennsylvania, etc, etc. Yes, there were things done and said in the south, but this has shown that what racism remains in our country is not limited by region. There's bits of it everywhere. Which is depressing, I think.
Change is slow sometimes, Bob. I have to remember this sometimes as I see this country go over the same territory over and over again. I will think, "man, you are preaching to the converted" and then you look at some of the things you are talking about. I thought for awhile that gays and lesbians were on a roll and would finally get the rights which would make them first class citizens(no more second class citizens, ever, please), but I don't have to tell you of the referendum votes even in my state which used to be very libertarian, but we have vocal Mormons and religious fundamentalists like everywhere else, I guess.
Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
Sounds a little like sour grapes, anony.
Most libertarians and even some conservatives(Republicans) said the Republicans should have gotten their collective asses kicked in because of their track record since Smush came into office. The Republicans spent more taxpayer money on non-security government expenditures since the Johnson administration and produced another fucking entitlement program(Medicare D) to help sink us. That certainly isn't anything to be proud of or deserving of our votes.
Oh and don't forget Congress laying down to the perceived power of the Presidency time and again(unConstitutional)and boy, how sorry they must be now. The Republicans got everything they deserved. Rove's Dynasty my freakin' ass.
The numbers are not a excuse for republicans. They are an indicator of the fine snow job imparted by the media upon the shallow minded masses. Journalism is firmly dead as state run media now indoctrinates the sheep with propaganda from the Fuher.
Don't put words into my mouth Bawdy - especially stupid ones. I NEVER said anyone didn't matter and phrasing your response that way is below your normal reasoned manner.
Anyway, if you watch what Obama is doing it sure looks like the man is going to do what he said - build consensus, work across the aisle, etc.
For this, I'm glad. Bottom line though is that he does not HAVE to do anything of the sort. The man won, he is president, and for all intents and purposes those who voted for the opponent do not matter (as the last 8 years have shown us). However, Obama is MUCH, MUCH smarter than W and won't make the same mistakes. And again, watching his current actions would seem to indicate that he will work toward mending fences and working with the opposition... and governing that way. Let's hope.
Interesting factoids anonymous. But you'll never surprise me with polls that show that the American public is not well informed.
Hey Bob, racism is alive and well in Pennsylvania. I was born and raised there, left in the 90's. After having lived in the Chicago area and now the Houston area, both of those areas are MUCH less bigoted and racist than PA. MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, less!
"I NEVER said anyone didn't matter"
"and for all intents and purposes those who voted for the opponent do not matter"
You contradict yourself in the same post, my friend.
The inference I got from your 11/11post was that you didn't care about the 58.3 million non-Obama voters. Am I not to make inferences?
Your idea that Obama doesn't have to worry about the other (roughly) half the population makes me worried for two reasons:
1. Is this country going to take a hard left turn as Obama tries to placate the half who voted for him and...
2. Is there any chance the Presidency will become a less powerful(more Constitutional)position. All the bellyaching(myself included) about the powergrab of Bush and Co. made examining the office was warranted, but will Obama keep this(the powergrab) going? My guess is he will, to our detriment.
I agree with you, csm, Obama has tried to reach across and he should be applauded. My main gripe right now is with Congress and the auto company bailout.
Bawdy, in today's NYT Mitt Romney has an editorial I heartily agree with, dealing with the Detroit mess. Basically his position is that a govt bailout is not the way to go, and that the big 3 need to undergo a huge, major, total restructuring of how they operate. But so does the UAW. I won't quote or link it here, but if you look up the article, I think you'll find it well reasoned.
csm, one thing I have long resented a bit is the way that since the 60's (at least) there has been this apparent common perception in other parts of this country that the South is the most strongly racist and bigoted region. I am a native southerner, and some of my very best friends growing up were black (yes, I know how cliche that is, but it's true). Admittedly there were also the thuggish element, but that too was not restricted to one racial type. I had as much trouble from white bullies as from black ones.
Ok, I'll stop my ramble now, thanks for listening.
Bawdy, my friend, you can make all the inferences you wish, but I will correct you when inferences you make about me are wrong... as I did.
So you DO care about the 58.3 million who voted non-Obama?
Of course. I "care" about every person in the world.
Post a Comment