Barack Obama, the Great Deceiver

[THEANGEL&THEGAMBLER]

Barack Obama, the Great Deceiver « naked capitalism

Barack Obama swept into office on a tide of giddy enthusiasm. His “Hope and Change” was a pledge to reverse Bush era policies, including socialism for the rich, adventurism in the Middle East, and attacks on civil liberties. He announced his intention to serve as a transformational leader, invoking Abraham Lincoln, FDR and Ronald Reagan as role models. Despite the frigid temperatures, people poured into Washington, DC to hear his inauguration speech, wanting to be part of a remarkable passage.

It wasn’t simply that Obama was the first black president, but also that the economic devastation of the financial crisis opened up a historic opportunity to remake the social contract, to punish the reckless and greedy, no matter how lofty, and to build new foundations and safeguards for ordinary citizens. Obama, with his youthful vigor, his technocratic command of policy details, his “no drama” steadiness, his mastery of oratory, seemed uniquely suited to this time of need. His personal history of repeatedly breaking new ground fed optimism that he could do so for the nation as a whole.

Those times of heady promise are now a cruel memory. Again and again, Obama has shown his true colors. It isn’t simply that Obama lied. Politicians lie. But there are norms for political lying. The depth and dependability of Obama’s misrepresentations constitute a difference in kind.

I think the articles a bit unfair considering that the US is a Conservative nation by default and process of moving to a more centrist or left position wont happen from the top in terms of policy, especially not in the current context. How can you expect a person who is being advised by the same pool of national security and economic advisers as the last two presidents to be vastly different? Of course he appoints many of his advisers but whole apparatus of advisement to the administration contains many people who are like civil servants and basically a continuation of the previous administration. Plus even after being disastrously wrong to an amazing degree most of the Neo-Conservative pundits are still employed and churning out the same bullshyt. So you have the same advisement apparatus and the same media therefore anyone elected into that position has a limited number of policy options they could implement.

She even goes as far as saying Reagan was a better president(from a left POV) because he reacted to unemployment issues quicker and would have never ordered the killing of a citizen without trial. Is she serious!? if you put Reagan into the context of post 9/11 america where the extreme right wing budgets of Paul Ryan are taken seriously by "centrist" pundits I doubt he would have a problem with claping "suspected" terrorists who happen to be American and austerity measures.

One thing I will criticize the democratic party leadership for is the lack of support for grassroots organization. The Obama campaign used the ground game very effectively but the structure was dismantled after the election when that organization could have been used to educate the populous about the healthcare bill and financial reform.