Arthur Silber has the second part of his powerful "Choosing Sides" series up now: Killing Truth and Hope — The Fatal Illusion of Opposition. There is little I can add to the insight and eloquence of the piece — just go read the whole thing, and follow up on the links provided there as well.
But I would like to highlight two particular aspects of the post. First is Silber's succinct description of the "corporate-authoritarian political system" that confronts us at every turn with its soul-crushing, death-dealing power:
This system encompasses every area of our national life....The military-industrial complex — or what is now often more accurately described as the military-industrial-congressional complex — is the most significant component of these interrelationships, but there are many other parts. They encompass all major industries, and almost every minor one, as well as many of our educational and cultural institutions....
This system as it exists today consists of innumerable interrelated, constantly moving parts. Countless agencies, commissions and bureaucrats act in concert and on their own to expand their power, and that of government generally. The system has a life of its own; it is its own reason for being. It sustains itself, and it seeks more and more territory for its dominance. The exercise of power and the acquisition of still more power are not directed at the improvement of the lives of "ordinary" Americans, whoever they may be; ordinary Americans are of no interest or concern to the ruling elites, except insofar as their labor and often their lives are necessary for the maintenance of the lives of immense comfort and privilege enjoyed by the powerful. Power is not the means to some other end, although that claim is a crucial element of the extraordinarily successful propaganda so willingly swallowed by the public. Power — its exercise and maintenance, and the acquisition of still more power — is the end.
Again, see the original for the several illuminating links provided.
Silber also deals extensively with two important articles by Pam Martens recently published at Counterpunch. (Here and here.)
As Silber notes, Martens is a personal admirer of Barack Obama, and
believes him to be a more or less sincere tool of forces beyond his
control. Yet this does not prevent her from doing what legions of
"progressives" — especially in the blogosphere — seem congenitally
unable to do: look at the reality of the Obama campaign in the face.
And Marten's reality-based analysis of the campaign's real nature is
absolutely devastating. She shows the true backers of Obama's
candidacy:
A Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their
registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our
federal government....Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors
consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms
charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in
originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest
frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority
communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and
foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a
lifetime.
She also exposes the rank hypocrisy of Obama's claim to be free from
the influence of the Big Money lobbyists who wield such overwhelming,
sinister sway in Washington. This claim is, to put it bluntly, an
egregious lie. As Martens demonstrates, Obama's Wall Street backers are
also some of the worst, most corrupt lobbyists — such as Greenberg
Traurig, former home of that master criminal of the Bush Regime, Jack
Abramoff.
Senator
Obama's premise and credibility of not taking money from federal
lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money,
lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal
lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists. But is that dealing
honestly with the American people?
The
2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated
marketing machine in memory. That's not a good thing. Marketing is not
even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is
about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product
and your target audience.
Martens goes on to report that "the Obama campaign has spent over $52
million on media, strategy consultants, image building, marketing
research and telemarketing." As Silber says, you should read Martens'
articles in their entirety to get the full impact of her facts and
analysis.
In his piece, Silber kindly quotes from a post I wrote, in which I
noted that the very small differences between the two major parties
could have significant effects, because "even minute mitigations in the
operation of vast power structures can translate into real benefits for
many ordinary people, simply due to the scale on which such structures
operate." But Silber goes on to note, quite rightly:
If
you choose to support one party over the other because of those "minute
mitigations" that "can translate into real benefits for many ordinary
people," that's fine — but intellectual honesty ought to compel you to
recognize the great danger you're courting.
He has much more to say on this theme — again, go read the whole thing
— but it is a point worth stressing again. As I noted in this earlier
post ("Disabuse Your Illusion"):
Whether
these mitigations of injustice and suffering in certain instances
outweigh the cost of participating in – and thereby to some extent
legitimizing and perpetuating – a system that inevitably produces
injustice and suffering on a massive scale is a question that each
person must decide for themselves, in their own individual conscience.
And this question is certainly pertinent in the case of Barack Obama.
For by the choices he has made in picking advisers to help him shape
his policies, he has given every indication that while his presidency
might represent a better management and presentation of the current
system, it will in no way overturn or even seriously challenge it on
any essential point. In other words – and bearing in mind the type of
not-insubstantial mitigations noted above – he will keep doing what
Bush has been doing, only more competently, less radically, with a
greater care for the long-term viability of the power structure. And
what is that structure that Obama seeks to refine and extend? It is an
imperial system based on militarism and the exaltation of elitist
profit and privilege above all other concerns.
It's your choice. But as Silber says — "at least be honest about the
nature of your choice." Have the courage to do what Martens and Silber
are doing, and look reality in the face.
Before we talk about any of Obama's ties, let's see the McCain financials, including his wife's....and by the way? What about John Hagee?
1
May 10, 2008
Josh B.: Of course
Of course. Look it in the face. To turn the Titanic after the iceberg is in front of you, would require more than an upbeat, hopeityhope man of color. You know you just run into the iceberg, which has sixty or seventy percent of its mass out of sight. And most of the people drown in ice water. Kate Winslett makes it out along with the rich folks, but steerage pretty much goes down with a huge sucking sound. The growing size and necessity of the Blackwaters both abroad and particularly at home, for every conceivable form of protection, is indicative of the way the ship is headed. That includes the necessity of building those prisons. So, what's new here. Just the amazingly naive, adolescent persona of the American collective. Living in Germany for a couple of years on soil that's bloody with the twentieth century is sobering. Some of that karmic necessity of the energy of the vile behavior of the "system" coming back around is by definition certain. It all has to play itself out. To get excited about Obama may just be that. The karmic necessity of the crime of slavery getting a little of its knots worked out, albeit with the usual twists of the Power monster. As the Buddha noted, all forms of sentient existence are ultimately permeated with suffering. He seems to have had a pretty clear vision.
2
May 10, 2008
Josh B.: Of Course II
What Silber doesn't mention, in keeping with the metaphor of the Titanic is that the musicians kept playing in the great hall. Kept on playing until they went down. Wonder if their last tune was a durge or a waltz. Maybe a polka. In other words he essentially leaves two choices, it seems. Either pretend or look it in the face. The second seems to imply politically motivated action. In the cacophany of voices in America screaming out about their favorite demon--global warming, bees dying, multi-nationals, armageddon, the gay menace, the islamic menace, the conglomeration the size of Florida of plastic in the ocean,...---there are still musicians playing music. Creations both reflecting the chaos, the overwhelm, and those which simply go to another sphere and generate something else. In the long view, in the long view...getting off the wheel...at the still point...there is the dance...dance, did you say dance? My boy, have I ever told you, I've never loved another man as much as I love you (Zorba the Greek)...and there, there is only the dance.
3
May 11, 2008
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
