On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:40 AM, CeJ <[email protected]> wrote: > I know I'm being too harsh on Obama. I want him to leave office after > this term or the second term renouncing the military interventionist > policies, slashing the military budgets, and telling it like it is to > Americans about the death throes of the imperium and why their society > and political economy fails them. > > That would not make him a SUCCESSFUL president in the eyes of most > Americans, I suspect. > > As I have said before, a successful president is one, in the view of > the 'general public', who transcends the interests of the narrow > interest groups who financed his or her way into the Repugnicratic > system, somehow transcends those interests, in domestic policy, in > foreign policy, etc. > > It's been a while since a president has succeeded on such terms. There > might have been a sense that Clinton did by the end of his second > term, but he had also relented and signed the Democratic Party onto > 'regime change' now (not later) in Iraq. And transcendance seems to > have been making the Democrats the sponsors of 'welfare reform' and > 'regime change'. > > In the case of Obama, he represents a coming together, however > ephemeral and however shallow, a much broader coalition of interests > and forces. There is no where to go on the accepted political spectrum > for him to move in order to transcend that, if that sort of > transcendance is even possible. > > That is why I think his best success as president would be to fail and > tell like it really is--because he might yet get enough interest for > it to mean something. So far he has shown himself to be a very > cautious leader. I doubt if anyone gets even a fraction of as far as > he did without being very cautious. > > Like Carter I want to know what the guy really thinks. > > CJ > >
Yes, by and large an unsuccessful President for them ( like Carter) is about as good as it gets from our standpoint on the left, no ? In terms of the dialectic of reform, Obama's Presidency as a Black President is a medium level reform. Revolutionists support reforms that can sort of "teach" the masses. If Obama's presidency sort of blows apart either the Republican or Democratic Parties, this might be a teaching moment for the US masses. I don't know. I heard on Bill Press this morning that two Democrats were on the front page of some paper asking Obama to declare that he is not going to run for re-election. Could Obama's presidency divide the Democratic Party, a new route to a third party through an unexpected "dialectic" ? White supremacy is so central to the US system , Obama's just being Black, even though he is not left, as everybody here has essayed at length, makes his presidency a medium level or significant reform. The white supremcists jumping out of the woodwork is a sign of this. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
