The Obama-McCain debate: Right-wing politicians agree on bailout and militarism By Patrick Martin 29 September 2008
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author Friday night’s presidential election debate between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain demonstrated that there is no choice in the 2008 presidential election within the confines of the official two-party system. Two candidates stood facing each other, espousing nearly identical positions in defense of Wall Street and American militarism which would, in any other country in the world, immediately identify them as representatives of the ultra-right. Both agreed that all possible resources must be mobilized to prop up Wall Street, regardless of the cost to working people. Obama declared, “We have to move swiftly and we have to move wisely,” although he did not explain why speed was required to save the banks and speculators, but not to stop foreclosures, layoffs and the destruction of working class living standards. McCain praised the bailout talks in Washington, saying, “We are seeing, for the first time in a long time, Republicans and Democrats together, sitting down, trying to work out a solution to this fiscal crisis that we’re in.” Two days earlier, President Bush went on national television, to all but declare the bankruptcy of American capitalism, warning of an “imminent collapse” of investment banks, “the gears of the American financial system ... grinding to a halt,” “a financial panic” and “a long and painful recession.” Obama and McCain presented no such dire picture, and evaded answering the question of what impact the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street would have on their future policies should they win the election. The discussion of the financial crisis, which occupied the first half of the debate, seemed intended more to put the audience to sleep than to define the candidates’ positions. On foreign policy, both candidates agreed that American imperialism has the right to deploy its military forces worldwide, attacking and invading whatever country the “commander-in-chief” deems necessary. Obama said that the lesson of Iraq was “we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe, never hesitate to use military force.” The two candidates clashed mainly over which countries should be targeted for American aggression, with Obama favoring Afghanistan and Pakistan, while McCain remained focused on Iraq. Both threatened Iran and Russia. The Washington Post noted the consensus on foreign policy approvingly in an editorial published Saturday, declaring, “Barack Obama and John McCain don’t differ as much as they may lead voters to believe.” The most notable feature of the debate was the extent which Obama, marketed as the proponent of “change,” declared his agreement with McCain. After an extraordinary week of upheavals in the financial markets, Obama had every opportunity to go on the offensive against his Republican opponent. Instead, he repeatedly declared McCain was “absolutely right” on one point or another—a statement that recurred 11 times in the course of the debate. It is worth citing some of these declarations of agreement, for they demonstrate the completely conventional and right wing political orientation of the Obama campaign. On the financial crisis: “I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility.” On spending: “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused.” On taxation: “John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right.” On the federal budget: “John is right, we have to make cuts.” On Iraq: “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.” On threatening military action in Pakistan: “John ... you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say.” On Iran: “Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.” Obama thus acknowledged that he and McCain share a common framework, which is the defense of the interests of the American ruling class, both at home and abroad. If he had been debating a socialist candidate, he would have had no agreement on anything. Given this level of consensus, the media obsession with which candidate “won” the debate takes on an unreal, even absurd, character. The decisive factor in the election is not the popular response to the candidates, but the attitude of the financial and political establishment, which has swung behind the Obama campaign in the last few weeks, particularly as Obama took the lead in supporting the bailout of Wall Street. There are two interpretations for Obama’s behavior: First, a considerable degree of political cowardice in the face of McCain’s strident defense of militarism and big business. Obama seemed abashed, and allowed McCain to interrupt him almost at will. But given the highly contrived and orchestrated character of presidential election debates, it is likely as well that Obama was following a script—and there were reports that the Democratic campaign made a deliberate decision to include statements of agreement with McCain at regular intervals to present Obama as a seeker of bipartisan consensus. This is more than a matter of electoral tactics, but expresses the fundamental character of the Democratic Party, an imperialist party of big business that nonetheless is assigned the role, in the American political system, of appealing to working people, minorities and the oppressed in general. This is what gives the declarations of leading Democrats such a half- hearted, tongue-tied character. Obama & Co. are always tripping over their own internal contradictions, as they seek to posture as the “people’s party” while reassuring the ruling elite as a whole and making conciliatory gestures to the ultra-right. It was noticeable in the course of the debate that Obama avoided any sort of populist appeal in his comments on the economic crisis. His remarks were targeted, not to the mass audience, but to the most critical constituency that his campaign must seek to satisfy: the major financial interests and their media representatives. While McCain has occasionally indulged in demagogic sallies against Wall Street greed and corruption, the Democrats have made it clear to big business that they will not seek to mobilize or stir up in any way their nominal “base” among working people. Obama does not represent an alternative to the right-wing program of the American ruling elite, but rather a cosmetic change to permit this program to be continued and even escalated. An alternative to the policies of imperialist war, economic austerity and attacks on democratic rights will only come from below, from the political mobilization of working people, independently of and against the two- party system, and on the basis of a socialist program. On Sep 27, 9:16 pm, "mike532 [ Republicans for Obama ]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Six Short Takes on Why Obama Came out Ahead in the Debate > > http://www.alternet.org/election08/100565/ > In the first head-to-head debate of the 2008 campaign, the financial > crisis dragged what the McCain camp had hoped would be fought in the > GOP nominee's comfort zone -- foreign policy and national security -- > squarely into the realm of domestic policy. > > Moderator Jim Lehrer made a smooth transition to the voters' top > concern in this election, saying that we were facing a potential > meltdown of the global economy, which was by definition a matter of > "national security." > > What followed was a microcosm of the 2008 race: Barack Obama dominated > John McCain when the focus of the debate was on the domestic sphere > and a fast-deteriorating financial sector, but ceded an enormous > amount of political space to McCain on national security, accepting > much of the Arizona senator's overarching neoconservative narrative > that the United States is surrounded by mortal danger and evildoers > and has a moral duty to maintain our forces in Iraq and elsewhere in > order to defend the homeland. > > McCain appeared twitchy and out of touch as the debate began with the > banking meltdown and the Bush-Paulson plan to reverse it. He blinked > rapidly and avoided eye contact with Obama, Lehrer and the audience as > Obama came out swinging against McCain for enabling the "root causes" > of the crisis to develop during decades in the Congress, including a > long stint on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and > Transportation. > > Obama articulately condemned what he called a "philosophy that says > that regulation is always bad," and blamed its pervasiveness for the > economic mess. McCain, moments before saying that we have the > "greatest workers in the world" (and that the United States is > simultaneously the "greatest importer" and "greatest exporter" in the > world), tried to shift blame from Wall Street to Main Street -- from > predatory lenders and fast-and-loose brokers to those who find > themselves with a home on the bubble today. > > It's a losing strategy. > > Obama, on the other hand, must be extremely confident that this > election will be decided on the economy, as he failed to challenge > McCain on his belligerent stance toward the rest of the world. > > He conceded that the "surge has worked" -- it has not. He tried to go > toe to toe with John "Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain on the evils of Iran. He > called Venezuela a "rogue state." He engaged in a bit of fearmongering > himself, saying that while he supports missile defense -- a boondoggle > if ever there was one -- the greatest threat we face is from suitcase > nukes. > > As Obama agreed with so much of McCain's worldview, McCain's > discomfort disappeared, and he landed several good knocks on Obama. He > repeatedly called him "naive." > > But, in the final analysis, a day after Washington Mutual went down in > flames, I doubt that it'll be enough to get McCain out of the hole in > which he finds himself. > > Don Hazen: > > If you were an Obama champion and wanted McCain to fall flat, you were > disappointed. McCain is a tough, pugnacious debater, and he tried to > control the talk time, going on and on. He's knowledgeable, and as we > know, he whipped all of the Republicans during the primaries. But the > big picture is that McCain probably had to do better since he is > behind on the momentum and had to beat Obama with his supposed > strength -- foreign affairs -- and there is a consensus among the > commentators that he didn't do that. > > If you reflect more on the meta or emotional level, McCain spent most > of his time talking about the past and focused on Iraq -- making sure > everyone knew that we had to win. That was the most important point he > needed to make. But if this election is about change, then McCain > reinforced his role as part of the problem. For most of the public, > Iraq is past tense. Sixty percent think the economy is the key issue. > And in terms of bread and butter, the numbers that people are likely > to remember are not the $18 billion earmarks discussion, but rather > the fact that 95 percent of the population will get a tax cut with > Obama -- everyone who makes under $250,000. Meanwhile, the figure > associated with McCain is likely to be $300 billion in tax cuts for > corporations and the wealthy, while we have a huge deficit. Obama had > to make kitchen table points stick, and he seemed to achieve that, > repeating these points several times. > > The pundits were also speculating that independent voters didn't like > McCain's condescension and repeating that Obama "doesn't get it." Here > McCain could be seen as the cranky older guy, sounding a little > insecure, while Obama didn't rise to the bait. In fact, Obama agreed > with McCain a number of times, suggesting that Obama was more capable > of working across the aisle. > > 123Next page » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
