by William Skink
The most slickly sold political product in American history performed his final advertisement tonight. I guess lots of people still think his words are credible. They clearly haven’t been paying attention for the last 8 years.
Obama protected Wall Street.
Obama expanded wars.
Obama deported more illegal immigrants than Bush.
Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other president.
Obama’s economic “recovery” went largely to the top 1 percent.
And Obama presided over the implosion of the Democratic party.
The executive office being handed over to Trump is more dangerous than ever because for 8 years Democratic supporters have been asleep at the wheel. Now they are waking up to the potential abuses of the Trump regime.
This is the scenario critics of Obama were worried about, but you ignored the warnings and ridiculed the messengers.
We tried, but you’re misplaced faith in the presidency was unshakeable.
And now we have Trump.
Good luck with that.
Cornel West says it better than I can.
Obama played his role convincingly in the long con he calls — repeatedly throughout his 8 years in office, and in his “farwell speech” — “our democracy.” It is the illusion that must persist in order to keep the truth from leaking out.
We have been conditioned from birth to remember Churchill’s words — not his actually — to believe in “our democracy.” He said it (House of Commons, 11 November 1947)—but he was quoting an unknown predecessor. From Churchill by Himself, 574:
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
Does Cornell West believe, or paid to keep the illusion alive? Does the author of this blog believe? Where can I find “our democracy” today? And when has this democracy ever existed?
“The American model – democracy – must be regarded as a historical error, economically as well as morally. Democracy promotes shortsightedness, capital waste, irresponsibility, and moral relativism. It leads to permanent compulsory income and wealth redistribution and legal uncertainty. It is counterproductive. It promotes demagoguery and egalitarianism. It is aggressive and potentially totalitarian internally, vis-à-vis its own population, as well as externally. In sum, it leads to a dramatic growth of state power, as manifested by the amount of parasitically – by means of taxation and expropriation – appropriated government income and wealth in relation to the amount of productively – through market exchange – acquired private income and wealth, and by the range and invasiveness of state legislation. Democracy is doomed to collapse, just as Soviet communism was doomed to collapse.”-Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Our founders new this and that’s why we’re a Constitutional Republic.
Short and sweet version from Hope.
“Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.”
I always knew you were an anarcho-capitalist at heart, Swede. Now that you’re quoting Hoppe, I’m sure of it. 😉 Unfortunately, Hoppe chose to drink at the von Mises well of economic misery, so he destroys any positive notion of libertarianism he may have had with that. Not to mention he espouses quite racist ideals in his views.
And isn’t he the guy that prefers a monarchy to “democracy?” Actually, Misean economics fully deployed would lead to nothing more than a dictatorship (only as benevolent as its captains can force), as he who controls the most wealth calls all the shots. And in a capitalist economy wealth always accretes around power, the more power the more wealth. And to those who do not seek power? Well, they become the new serfs
Just for the record, I’m but a mere anarcho.
Is that so? Or, is that what’s written on a piece of paper promoting a different illusion, for those holding different aspirations?
JC, I thought anarchos were some form of political/ideological spider given the web of deceit they seem to weave. By the way, Glen Greenwald has a tangential piece out. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/
Long time no hear, Craig! Anarchos, arachnos… It’s hard to be an avowed anarchist in this day and age. But when the need to withhold consent and be a dissident becomes the only way to live with oneself, I guess it’s ok to put it out there. And this didn’t just start with Trump, it goes way back to Reagan and every other administration since.
Read the Greenwald piece. Good stuff! We haven’t seen this sort of power struggle visibly since Nixon’s paranoia became public. He was terrified of the CIA after what they did to JFK. Should make for good theatre and headlines for the next 4 years, to the detriment of any real news coverage.
I look forward to your writings during these tumultuous times. Happy new year to you and Liz.
From what I’ve gathered. It was the FED Quantitative Easing that enabled corporations to buy back their stock, bid up the stock price and asset value of Corp Execs stock options. Such were the forces that re-distributed more wealth to the 1%ers.
If such be the case, I choose dissent and information and yes education about power of the FED, in current context of currency wars.
If such be the case I’m much more comfortable with anarchos and agnos than authoritarians.