From: Marv Gandall Only Shane and Michael S. took the bait to declare how much they "despised" Obama. For the most part, criticisms of Obama on these lists have been political rather than personal, and they should be responded in kind, no? It's not really relevant what views the critics may or may not hold in private about Obama or any other politician. Personally, I think he and Michelle would make much more interesting dinner guests than George and Laura, but, if you judge Obama and Bush by their actions in office rather than by their evident level of political sophistication and sympathies, the differences, especially in foreign policy, are nowhere near as marked as you like to point out.
^^^^^^^^^ CB: I differ on your generalization concerning the proportion of "personal" vs "political" criticisms of Obama over the last four years on the lists. However, it is inevitable because we are discussing US politics in which elections have a big popularity contest component. So, candidates for President have to feature personality as part of their "political" campaign. In other words, the personal disdain for Obama is inevitable to those responding to him as a campaigner like all others, featuring personality, running in the personality contest dimension of the election. So, I don't really have a problem that the criticism comes in the form of dislike of personality, because that's the American custom. However, since I'm saying Obama should be supported politically and the only way to get elected is to be popular, I also criticize the dislike of personality. In other words, the "hating" is just an understandable way of criticizing his politics. But I gotta criticize the hating to criticize _their_ political position, which is don't vote at all , don't vote for Democrats, they are lesser evil, or even greater evil because they are deceptive, yada yada yada, and the like. > ^^^^^ > Like the scorpion in Aesop's fable, Obama is doing what you would > expect: discharging his responsibilities as President of an imperial > power. Liberals are embittered because their expectations were > different. If Hagel is named Defence Secretary, he'll similarly be > compelled to adhere to the prevailing set of "destructive bipartisan > orthodoxies" until America's strategic interests, rather than any > maverick views which he may hold, dictate otherwise. > > ^^^^^ > CB: So, you go off on a dodging tangent, too. In the given balance of > forces in the Reaganite era, and pro-Israel super hegemony in > especially the Senate, this is a vary liberal move to by Obama, and > you can't avoid it or hide with. Amazing how you can't admit that > this is clearly a leftward signal , as much of a move away from > "destructive bipartisan orthodoxies" as one could expect to get now. > Obama will be running foreign policy , not Hagel. Duhh. This is a way > for Obama to signal a move away from absolute pro-Israeli foreign > policy > > ^^^^ No one is disputing that there may be a renewed effort to force a peace settlement on the Israelis and Palestinians for the reasons I mentioned (which you reproduce below). But this is not a position uniquely held by Obama or Hagel, nor a departure from the long-standing one of the US and Quartet. I'll be impressed if the administration improbably outlines a proposal for a viable Palestinian state which is effectively more than a Bantustan - the minimum the Israelis would accept. This would bring the US into serious conflict with the Netanyahu government and represent a genuine departure from the US's "absolute pro-Israeli foreign policy." ^^^ CB: I'll be impressed if they don't attack Iran and keep Israel from attacking Iran. Evidently, Hagel has made statements out of the "consensus" on that. The discipline of the US executive and legislative branches adhering to an extreme pro-Israel foreign policy in this era is infamous. Hagel seems to have a reputation as a rare maverick, but of course not too much of an outlier. But his reputation makes his choice about as strong a signal as Obama can give that of some move from Israel's stranglehold on US foreign policy. Why pick Hagel and invite controversy if the purpose is not to signal thus ? ^^^^^ Instead, I expect any such pressure as is exerted on the Likud government will be for it to get serious and to agree, in fact, to negotiate the Bantustan favoured by the Israeli centre-left parties, which the Israeli right has hitherto been content to let sit on the table. You can expect most of the pressure from the US and its European and Arab proxies to be directed against Hamas, the key player on the Palestinian side, in order to bring it's position into line with the minimum which would be reluctantly acceptable to Israel. So, while I don't want to dampen your hopeful spirits, I'd hold off before reading too much into the "signals" you and others are receiving from the Hagel appointment. ^^^^^^ CB: I don't know if I'd call what I have "hopeful spirits". More like a perk of satisfaction that Obama has the aim of some leftward reform, even as his ability to make the changes are not certain even in the very powerful office of President. It sort of gets back to the personality/political issues. Left Obama haters often speculate that Obama is really conservative or rightwing in his heart. This sort of thing supports the hypothesis that he is left liberal in his heart, but operates in a political regime that forces him to play a role to the right of what he could do if he could just do what he wanted. The difference is that when opportunities arise to make some leftward movement, he will take them if he is ideologically left. ^^^^^ > The continuity of US foreign policy under Obama, particularly with > respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict, is a pretty clear > illustration of the subordination of the individual to systemic > imperatives, even at the very highest level. Obama assumed office with > some sympathy for the Palestinians and the intention to impose a peace > settlement on the Israelis before he was was forced to beat a > humiliating retreat. > > ^^^^ > CB: This appointment is a very clear _break_ with that continuity. > You're talking like Obama didn't just appoint someone who background > is not in sinc with the bi-partisn thingy on Israel. Hagel is exactly > a signal of discontinuity. He's one of the few people he could appoint > to give such a signal. > > ^^^^ > > Perhaps his second term will be different, but that will depend less > on the good intentions and understanding of Obama or Hegel than on a > revised consensus within the US foreign policy and military > establishment, shared by a congressional majority, about the US's > strategic Mideast needs in light of such factors as the Arab Spring, > US economic constraints, shale gas exploitation, and Iran's nuclear > weapons program. > > ^^^^^ > CB: To the extent that Obama can move left in this area this is a > clearcut left move. And the President has more power than the Congress > on foreign policy and defense than the Congress. This is a case where > Obama's good intentions are not just that of another individual , but > the most powerful official in the area. Also, the Senate will have to > confirm, so, if Hagel gets in, it will be more than Obama moving this > way _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
