Obama knows that syste professional activists who prioritize their business plans will help him tout his pipeline gesture as a significant "victory" for climate change so that they can claim efficacy in their fundraising pitches, while giving Obama immunity for burning the planet. Concludes the expert, "it's cynicism at its finest."
The same pattern occurred when the activist organizations let Obama off the hook by pursuing for years a futile and ineffective constitutional amendment as the only solution for political corruption, until they didn't. Obama was allowed for this whole period to get away with a few offhanded, meaningless, but well-publicized weasel words about how he would "love to see some constitutional process that would allow us to actually regulate campaign spending the way we used to," while his actions did worse than nothing to achieve that goal. Certainly worse than Bush who actually signed McCain-Feingold, whereas Obama both worked for and signed the corrupt 2014 "CRomnibus Act" before doing the same for its 2015 sequel in what will likely become an annual franchise of such Influence Peddlers Protection Acts.
It would be wrong to blame this cynicism on some rare hidden character flaw in Obama. Actually, he effortlessly excels in the Machiavellian genius required to succeed, especially on the Democratic side of this systemically corrupt plutocracy. Obama has demonstrated excellent leadership and effectiveness in managing and even expanding the plutocratic system, as did Bill Clinton before him and as Hillary Clinton hopes to do after him.
Obama demonstrated leadership skills again when he appointed and is still obviously supporting the conduct of a controversial chair of the DNC who is operating it so as to punish Sanders' by denying his campaign access to crucial information that is called "Voter Data." According to the Washington Post, this "could be a devastating blow if it lasts." The DNC has also deliberately limited the number of debates and committed "party malpractice" in scheduling them, so as to prevent Sanders' unpaid access to Democratic voters who might otherwise watch debates to learn more about the most popular candidate in the race. Sanders' campaign has appropriately charged that "the leadership of the Democratic National Committee is attempting to undermine our insurgent campaign" by "plac[ing] its thumb on the scales in support of Hillary Clinton's campaign." A high level New Hampshire Democrat argues that the limited debate schedule hurts the party and asks what has caused "the Democratic Party to abandon its fundamental principles for this race," a "question the DNC has yet to answer."
By allowing this charade to go forward Obama, as leader of the party, is attempting to carry forward his "counterfeit" impact beyond his own term by preventing the majority candidate who is not a counterfeit from getting the nomination of his party.
If there were any doubt that Sanders must first defeat a corrupt Democratic Party to succeed, or that Sanders has somehow joined the party's network of corruption by his use of Democratic primaries from which the party cannot legally bar him, then his prompt legal complaint against the DNC for breaching its contract with Sanders for providing Voter Data should remove that doubt.
Both symbolically and in potentially "devastating" reality if the courts had not quickly responded to his complaint, this litigation shows that Sanders' campaign is necessarily one very much against a corrupt party and by implication the president behind it. It was necessary for Sanders to take the initiative in filing the lawsuit against the DNC since it is classic behavior for systemically corrupt institutions to attack insurgent reformers by trumping up charges against them. For example, Teddy Roosevelt was attacked in this manner when he was first aggressively leading Civil Service Commission reform, an attack which he defended successfully against his corrupt accusers in House hearings. Richard D. White Jr., Roosevelt the Reformer: Theodore Roosevelt as Civil Service Commissioner, 1889-1895 (2003) 41-43.
Bush II demonstrated that for the denial-of-reality form of lying that works for their constituents, the Republican job description does not need to include the qualification of genius. Indeed, the less the better for achieving that essential vacuous verisimilitude of clueless credibility that seems to appeal to Republican voters. But consistently gaining the support and even the apologetics of voters who are demanding a set of policies which are the opposite of what plutocrats have ordered from Democrats, and paid for, does require a rare genius for deception. That same evil genius is now being used to undermine the people's own choice, Sanders. If Obama wants to spare himself responsibility for the conduct of his appointee, he should replace her. Otherwise it shows he is content with the party acting in a biased manner, cheating in a run-off process which is supposed to be as fairly conducted as the general election. Smith v. Allwright , 321 U.S. 649 (1944).
In the Orwellian world of plutocracy, such genius is the opposite of weakness. There manipulation passes for leadership. Lies are truth. Plutocrats, like organized crime, do not pay to get deceived. They do the deceiving. Deception of the public must and does pervade the whole corrupt system. Obama's genius in managing that deception is a mere symptom of the system, but one that reveals him to consistently be the best at what he does. If the system were not corrupt, Obama might just as easily have turned his skills to succeed in that non-corrupt system too. It is the corrupt system that Sanders is running against, and is exposing for what it is as he does so.
It is either a tribute to Obama's skill that public opinion is mostly oblivious to the fact that Obama "stands up" commonly for the opposite of what he does, or also a tribute to the highly evolved propaganda system that helps him disguise that fact and fails to challenge him. Either way, the price Obama pays for his success in the corrupt system that actually exists is a public perception of high-minded weakness and inexperience, lack of involvement, rather than an appreciation which he deserves for his true genius in putting it all over and delivering just what his donors expect.
Obama's genius seems to present the most extreme case of outright
campaign
fraud since
Woodrow
Wilson,
who like Obama covered behind a veneer of progressive intentions
bad deeds like Jim Crow re-segregation of the federal government,
warmongering,
political repression, and a state propaganda system. Wilson, a Wall
Street-backed southern Democrat in an equally plutocratic era as the
one Obama has helped extend, was also elevated quickly to the
presidency by Wall Street money after a shorter experience in
elective office than Obama. One historian's
description of Wilson precisely fits Obama: he
"was very adroit in conveying the sense of empathy for ideals
while holding off from adopting the methods that would be required to
implement the objectives."
Conclusion
If, as a result of the nation's experience with Obama, honesty and authenticity were to be seen, as it should be, as the main issue in 2016, then Sanders would likely win both the nomination and the election.
As believed by a decisive number of Independents, among others including many Republicans, and Cornel West clearly tells us, "only Bernie has authenticity and integrity." Q-Poll reports "Sanders gets the best honesty grades among top candidates" while "voters say 60 - 36 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy." Clinton's net negative spread of 24% ties Trump's. If this is the choice a defective run-off process delivers, as it seems to be doing, the next president will be a known liar.
Let's hope then that Prof. West, and others of us who value democracy, can persuade enough primary voters of Sanders' relevant qualities, of course, but perhaps more importantly of Obama's lack of the same. Otherwise in this complex three-way race between an Independent and two plutocratic parties, along two political axes, but where the plutocratic parties control the dated primary run-off process, "spoiler Democrats" may throw the general election to Republicans. That is the risk of nominating - in a year characterized by populist demand for authenticity - another "donor-driven" centrist who, like Obama, "pose[s] as a progressive and turn[s] out to be a counterfeit." As another writer says it, "Nominating an establishment candidate during this profoundly populist moment could prove to be a very risky 'safe' bet."
Clinton lacks even a credible covering legend to absolve those Democrats who are about to be fooled again. She is a Clinton, after all, not an obscure but charismatic former community organizer, academic, and partial term Senator, with the smooth oratorical chops to fool even Cornel West.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
