My expectations are high. I highly expect lies, evasions, platitudes, corruption, secrecy, double standards, and violence. I expect wars, imprisonment, brutality, and killing. I expect international law to be completely ignored, corporate interests to be put before any human consideration, and the future of the planet to be tossed aside in the name of protecting private profits.

I also expect that millions of American liberals will pay next to zero attention to any of this, because it will be a Democrat doing it—maybe Obama, or maybe someone else. It doesn't matter who it is; it only matters what they do.

I'll be deliriously happy to be entirely wrong about the things I expect. Hell, I'll be overjoyed to be even half wrong. But if American history makes anything clearly, it's that that's not bloody likely.

You could read us It Takes a Village next, and be comforted by the fact that Hillary recommends not beating our children.

There are
Good Germans and Bloody Krauts
English Gentlemen and British Bastards
Nice Yanks and Ugly Americans
Those of the Hebrew Persuasion and Yids

But, there are only Swedes.

Why things in 2008 will be very much a they were in 1958. Except, of course,in real income for most Americans. Talk about that? Jeeeez, no.

John:

I highly expect lies, evasions, platitudes, corruption, secrecy, double standards, and violence. I expect wars, imprisonment, brutality, and killing.

Dude, you live in the United States of America. Not only that, you live on Planet Earth. Saying you expect lies, war, brutality, etc. is like saying you expect the sun to rise tomorrow.

These are things we have essentially no control over. What we do have some control over is what American liberals will notice and do. Let's concentrate on that.

StO:

You could read us It Takes a Village next, and be comforted by the fact that Hillary recommends not beating our children.

Strongly disagree. What Obama wrote is absolutely not an empty platitude. That doesn't necessarily mean he won't be happy to kill millions on behalf of Citibank. But I consider it a significant advance to have a presidential candidate capable of perceiving and expressing that, and a fair number of white people who seem capable of hearing it. YMMV.

"what American liberals will notice and do."

Oh, they may "notice" a fair amount, but the gap between that and what they are willing to do has gotten wider and wider. Pushing them to notice more may inspire better cocktail party conversation or talk show chatter, but action stops where liberal pocketbooks, stock options, kids' schooling or real estate values begin.

I expect wars, imprisonment, brutality, and killing.

Really? I expect we'll be completely out of Iraq in two years, and it will be a good, long time before we get into another war.

And, after we're out of Iraq (in two years, remember), I expect to see major cuts in the military budget, and massive reinvestment of that money into job-creating clean energy projects.

I expect to see a powerful working-class rebellion against corporate power, uniting Christian-fundamentalist Huckabee-voters with folks like you and me.

I expect to see Canadian-style single-payer health care in the U.S. within the next ten years. Also coming in the next ten years: full and equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

I expect Guantanamo to be shut down and its prisoners either tried in U.S. courts with all full due process or freed. I expect laws to be written prohibiting torture, and I expect those laws will be obeyed.

Really, I do.

Really, I do.
Posted by SteveB at January 4, 2008 10:54 AM

Meeee, tooooo!

And a PONY!!!!!

Adding the Colin Powell quote was a brilliant move. It shows that even when we can see what's happening is wrong, it's tough to stop the institutionalized forces of greed, violence, anger.

No President (or Secretary of State) can change that by him/herself, even if they seem to really want to (Jesus, MLK, Gandhi, etc succumbed to these forces in the end, at least in earthly terms). But we vote in hopes that a leader can provide momentum or political "space" to the forces that counter our worst nature, if only temporarily or partially. We respond in anger and frustration when they seem to fail us, due to their deceit, weakness, or our own unrealistic expectations. We canonize the really good ones later, after time allows us to forgive them or ourselves for the failings.

Oh man, when did I start writing sermons?

I just hope that Obama gets it - that when he starts playing with people's power that they won't make nice. I hope that he has enough street kid in him to have the stomach for the fight that any of this change stuff is going to precipitate.

Just so I'm clear, you're impressed with the bold passage, where Obama notes that otherwise reasonable (white) people can be cruel (to black people) without noticing? That's what I'm assuming.

I think most black Americans have probably worked that one out. I doubt Obama will apply that lesson to politics in general. Congratulations on following your New Year's resolution, but it's just one non-platitude, stacked against the hundreds of others the man utters. As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again.

OPTIMUS PRIME FOR PRESIDENT!

Meeee, tooooo!

And a PONY!!!!!

Nope. Sorry, konopelli/wgg, but I don't see you getting a pony any time in the forseeable future.

It's unfortunate, I know, but we can't all have what we want.

Jon: It's obvious to you, but most Democratic voters would consider it gibberish when applied to their candidates. And although you don't, this is the second you-know-maybe-Obama-wouldn't-be-so-bad posting you've written in two weeks. I agree we should concentrate on what people notice, with the hope of influencing what they do...that's why I write. But if even someone as well-protected by bitter knowledge as you are is feeling the subtle pull of the Obama mystique–to the point that you feel the need to emphasize that your expectations are still low low low–the chance that liberals generally (unaware of or in denial about the crimes of their heroes) will notice or do anything at all if Obama assumes the presidency are razor thin indeed.

I understand that you're focusing on the positive, but in the case of Obama (or nearly any Democrat) I think it's counterproductive. If he wins, nice liberals will be doing nothing but looking at the positive for the next four years, and the world will only be the worse for it. As much as possible I plan to keep focusing on the negative of any Democrat, because that's what people need to hear.

Really, I do.
Posted by SteveB at January 4, 2008 10:54 AM

I expect dumb-fucking spineless pwoggie-bloggie morons to continue voting for corporate scumbags while writing utterly clueless stupid shit.

WE still got George and Dick so the party is not over yet. Still a year to go.

AlanSmithee: Have You called Nancy yet @1-202-225-0100 and DEMANDED IMPEACHMENT?

I expect dumb-fucking spineless pwoggie-bloggie morons to continue voting for corporate scumbags while writing utterly clueless stupid shit.

Man, has Alan got me pegged. I'm just waiting to give my vote for President to a certain corporate scumbag named Cynthia McKinney

StO:

Just so I'm clear, you're impressed with the bold passage, where Obama notes that otherwise reasonable (white) people can be cruel (to black people) without noticing? That's what I'm assuming.

I think most black Americans have probably worked that one out.

What I'm impressed by is not just that he said it, but that he said it and lots of white people voted for him.

However, I also think you're wrong that most black Americans have worked that out. And certainly most stepped-on people all over the world haven't worked it out. That's not a criticism: if someone is punching you in the face every day, it's hard to comprehend that they don't even notice they're doing so. (Church of the SubGenius: "Try not to take it personally, even if the demons tormenting you have your name tattooed on their foreheads.") But I think we should recognize that while having power makes people blind, a lack of power often blinds people too.

John:

I understand that you're focusing on the positive, but in the case of Obama (or nearly any Democrat) I think it's counterproductive. If he wins, nice liberals will be doing nothing but looking at the positive for the next four years, and the world will only be the worse for it. As much as possible I plan to keep focusing on the negative of any Democrat, because that's what people need to hear.

I'm with you, mostly. But the positive I'm focusing on and the "positive" they'll focus on are different things. For instance, one positive of an Obama presidency is it might help people see we're moving from an age of racial apartheid to one of economic apartheid. You really need non-white leaders for people to have any possibility of comprehending this, as South Africa shows.

It's also a very good thing to have a viable politician who's not just "black" (by American standards) but has used cocaine, has a weird name, has Muslim family members, and has dated white women -- just as it was a good thing to have a president like Clinton who everyone knew had smoked pot and cheated on his wife. The forces of reaction have always counted on using such things to destroy anyone who gets in their way. If American society is becoming less insane in these areas and that tool is no longer available to reactionaries, it's a small but real step forward.

And it's good to have normal people get politicized in any way, even if they have no idea what's really going on.

Finally, I also think that sticking to an all-bad-news-all-the-time agenda makes people like us less effective in communicating with those we can reach. They'll sense, even if not consciously, that we have an agenda beyond being straight with them.

AlanSmithee:

Here's my suggestion: go talk to a representative sampling of Iraqis, Palestinians and people in U.S. prisons and find out if they think this is a productive use of your time. If they say no, then reevaluate.

Hey, sorry about that. One unclosed tag and I've linked your entire thread to Cynthia McKinney's website. Not intentional, I assure you.

And should Haloscan allow something like that?

No problem, it's fixed.

Don't blame Haloscan, however. This is movable type in all its hideous glory.

"the giver of the blow forgets, the bearer of the scar remembers"
-- haitian proverb

look, it's far too late to reverse the demise of the american empire. the wheels are in motion, and even if obama were the lightning rod he claims to be, he would be completely powerless to stop it. we're completely screwed, no matter who's in charge.

that being the case, wouldn't it be cool if, after the fall, we could say, "we tried. hey, we even elected a black guy on the way down."

uticas:

look, it's far too late to reverse the demise of the american empire. the wheels are in motion, and even if obama were the lightning rod he claims to be, he would be completely powerless to stop it.

If you're correct, we should be glad the demise can't be reversed. Our job shouldn't be trying to preserve it, but to keep it from destroying humanity during its death throes.

Finally, I also think that sticking to an all-bad-news-all-the-time agenda makes people like us less effective in communicating with those we can reach.

One of the all-time-worst organizing tactics, used, as far as I can tell, exclusively by leftists, is this:

"I know more than you, and because I know more than you, I am also much more depressed than you. Won't you join me and learn all the things I know, so you can be just as depressed as me?"

Not a lot of takers for that one, surprisingly.

So if you really can't give up the "I know more than you" part (and I know I can't) try to give up the "my knowledge makes me more depressed than you" part. Isn't there anything you know, that most people don't know, that makes you less depressed about the future? Maybe your understanding of the history of successful social movements gives you hope that "ordinary" people can overcome powerful interests? At least that one works for me.

if the hegemony party is over, the morning we walk out into is a nasty one, quite separately from bankers and hawks

I agree that sticking to bad news isn't a good idea, and I write pretty often about the positive. The positives I usually focus on are about the people fighting the powerful, though, not the powerful themselves (though I make exceptions for anomalies like Zapatero, Morales, Chavez...). I think the former is very important and the latter is usually a bad idea, and especially so in the case of the current crop of Democrats.

My personal experience is that stepped-on people all over the world understand surprisingly well that their tormentors generally don't have bad intentions. When I was in Yugoslavia (right after the US/NATO attack) and the West Bank and Gaza (during the US-backed Israeli assault of 2002) the one thing that moved me the most was the generosity of spirit the victims showed towards the people who were causing them so much pain. They had every right to feel otherwise, but I saw almost none of it, and it really brought home for me how ignorance is a critical component of callousness, and that when people genuinely understand what it means to suffer it makes them more understanding, not less, and they're far less likely to wish it on others.

John:

one thing that moved me the most was the generosity of spirit the victims showed towards the people who were causing them so much pain

Generosity of spirit toward you personally even though you're a US taxpayer, or generosity of spirit toward Joe Lieberman and John McCain? I've experienced the former, but have never seen too much of the latter.

I wouldn't overdo or overestimate that ole "spirit of generosity." More often than not, it's a smile of helplessness, and if the situation is reversed, the Auden line will kick in: those to whom great evil is done, do evil to others (in return). If possible, to those who inflicted the evil in the first place, if not possible, to those nearest. (See Israel and the Palestinians.)
Suffering rarely ennobles our souls or spirit. Hasn't changed since the Greeks conceived tragedy.

Generosity of spirit towards Americans generally—even towards those who were cheering the bombs. But also towards Clinton and others policymakers (not so much Bush, though I can hardly blame them there). The people I spoke with (human rights workers, doctors, shopkeepers, taxi drivers, people selling tea in checkpoint lines just to stay alive, and everyone in between) almost universally showed a deeper level of understanding and had a more generous and considered outlook than people in this country.

I don't want to oversell it; there was definitely a lot of anger as well, and some people who wanted nothing more than revenge (like the man dressed in robes in Jenin who told me "I don't like Americans...I kill Americans"). But it was striking to me how little of that there was in proportion to how much would have been justified.

John --

I got the same vibe from Vietnamese people I've met and talked to -- which is amazing to me, and an enduring sense of hope (yes, "hope") for me. Imagine how Americans would treat those who leveled their cities and slaughtered untold millions?

Hee. Just fuckin' with ya.

Thanks, everybody, for a fascinating thread. Discussion like this is one thing that does give me hope for the future, and if you think that's pollyannish, quit reading and go do something you think is worthwhile.

"I know more than you, and because I know more than you, I am also much more depressed than you. Won't you join me and learn all the things I know, so you can be just as depressed as me?"

I think this is wonderfully expressed.

I can't speak for others, but I can spin gloom with the best of 'em, and supply enough current events and history behind it to make it seem inevitable. But, for me, it all comes down to disappointment over the world not coming up to my standards--which whenever I do it, feels like egotism masquerading as rectitude and perception.

I have a difficult time accepting myself as I am, people as they are, the world as it is. But I'm no better or worse than the average person; and I think most of what is posted on ATR as the latest outrage is simply primates being primates. I can see myself as the torturer AND the tortured, y'know? I'm not excusing bad behavior, either my own or Obama's or liberals' or the US Army's--only the belief that if my interest is in changing something, first I have to accept it; perhaps then I will understand it; and then if I'm lucky love it; and only then be able to change it.

This is a bitch. It's also particularly essential for progressives to keep in mind, because progress can never be forced; forced progress can always be circumvented. Perhaps movements are only as powerful as the love behind them? And that love can only exist through absolute acceptance of our flawed selves and the flawed world we've created together? Maybe the sorry state of things doesn't come from "those people doing things I disagree with" but instead everybody's desire to make the world (and themselves) conform to some intellectual conception, rather than merely observing, accepting, and loving? My experience has been that I create the world that exists inside of me; has that been your experience too?

Please don't take this as an admonition or critique or even a friendly suggestion; maybe cataloguing the corruption and stupidity of the American Empire is exactly what YOU should be doing to achieve a greater degree of understanding, acceptance and love for yourself. I only know that for me, until the better world exists inside me, it can't exist anywhere else. And I just don't feel it inside when I bitch about murder, lies and corruption; nor do I feel it when I exult in those fleeting moments where somebody does something "right." I only feel it when I accept. I know this process doesn't generate compelling conversation, but it's what I try to use ATR for.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to make a mockery of all these good intentions. But maybe not--wish me luck!

remember, though, only one ever survives an internal struggle

From ABC News when the reporter asked Obama why he didn't wear a flag pin:

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

"Instead," he said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

On September 12 I flew the American flag that was used to draped my father's coffin (it was the only flag I had). I took it down after a week or so, and in the intervening years decided never to fly that flag or any flag again. And I won't.

Now, I don't know if anyone is sincere in their beliefs, and certainly not presidential candidates, but the fact that Obama had a difficult answer to a difficult question that I had pondered myself impressed me - so much so that I contributed to his campaign by buying an "Obama 08" sweatshirt.

Yesterday we had the first good cold rain of he season in San Diego so I was wearing the sweatshirt. At a La Jolla mall a very well dressed, extremely old (80+) clearly well-off white woman saw the shirt, walked over to me, poked her finger at my chest and said "you'd vote for that faggot?". I was dumbstruck and just stood there, unable to respond as she turned and walked away.

Yes old lady, I will vote for him.