(just to be clear, I have no patience with the "OMG Obama is a Muslim Socialist!!!" rhetoric, particularly when available evidence points to nearly opposite conclusions)
I wasn't silent but I was not vocal enough; I don't like confrontation that turns ugly and personal, and I felt like nothing I could say made a difference anyway. Bringing it into this blog felt particularly pointless. I now see that although I was willing to challenge people in person (and on other blogs), I was reluctant to take too public a stand, as small a number as my "public" may be. It was a form of cowardice on my part, and one that I regret.
I'm a good liberal as both RL and online acquaintances most likely know. I voted Democratic in the presidential election because the alternative was unacceptable -- I was not going to hand the car keys back over to the Party that had driven the country into the ditch for the last eight years. I wasn't happy about my choices, but I figured at the very least we would have a somewhat more rational foreign policy and a significantly better environmental one.
Basically, I voted for the polar bears.
I need to get to work and I don't have the time or energy to write a long post enumerating all the reasons I'm
So, to keep it short, here's the list: the financial bailout, i.e., "the socialization of risk and the privatization of profit," which is to say, "everything for the people who caused the problems in the first place, nothing for the working and middle class", the incredible hypocrisy on DOMA, DADT, the "health care reform" that started with a fatal compromise and ends, I'm guessing, with huge giveaways to the insurance industry and little, if any, improvement in care...
And this, which is the worst of all: the continuation of the Bush Administration's extra-legal tactics in the "war on terror" and the continued shredding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Glenn Greenwald, linked above, has the essential summary of how the Obama administration is considering an executive order to allow prolonged detention without charges. For me, the money graph is this one:
There has now emerged a very clear -- and very disturbing -- pattern whereby Obama is willing to use legal mechanisms and recognize the authority of other branches only if he's assured that he'll get the outcome he wants. If he can't get what he wants from those processes, he'll just assert Bush-like unilateral powers to bypass those processes and do what he wants anyway. In other words, what distinguishes Obama from the first-term Bush is that Obama is willing to indulge the charade that Congress, the courts and the rule of law have some role to play in political outcomes as long as they give him the power he wants. But where those processes impede Obama's will, he'll just bypass them and assert the unilateral power to do what he wants anyway...One of Greenwald's commentators cites Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire, the basic premise of which is that the American economy has become an increasingly militarized, hollow shell, our republic, an empire supported by arms, where a series of bases substitute for colonies. Everything the Bush administration did, both at home and abroad, supports Johnson's view; the Bush administration was wholly given over to the military-industrial complex; and the extent to which Obama is willing to continue the abuses of his predecessor provides further evidence of the essential truth of what Johnson proposes.
When then-Senator Obama, the presidential frontrunner, voted for the FISA bill he had earlier promised to filibuster, the writing on the wall was writ large enough for anyone to see.
Empires do not willingly transform themselves back into republics. And holders of power do not willingly give up power.
(Shorter Obama: "We had to shred the Constitution in order to save it.")