by Chris Floyd
Nov. 5, 2008
As the United States enters a new and unprecedented political era — or, as killjoy cynics would have it, as the American empire gets a new set of temporary managers — the fate of the “dissident” movement that arose under the Bush Regime seems greatly occluded. So many of those who set out their stalls as bold outsiders “speaking truth to power” now find themselves on the inside, enthralled by power, speaking for power, as it is personified by President-elect Barack Obama — who, ironically, has consistently repudiated many of the tenets and principles that provoked the dissidents’ outrage in the first place.
I have always disliked this phrase “speaking truth to power” (although I’m sure I’ve lazily employed it myself on several occasions). No one needs to speak truth to power: power knows the truth well enough, it knows what it is doing, and to whom, and why. What we need, most desperately, are people who will speak truth about power, and speak it to people who might not have heard that truth through the howling cacophony of media diversion, corporate spin and political manipulation.
So for those of dissident bent who would still like to speak truth about power — and who are not sending their CVs to the Obama transition team or signing on as happy warriors to defend the new imperial managers from revenge attacks by bitter partisans of the ousted faction — the question of how best to comport oneself in this brave new world takes on some urgency. In this regard, we would like to suggest the following conceptual framework for analyzing and understanding the moral, ethical, social, economic and legal implications of the policies and actions of the coming administration. (And it even comes with its own handy acronym!):
“WIBDI: What If Bush Did It?”
This user-friendly analytical tool provides a quick and easy way of determining the value of any given policy while correcting one’s perception for partisan bias. Simply take a particular action or proposal and submit it to the WIBDI test: If Bush did this, would you think it was OK? Or would you condemn it as the act of a warmonger, or a tyrant, or a corrupt corporate tool, etc.? The just-concluded campaign has already shown us how our hordes of our quondam dissidents have signally failed this test, excusing, countenancing, defending or even embracing the actions and positions enumerated below by Chris Hedges:
Sen. Barack Obama’s vote to renew the Patriot Act, his votes to continue to fund the Iraq war, his backing of the FISA Reform Act, his craven courting of the Israeli lobby, his support of the death penalty, his refusal to champion universal, single-payer not-for-profit health care for all Americans, his call to increase troop levels and expand the war in Afghanistan, his failure to call for a reduction in the bloated and wasteful defense spending and his lobbying for the huge taxpayer swindle known as the bailout…
Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech Nov. 4, 2008
Only Nader Is Right on the Issues By Chris Hedges + Gitmo
Election Returns (links) + Obama wins + McCain Concession Speech
Obama and the Left’s Dilemma By William Bowles
Between Hope and Reality – An Open Letter to Barack Obama By Ralph Nader
Pingback: Mosaic News - 11/5/08: World News from the Middle East « Dandelion Salad
That is the best test ever devised for public policy, and in the era of “anyone but Bush” hysteria, it’s a necessary measure.
Pingback: Class divisions begin to emerge in Obama coalition « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: The World After Bush « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Kucinich debates O’Reilly « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: The November 5th Movement Starts Right Now! « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: With Ralph Nader on Election Night + Nader speaks on an Obama presidency « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Bush on the results of the election « Dandelion Salad