A Historic Moment: The Election of the Greatest Con-Man in Recent History By James Petras

Dandelion Salad

By James Petras
December 08, 2008

“I have a vision of Americans in their 80’s being wheeled to their offices and factories having lost their legs in imperial wars and their pensions to Wall Street speculators and with bitter memories of voting for a President who promised change, prosperity and peace and then appointed financial swindlers and war mongers.” An itinerant Minister 2008

The entire political spectrum ranging from the ‘libertarian’ left, through the progressive editors of the Nation to the entire far right neo-con/Zionist war party and free market Berkeley/Chicago/Harvard academics, with a single voice, hailed the election of Barack Obama as a ‘historic moment’, a ‘turning point in American history and other such histrionics. For reasons completely foreign to the emotional ejaculations of his boosters, it is a historic moment: witness the abysmal gap between his ‘populist’ campaign demagoguery and his long-standing and deepening carnal relations with the most retrograde political figures, power brokers and billionaire real estate and financial backers.

What was evident from even a cursory analysis of his key campaign advisers and public commitments to Wall Street speculators, civilian militarists, zealous Zionists and corporate lawyers was hidden from the electorate, by Obama’s people friendly imagery and smooth, eloquent deliverance of a message of ‘hope’. He effectively gained the confidence, dollars and votes of tens of millions of voters by promising ‘change’ (implying higher taxes for the rich, ending the Iraq war and national health care reform) when in fact his campaign advisers (and subsequent strategic appointments) pointed to a continuation of the economic and military policies of the Bush Administration.

Within 3 weeks of his election he appointed all the political dregs who brought on the unending wars of the past two decades, the economic policy makers responsible for the financial crash and the deepening recession castigating tens of millions of Americans today and for the foreseeable future. We can affirm that the election of Obama does indeed mark a historic moment in American history: The victory of the greatest con man and his accomplices and backers in recent history.

He spoke to the workers and worked for their financial overlords.

He flashed his color to minorities while obliterating any mention of their socio-economic grievances.

He promised peace in the Middle East to the majority of young Americans and slavishly swears undying allegiance to the War Party of American Zionists serving a foreign colonial power (Israel).

Obama, on a bigger stage, is the perfect incarnation of Melville’s Confidence Man. He catches your eye while he picks your pocket. He gives thanks as he packs you off to fight wars in the Middle East on behalf of a foreign country. He solemnly mouths vacuous pieties while he empties your Social Security funds to bail out the arch financiers who swindled your pension investments. He appoints and praises the architects of collapsed pyramid schemes to high office while promising you that better days are ahead.

Yes, indeed, “our greatest intellectual critics”, our ‘libertarian’ leftists and academic anarchists, used their 5-figure speaking engagements as platforms to promote the con man’s candidacy: They described the con man’s political pitch as “meeting the deeply felt needs of our people”. They praised the con man when he spoke of ‘change’ and ‘turning the country around’ 180 degrees. Indeed, Obama went one step further: he turned 360 degrees, bringing us back to the policies and policy makers who were the architects of our current political-economic disaster.

The Con Man’s Self-Opiated Progressive Camp Followers

The contrast between Obama’s campaign rhetoric and his political activities was clear, public and evident to any but the mesmerized masses and the self-opiated ‘progressives’ who concocted arguments in his favor. Indeed even after Obama’s election and after he appointed every Clintonite-Wall Street shill into all the top economic policy positions, and Clinton’s and Bush’s architects of prolonged imperial wars (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates), the ‘progressive true believers’ found reasons to dog along with the charade. Many progressives argued that Obama’s appointments of war mongers and swindlers was a ‘ploy’ to gain time now in order to move ‘left’ later.

Never ones to publicly admit their ‘historic’ errors, the same progressives turned to writing ‘open letters to the President’ pleading the ‘cause of the people’. Their epistles, of course, may succeed in passing through the shredder in the Office of the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

The conjurer who spoke of ‘change’ now speaks of ‘experience’ in appointing to every key and minor position the same political hacks who rotate seamlessly between Wall Street and Washington, the Fed and Academia. Instead of ‘change’ there is the utmost continuity of policy makers, policies and above all ever deepening ties between militarists, Wall Street and the Obama appointments. True believer-progressives, facing their total debacle, grab for any straw. Forced to admit that all of Obama’s appointments represent the dregs of the bloody and corrupt past, they hope and pray that ‘current dire circumstances’ may force these unrepentant warmongers and life long supporters of finance capital to become supporters and advocates of a revived Keynesian welfare state. On the contrary, Obama and each and everyone of his foreign policy appointments to the Pentagon, State and Justice Departments, Intelligence and Security agencies are calling for vast increases in military spending, troop commitments and domestic militarization to recover the lost fortunes of a declining empire. Obama and his appointees plan to vigorously pursue Clinton-Bush’s global war against national resistance movements in the Middle East. His most intimate and trusted ‘Israel-First’ advisers have targeted Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Palestine and Iraq.

Obama’s Economic Con Game

Then there is the contrast between the trillions Obama will shower on the financial swindlers (and any other ‘too big to fail’ private capitalist enterprise) and his zero compensation for the 100 million heads of families swindled of $5 trillion dollars in savings and pensions by his cohort appointees and bailout beneficiaries. Not a cent is allocated for the long term unemployed. Not a single household threatened with eviction will be bailed out.

Obama is the trademark name of a network of confidence people. They are a well-organized gang of prominent political operative, money raisers, mass media hustlers, real estate moguls and academic pimps. They are joined and abetted by the elected officials and hacks of the Democratic Party. Like the virtuoso performer, Obama projected the image and followed the script. But the funding and the entire ‘populist’ show was constructed by the hard-nosed, hard-line free marketeers, Jewish and Gentile ‘Israel Firsters’, Washington war mongers and a host of multi-millionaire ‘trade union’ bureaucrats.

The electoral scam served several purposes above and beyond merely propelling a dozen strategic con artists into high office and the White House. First and foremost, the Obama con-gang deflected the rage and anger of tens of millions of economically skewered and war drained Americans from turning their hostility against a discredited presidency, congress and the grotesque one-party two factions political system and into direct action or at least toward a new political movement.

Secondly the Obama image provided a temporary cover for the return and continuity of all that was so detested by the American people – the arrogant untouchable swindlers, growing unemployment and economic uncertainty, the loss of life savings and homes and the endless, ever-expanding imperial wars.

Featuring Paul Volker, ‘Larry’ Summers, Robert Gates, the Clintons, Geithner, Holder and General (‘You drink your kool-aid while I sit on Boeings’ Board of Directors’) Jim Jones USMC, Obama treats us to a re-run of military surges and war crimes, Wall Street banditry, Abu Ghraib, AIPAC hustlers and all the sundry old crap. Our Harvard-minted Gunga Din purports to speak for all the colonial subjects but acts in the interest of the empire, its financial vampires, its war criminals and its Middle East leaches from the Land of the Chosen.

The Two Faces of Obama

Like the Janus face found on the coins of the early Roman Republic, Obama and his intimate cronies cynically joked about ‘which is the real face of Barack’, conscious of the con-job they were perpetrating during the campaign. In reality, there is only one face – a very committed, very consequential and very up front Obama, who demonstrated in every single one of his appointments the face of an empire builder.

Obama is an open militarist, intent by every means possible to re-construct a tattered US empire. The President-Elect is an unabashed Wall Street Firster – one who has placed the recuperation of the biggest banks and investment houses as his highest priority. Obama’s nominees for all the top economic positions (Treasury, Chief White House economic advisers) are eminently qualified, (with long-term service to the financial oligarchy), to pursue Obama’s pro-Wall Street agenda. There is not a single member of his economic team, down to the lowest level of appointees, who represents or has defended the interests of the wage or salaried classes (or for that matter the large and small manufacturers from the devastated ‘productive’ industrial economy).

The Obama propagandists claim his appointments reflect his preference for ‘experience’ – which is true: his team members have plenty of ‘experience’ through their long and lucrative careers maximizing profits, buyouts and speculation favoring the financial sector. Obama does not want to have any young, untested appointees who have no long established records of serving Big Finance, whose interests are too central to Obama’s deepest and most strongly held core beliefs. He wanted reliable economic functionaries who recognize that re-financing billionaire financiers is the central task of his regime. The appointments of the Summers, Rubins, Geithners and Volkers fit perfectly with his ideology: They are the best choices to pursue his economic goals.

Critics of these nominations write of the ‘failures’ of these economists and their role in ‘bringing about the collapse of the financial system’. These critics fail to recognize that it is not their ‘failures’, which are the relevant criteria, but their unwavering commitment to the interests of Wall Street and their willingness to demand trillions of dollars more from US taxpayers to bolster their colleagues on Wall Street.

Under Clinton and Bush, in the run up to the financial collapse, they facilitated (‘deregulated’) the practice of swindling one hundred million Americans of trillions in private savings and pension funds. In the current crisis period with Obama they are just the right people to swindle the US Treasury of trillions of dollars in bailout funds to refinance their fellow oligarchs. The White President (Bush) leaves steaming financial turds all over the White House rugs and Wall Street summons the ‘historic’ Negro President Obama to organize the cleanup crew to scoop them out of public view.

Obama, the Militarist, Outdoes His Predecessor

What makes Obama a much more audacious militarist and Wall Streeter than Bush is that he intends to pursue military policies, which have already greatly harmed the US people with appointed officials who have already been discredited in the context of failed imperial wars and with a domestic economy in collapse. While Bush launched his wars after the US public had their accustomed peace shattered by an orchestrated fear-mongering after 9/11, Obama intends to launch his escalation of military spending in the context of a generalized public disenchantment with the ongoing wars, with monumental fiscal deficits, bloated military budgets and after 100,000 US soldiers have been killed, wounded or psychologically destroyed.

Obama’s appointments of Clinton, General Jim Jones, dual Israeli citizen Rahm Emanuel and super-Zionist Dennis Ross, among others, fit perfectly with his imperial-militarist agenda of escalating military aggression. His short list of intelligence candidates, likewise, fits perfectly with his all-out effort to “regain US world leadership” (reconstruct US imperial networks). All the media blather about Obama’s efforts at ‘bipartisanship’, ‘experience’ and ‘competence’ obscures the most fundamental questions: The specific nominees chosen from both parties are totally committed to military-driven empire-building. All are in favor of “a new effort to renew America’s standing in the world” (read ‘America’s imperial dominance in the world’), as Obama’s Secretary of State-to-be, Hillary Clinton, declared. General James Jones, Obama’s choice for National Security Advisor, presided over US military operations during the entire Abu Ghraib/Guantanemo period. He was a fervent supporter of the ‘troop surge’ in Iraq and is a powerful advocate for a huge increase in military spending, the expansion of the military by over 100,000 troops and the expanded militarization of American domestic society (not to mention his personal financial ties to the military industrial complex). Robert Gates, continuing as Obama’s Secretary of Defense, is a staunch supporter of unilateral, unlimited and universal imperial warfare. As the number of US-allied countries with troops in Iraq declines from 35 to only 5 by January 1, 2009 and even the Iraqi puppet regime calls for a withdrawal of all US troops by 2012, Gates, the intransigent, insists on a permanent military presence.

The issue of ‘experience’ revolves around two questions: (a) experience related to what past political practices? (b) experience relevant to pursue what future policies? All the nominees’ past experiences are related to imperial wars, colonial conquests and the construction of client states. Hilary Clinton’s ‘experience’ was through her support for the bombing of Yugoslavia and the Nato invasion of Kosova, her promotion of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an internationally recognized terrorist-criminal organization as well as the unrelenting bombings of Iraq in the 1990s, Bush’s criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003, Israel’s murderous bombing of civilian centers in Lebanon…and now full-throated calls for the ‘total obliteration of Iran’. Clinton, Gates and Jones have never in their mature political careers proposed the peaceful settlement of disputes with any adversary of the US or Israel. In other words, their vaunted ‘experience’ is based solely on their one-dimensional militarist approach to foreign relations.

‘Competence’, as an attribute again depends on the issue of ‘competence to do what’? In general terms, ‘The Three’ (Clinton, Gates and Jones), have demonstrated the greatest incompetence in extricating the US from prolonged, costly and lost colonial wars. They lack the minimum capacity to recognize that military-driven empire-building in the context of independent states is no longer feasible, that its costs can ruin an imperial economy and that prolonged wars erode their legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens.

Even within the framework of imperial geo-political strategic thinking, their positions exhibit the most dense incompetence: They blindly back a small, highly militarized and ideologically fanatical colonial state (Israel) against 1.5 billion Muslims living in oil and mineral resource-rich nations with lucrative markets and investment potential and situated in the strategic center of the world. They promote total wars against whole populations, as is occurring in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia and, which, by all historical experience, cannot be won. They are truly ‘Masters of Defeat’.

The point of the matter is that Obama appointed the ‘Big Three’ for their experience, competence and bipartisan support in the pursuit of imperial wars. He overlooked their glaring failures, their gross violations of the basic norms of civilization (of the human rights of tens of millions civilians in sovereign nations) because of their willingness to pursue the illusions of a US-dominated new world order.

Conclusion

Nothing speaks to Obama’s deep and abiding commitment to become the savior of the US empire as clearly as his willingness to appoint to the highest position of policy making the most mediocre failed politicians and generals merely because of their demonstrated willingness to pursue the course of military-driven empire building even in the midst of a collapsing domestic economy and ever more impoverished and drained citizenry.

Just as Obama’s electoral campaign and subsequent victory will go into the annals as the political con-job of the new millennium, his economic and political appointments will mark another ‘historic’ moment: The nomination of corrupt and failed speculators and warmongers. Let us join the inaugural celebration of our ‘First Afro-American’ Imperial President, who wins by con and rules by guns!

see

Peace By Cindy Sheehan

Buyer beware! Obama named “Marketer of the Year”

Obama, Wall Street and the US Automakers by Michael Hudson

Obama and the World Crisis by Richard C. Cook

You bastard, you burst my bubble! No not really By William Bowles

Automakers Return to Capitol Hill + Ralph Nader and Medea Benjamin on Obama’s Cabinet

8 thoughts on “A Historic Moment: The Election of the Greatest Con-Man in Recent History By James Petras

  1. Pingback: Obama’s Appointments by Steven Jonas « Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: Obama stimulus boosts markets « Dandelion Salad

  3. Thanks Lo,
    I’d vote for you first, as I have wherever possible, your being of vastly greater intelligence and morality than the masses (or myself)~

    Dear Mr. Doe,
    I agree that the damn Dems are ‘partisans’ of some strange stripe, and not substantially different than the goppers, in fact I would go a step further and accuse them of complicity.

    We should remember how these groups morph: It was the Dems who were the anti-civil rights party of the South! Aligning with parties (or any ideology) is fraught with partisan problems.

    Cindy Sheehan (also to be appointed to the cabinet somewhere in our virtual ‘Kitchen’) is our civilian expert on the damn dems and their complicity in corruption and crime.

    I’m no historian, but I believe it would be generally accepted that JFK ramped up the US deployment in Vietnam. Exactly why he did this is an ongoing discussion, likely posturing against the USSR, guy issues… a cavalier attitude to this ‘cold war’ that almost incinerated us all (and may yet still).

    I think it may be relevant that JFK apparently had Addison’s syndrome, and was popping speed-analogues all thru the conflict over Cuban missiles (and the near-incineration of everything. Hardly a stable psychology).

    Even a source like Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War#John_F._Kennedy_.281961.E2.80.931963.29 – would concur that in:

    “November 1963 — Kennedy increased the number of troops from the 800 that were there when he became President to 16,300 just before his death”.

    I would ask then, how would such an increase in deployment substantiate your assertion the ‘JFK didn’t want to go to war against Vietnam”? He was about as gung-ho as they get, for all sorts of misguided reasons.

    Knowing what we now know about ongoing illegal amerigoon ‘interventionism’ in third-world nations of no conceivable threat to their borders, I would sooner assume that MLK was ‘offed’ for his opposition to the ‘MIC’ than JFK was for same.

    JFK was a ‘star’ by nature, as is apparently impalin. The people were galvanized not by his politics but by his natural celebrity– what you might instead have picked up on is my indictment of Lincoln for inflicting this civil war on the country, when he should have let the South secede (but then I’d actually have to cite sources… ) But suffice to say, we perhaps should have let the sweltering, mosquito-ridden south suffer under embargo, and instead grown our food locally, and imported cotton from elsewhere (besides, linen and hemp are more durable and grow just fine in upstate NY).

    Let Deliverance die, and revert back to the un-glaciated old growth magnificence it once was. They would have ultimately soon become the bad-news red-state backwater they remain regardless. We know full well Lincoln did not pursue this epic militaristic horror for the freedom of the slaves.

    Barack already got enough guff for his issues with guns (and the goons who insist on ‘bearing’ them) to prove his position about these addictive fire-sticks of fear.

    I challenge any gun advocate to show exactly how the second amendment gets them the ability to properly confront the US military machine (or the ‘right’ to bear bazookas and Stinger missiles, as so many hunters and militia-types would claim) — would the students of Kent State have survived more successfully if they were all armed? Likely they would have been instead napalmed.

    Gunmongers promote public possession of firearms because they like to pathologically kill animals from afar, and they are addicted to the noise, the power, and the far-reaching deadly force firearms provide. Militias won’t succeed against the US military any more than the military could possibly subjugate the populace of this vast land via force (have you seen any sign of success by the vast US military machine against foreign nations the size of Texas? Now go try to subjugate Colorado like Red Dawn, and see how far you get!).

    It is all a fiction. There is no way to peace (least of all via firearms). Peace is the way.

    • Thanks, Natureboy. Although I don’t think I’m any smarter than you. You certainly can write much better than I can. Believe it or not, I’m more of a numbers person. Thanks for your lengthy commentary.

  4. Obama isn’t anti-gun. He just wants the government to have a monopoly on the use of force to make it easy to kill everyone on the government’s enemies list.

    I don’t think Obama is a great con man. I just think the idiot partisan democrats were just desperate to elect anyone who wasn’t a Republican. Partisan democrats aren’t willing to admit that their political party is no different than the Republican party.

    JFK and Lincoln weren’t warmongers. One reason JFK got assasinated was because he didn’t want to go to war against Vietnam.

  5. Well this seems a bit tough on Barack– but it’s indeed not looking too progressive…

    I was never an Obomamaniac, it all seemed like a lot of preaching and empty rhetoric to me. What happened to question authority, and don’t believe the hype (especially when no real progressive platform was ever properly presented). One should be not so surprised.

    Barack seems to have adopted the cadence of great speakers, like Dr. King, Jessie Jackson, Malcolm X, Rev. Wright, but with much less, if anything, to actually SAY.

    I have to respect Barack’s efforts, and ‘hope’ he’s got something on the ball, but the people are again the sheeple for following ‘preachers’, for becoming groupies, disciples, and for once again ‘believing’ in the hype of ‘hope’.

    Not that there’s any correlation, but we’ve had in the past some pretty sinister ‘leaders’ who captured the hearts of the masses, and engendered this sort of ‘belief’ and ‘hope’ in ‘change’, reasons to be skeptical.

    I’m going to ‘hope’ for the best (or at least better), and that Barack’s influences and their good efforts will pan out in his policies in the end, but we’ll remain forever unfooled by father-figures.

    If he invades anyone (as they mostly all do), then we have reason to get exercised in opposition.

    Bear in mind who it is amerigoons idealize as presidents: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, (Raygun), they were all first and foremost warmongers, prosecuting arguably unnecessary wars with unfathomable waste and suffering, and for this they are lionized as heroes.

    Let’s hope Barack Obama has a bit more sense in carrying out this ‘commander’ role, but I would propose the problem is less with the leaders, and once again with the people.

    Structurally the very most dangerous of the problems has to do with our much lauded Constitution, a noble document indeed, but which in my opinion mistakenly grants the President the role of Commander in Chief.

    The system seems to select for abusive leadership, the ‘checks and balances’ clearly need updating, but mostly the people are apparently paying no attention to the lessons of the past.

    It is a vastly hazardous legacy he has inherited, and it will take a very mature mind to overturn the furtherance of excessive powers of presidency bequeathed by the prior.

    You’d need a pacifist, one who had demonstrated his loyalty to social progress, peace, justice, with a huge track-record of legislating for same– such an individual was Dennis Kucinich. But this, of course, is clearly NOT what the people of the USA want.

    I worry less for the middle class of America so much as for the people of Afghanistan, if Barack’s campaign promises are actually carried out.

    One doesn’t envy this list of problems he’s inherited, but if there’s one thing learned from the past, it’s that the USA needs to extricate itself from militarism and unilateral involvements in foreign affairs via force.

    International issues are exactly that, as are regional ones, and policy needs to be reformed fundamentally with those realities in mind.

    Were I Obama, I would first and foremost demilitarize the earth, lobby intensively for the disassembly of the global military machine, curtail the production of all weapons of war, and discourage the war profiteers who promote them. This would be the first, and greatest legacy any ‘commander in chief’ of this massive military machine could convey to the future.

    One takes heart that Obama is anti-gun. A start.

    Nader for Dept. of Commerce and capitalistic reform, Kucinich for Dept. of PEACE, justice and the rule of law.

    We do have good people in politics, it’s the people that are bad for not recognizing them.

  6. One feels the President designate be given some time. What about the honeymoon period for the new President, which was the practice till now? I am not too sure of this fact but this time around The President elect is facing a lot of flak, well before the formal inauguration. As an outsider, I get the feeling that the hate campaign has racial undertones. Change is dependent on several factors and not all of them are under Obama control.
    If there is a message in this hate campaign, it is this: that America shed its policeman’s role.

Comments are closed.