The most serious damage that our current president has wrought over the past eight years has been to the Constitution and to its' balance of powers. His actions, along with the inaction of congress and the collusion of the Supreme Court has focused more and more power in the hands of a single human being, making of the presidency an office more fit for a King.
Many have commented that in this election cycle we've seen the Internet come of age as a primary tool for political organizing. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the first president to fully employ radio to channel his message to the people while Adolph Hitler used the same medium to destructive effect. John F. Kennedy was the first politician to fully realize the importance of television as a means to construct a sense of national identity. People like Jerry Falwell used television as the supreme vehicle for demagoguery and group think. Someone like Barack Obama will be the first president that emerges out of the Internet Age, and we should question what are the ways that the new medium can foster both the use and abuse of power.
"...a cross between Moveon.org and the DNC, and with the White House, it can transform progressive politics and further amplify the power of the Presidency." - Matthew Stoller
Meet the new boss...same as the old boss. - The Who
Presidential elections are about power. The winner takes all. Those who run for president, to varying degrees, claim to represent different versions of the popular will, and when they are elected they reshape the office to accomplish their vision of that will. It's only after claiming the prize that the real contest begins. Here is where a politician's skill is tested as they are faced with balancing a bewildering complexity of interests and perspectives that make demands on the presidency in this vast nation with its' system of checks and balances.
The most successful presidents are those who understand and aren't overwhelmed by the intricate mechanisms of power, and are able to use them to advantage. Then there are those who presume to transcend the constitutional mechanisms of power. These are often the politicians who talk about 'mandates', about taking their case 'directly' to the people, of bypassing the 'old-style Washington politics preventing real change.' These words are invariably spoken by politicians who echo our impatience with the slow moving wheels of government and worship at the altar of the Imperial Presidency.
The most serious damage that our current president has wrought over the past eight years has been to the Constitution and to its' balance of powers. His actions, along with the inaction of congress and the collusion of the Supreme Court has focused more and more power in the hands of a single human being, making of the presidency an office more fit for a King.
The cult of personality reached its' darkest apotheosis in the past century coinciding with the rise of electronic mass media, specifically during the age of radio and film. Populist politicians used the power of the broadcast voice and the edited image to build a collective sense of overwhelming centralized power and concentrated national will. Television followed radio as the primary mechanism of control, both in nations where the medium was strictly monitored by a central government and as the driving engine of global capitalism. Where radio was used to promote the voice of centralized control, television refined the technique of control through the manipulation of people's desire for conformity by means of the popular image.
As we move toward the upcoming election I see the beast of the Imperial Presidency rearing up with potentially more hubris than ever before. When the Office of the President becomes the focus of a cult of personality the danger to our system of government is so extreme that all other issues must take second place. If we simply replace the paranoid zealotry of the Christian Right with the political fundamentalism of the so-called Progressive Left we will have merely continued downhill toward the gradual decay of our union.
The rhetoric from both the far right and the radical left sounds remarkably similar, in many cases identical, using the same words and phrases to impale opponents who are portrayed as the embodiment of the dark side. Listening to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh on one hand or Randy Rhodes and Keith Olbermann on the other provides pretty much an identical experience for partisans of either camp. Neither advances the cause of truth or harmony. All serve the process of catharsis and entertainment through the advancement of political zealotry. Since the zealot is unable to see himself reflected in the other and therefore projects on the other all of his own negative qualities, as a rule he is overtaken by his own shadow and inevitably acts out its darkest aspects. It's no accident that fundamentalists of all faiths declare themselves to be the messengers of peace and harmony while they inflict death and torture on their designated enemies. The most adamant moral crusaders are often those who are nailed for the most decadent crimes. In all cases the adversary must be demonized before being ultimately defeated. In such a polarized political climate the other party is not merely in disagreement with one's point of view, but is the embodiment of all that is wrong in the world, whether they be Jews, Muslims, Communists, Republicans, or the Clintons.
If the Democrats lose the in fall presidential race, which appears increasingly likely, the major reason will be the insufferable arrogance of those who have bullied and intimidated their way to control of the party. There has been much criticism of the media for its focus on trivialities and personalities rather than on issues of importance. Since on most issues and policies the candidates don't really disagree substantially, reporters perhaps shouldn't be entirely faulted in their relentless quest to fill the news cycle with something interesting.
The most important questions that are not likely to be asked in any case are those that get to the very nature of power and the way it is wielded. For example, I've had to ask myself what it is that, although I find Barack Obama to be an appealing individual and candidate, always at the last minute pulls me forcefully back from joining the movement. I've explored many of the possibilities, asking myself whether it's his race, his age, his gender, or his class, and I've come to the conclusion that it has more to do with the cultish qualities and agenda of his supporters than it does with Obama himself.
I've observed that, aside from the aforementioned tendency to demonize opponents by projecting on them their own qualities of ruthlessness and arrogance, the movement projects a disturbing lust for absolute power focused through the charismatic qualities of a single individual. Scratch the surface of every disaffected radical and invariably one finds lurking the shadow of a blind and naked greed for power. This drive for unrestrained power directly contradicts the rhetoric about transcending divisions through a new kind of politics in the same way that George W. Bush's campaign rhetoric of being a 'uniter not a divider' has been absolutely contradicted by his subsequent actions.
I've lifted a few quotes from a recent Huffington post by Matt Stoller. This is not atypical of the Obamanista rant that I've heard in various versions from many quarters, including close friends. It isn't as strident as some, accusing anyone who would deny Obama the presidency of being racist or an obstructionist or even a criminal. Stoller's piece is typical of the material that appears regularly on sites like the Daily KOS and The Huffington Post, but rarely have I seen the bald faced contradictions between a lust for power and the plea for unity so clearly displayed.
Stoller starts out by basically rephrasing the oft repeated Obama mantra about change, proclaiming it an already accomplished fact:
"Obama has created a number of significant infrastructure pieces through his campaign, displacing traditional groups the way he promised he would by signaling the end of the old politics of division and partisanship."
A statement of high minded intent which is contradicted by virtually every other statement Stoller makes, as he enumerates the very factors that have split the party into increasingly acrimonious warring camps. The statement, 'displacing traditional groups' is the most telling, as it implies that these groups, which include the traditional Democrat base of working class whites and labor organizations have already just disappeared and vanished into the woodwork while the united Obama movement goes forth to bring peace and unity to all. In reality it is more likely that the shrugging off of these 'traditional' factions threatens the important alliances that have made it even remotely possible for a party of such diversity to prevail in a national election.
"From top to bottom, they have destroyed their opponents within the party, stolen out from under them their base, and persuaded a whole set of individuals from blog readers to people in the pews to ignore intermediaries and believe in Barack as a pure vessel of change."
You would think by the tone of this passage that Obama has claimed an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the primaries and caucuses rather than splitting the popular vote almost perfectly down the middle. By 'intermediaries' he apparently refers to the unions, the media, the party organization and by extension I presume, the very institutions of government. Obama has won, according to Stoller, by centralizing all political power in his own organization, the Internet based MyBarackObama.com. The "perfect vessel of change" quote is so over-the-top cringe making that it would be laughable if it weren't kind of creepy.
Once Stoller gets warmed up the hubris really begins to flow.
"...It's time to get ready for a party that is being taken apart and rebuilt as the Obama movement."
This echoes a statement made by Matthew Rothschild, an editor of the left of center magazine, The Progressive, earlier in the campaign:
"...to the extent that there is anything like a progressive movement going on right now, it is foursquare behind Obama."
A statement both curious and absurd, considering Obama's actual positions don't vary much from the views of others in his party who represent mainstream corporate capitalism. There has always been the sense that Obama is a kind of 'stealth' progressive, that is, more progressive than he actually lets on. The logic goes something like, "since he is the leader of the progressive movement he must be as progressive as I am." Since progressive has come to mean for Obama to Obamanistas I guess there's really little room for argument on this point.
But let's get more specific. What will all of this centralization of power in the great man achieve? Everything, we are told:
"By stripping power, money and responsibility from outside groups and opponents, Obama is increasing his control of the party apparatus. He is also, however, putting everything on his own shoulders. When the Swift Boaters come back, and they will, it's all on Obama and his movement to hit back. He's betting that he can strip power from their base just as he stripped power from the old Washington way of doing politics within the Democratic Party."
It actually appears that Mr. Stoller is naive or bedazzled to the degree that he believes that because George Bush's popularity is lower than dirt this will carry over to John McCain, who is going to meanwhile be going after the very Democrats that the Obama camp has alienated by shrugging off their concerns as unimportant or out of step. That means the working class, latinos, independents and rural voters in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, California, Florida and Michigan. If by 'hitting back' Stoller means using tactics similar to those used against the Clinton Democrats, like branding them racist or power hungry or simply bitchy, I doubt if this will have similar effect against anyone who isn't white and a liberal or black and a Democrat.
The fatal flaw and ultimate come down faced by every cult and mob is that the whole world doesn't see things as they do, a fact naturally missed by those who spend most of their time talking to themselves.
Finally, here is the most telling and disturbing statement of all:
"MyBarackObama.com...(is) a cross between Moveon.org and the DNC, and with the White House, it can transform progressive politics and further amplify the power of the Presidency." (emphasis mine)
Here is where me and the Obamacrats finally and decisively part ways. An Obama administration that not only continues, but accelerates the institution of the Imperial Presidency is one to be avoided and denounced. Unfortunately, the cult that has grown around Obama is only marginally within his control, and he is as unlikely to turn his back on it as George Bush is likely to turn his back on the Christian Coalition. The horse is already out of the gate, and Obama's candidacy will rise or fall with the fortunes and rhetoric of this faction within a faction. Movements centered on the personality of a single person are extremely subject to abuse and corruption, and it takes a rare person, perhaps one of the caliber of a Martin Luther King to keep attention focused on the goal rather than on the personality of a particular leader. Of course, Martin Luther King never ran for president.
Many have commented that in this election cycle we've seen the Internet come of age as a primary tool for political organizing. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the first president to fully employ radio to channel his message to the people while Adolph Hitler used the same medium to destructive effect. John F. Kennedy was the first politician to fully realize the importance of television as a means to construct a sense of national identity. People like Jerry Falwell used television as the supreme vehicle for demagoguery and group think. Someone like Barack Obama will be the first president that emerges out of the Internet Age, and we should question what are the ways that the new medium can foster both the use and abuse of power.