Disassembling Barack Obama

Posted on 18/01/2011 by


Symbols and concepts, such as a ‘country’, are typically easier to dissect than a leader, especially when that leader has garnered the emotional energy of a goodly portion of a population. So, as I begin this, allow me to state whence I come from politically.

The most important thing I can stress, is that my politics do not exist in the US. I support neither wing of the Establishment Party, nor do I support any other, beside perhaps the US Pirate Party. I am not here to push an agenda, but to analyse.

Something which I have noticed bouncing around the ether is that President Obama will, in essence, save the day regarding WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Pfc Bradley Manning. The ‘why’ seems to centre around Mr Obama’s campaign promises of change and transparency.

Leading up to his gaining the Presidency, Mr Obama make a handful of relatively concise promises: close Guantanamo Bay, end the wars, and improve general government transparency. What he has instead done is to redistribute some ‘detainees’ from Guantanamo without closing down that facility; he has increased military commitment to Afghanistan — arguably the more unwinnable of two unwinnable wars; and actively attempted to censor the information which government employees are allowed to read, even in their own homes.

This is in addition to his reaffirming the Bush Presidency’s power to imprison anyone without charges or trial, for any reason, forever; and defending the power t0 kill anyone, for any reason, anywhere. That is not to mention Pfc Manning (amongst others) being tortured as we both sit comfortably in front of our computers; a torture which Mr Obama, as Commander-in-Chief and Executive, has the ability to stop.

Mr Obama has no interest in stopping that torture, nor any of the other terrible things I mention, because he is not at all the person he has been presented to be.

I am not suggesting that Mr Obama is in power so that a state security apparatus can be put into place; Mr Bush saw to that. Indeed, I posit that Mr Obama really had no purpose to fulfil, once in the Presidency, other than to ensure that Homeland Security, et cetera, can continue on their programmes.

Rather, and to put it succinctly, Mr Obama is a media event, a creation of very clever advertising and slogans. He was a device, if you will, built for one purpose, and one purpose only. Consider the only thing he has really done effectively: he got people energised, he got them excited, he got them to vote for him. In the Presidency Mr Obama is merely another Mr Bush, but with the benefits of a teleprompter, so the difference is in the campaign itself.

Mr Obama came onto the scene at a very powerful time. There was a new, fresh generation of idealistic, energetic, and honestly change-desiring people who were taking part in the political process for the first time. They rallied around Mr Obama, and were forged by his campaign into a very impressive apparatus of political support.

Once these earnest people had served the needs of the Obama campaign, they were unceremoniously dropped; or, put another way, cut loose. It took awhile to notice, as the afterglow of the successful campaign helped supporters to cover the reality of their being dropped.

It has taken about two years for the discontent with Mr Obama to surface amongst his former active support base. The actions of the Administration have mounded grotesquely, and I suspect the realisation will set in within the coming months: all Obama supporters have been conned and betrayed.

Mr Obama was designed, to recapitulate, for the sole purpose of pulling these fresh and idealistic people into the political area. Once in, they gave their all, really; lives were put on hold to help put Mr Obama in the Presidency. Their betrayal is a repudiation of everything they thought they were working to support.

In essence, Mr Obama is a tool of oppression: he was meant to turn a technology-savvy and activist generation into a generation of betrayed, cynical, and apathetic discontents. By building these people up, and then crushing them down, Mr Obama has served the status quo well. He has ensured that those who would have sought change have been rendered impotent. His image, very soon, will no longer inspire honest reactions of ‘hope and change’, but rather cynical eye-rolls and sarcastic comments about how wonderful that change is.

In the spirit of Mr Bush: Mission Accomplished. The victory of Mr Obama was not for change, but for the status quo. He is the biggest supporter of the status quo, precisely because he used his image and rhetoric to dupe a large portion of the US citizenry.

Allow me to assure everyone that Mr Obama is the last person who will lift a finger to facilitate transparency, end the torture of Pfc Manning, or prevent the persecution of Mr Assange. That is not his purpose, as he has already fulfilled his purpose as a tool of oppression. He was cunningly designed to have maximum public appeal, so that the maximum number of people could be affected.

I have asked this of others several times, as they will remember. I continue to ask it: will you give Mr Obama and the status quo their victory?

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Posted in: Analysis