Think of Barrack Obama and what words spring to mind? If they're 'hope' or 'change' than you've obviously being paying attention to the media hype surrounding the upcoming U.S president elections - but will anything really change?
A good friend of mine recently pointed out to me the aura that seems to surround Obama is reminiscent of the coverage that Tony Blair received in his early years, when he was painted as the man who would bring about sweeping changes and free us from the dark years of Conservative party rule. Blair was a fresh face, but ultimately the image change was only on the surface as the policies of the previous Conservative government continued under his rule. This is well illustrated by Tony Benn who when asked what Margaret Thatcher’s greatest achievement was replied, “New Labour”. Blair was Prime Minister of Britain for ten years and during that time the debt, inequality and poverty rates of the country shot up, as he pushed through the privatisation of hospitals and schools that even Thatcher herself wouldn’t have dared to do. Blair received such positive press as he clearly represented the business interests of the few at the expense of the many – Even the Murdoch newspapers came out in support of him at election time, and if there’s a sure fire way to know who’s representing business interests it’s to look out for who Murdoch endorses.
Fast forward to 2008 as Obama is gearing up for the November election and the worldwide coverage of him is almost universally positive, but does anyone actually know anything about his policies? It is undeniable that an Obama presidency would represent change, however, it is my opinion that any change that comes with him is in aesthetics only – a black president with an Arabian middle name certainly looks different than what has come before. Obama represents a re-branding of America for the ruling powers, in the same way that Blair did for the UK. With Obama in charge, the world will feel hopeful that perhaps something really has changed, that perhaps the racism and arrogance of previous presidents has been replaced with a more benevolent and understanding leader, but anyone that reaches that conclusion does not understand the dynamics and the unshakable structures that are in play. Malcolm X once said when discussing the black civil rights movement of the 1960s that…
"The time when white people can come in our community and get us to vote for them so that they can be our political leaders and tell us what to do and what not to do is long gone. By the same token, the time when that same white man, knowing that your eyes are too far open, can send another negro into the community and get you and me to support him so he can use him to lead us astray -- those days are long gone too."
Unfortunately those days are not gone and we’re soon to be led astray. The actions of Obama just don’t match his sweet words and suggest that his presidency will be only different from the Bush presidency in terms of eloquence. In America in order to even get into a position to run for president one needs to have substantial funds, and from the start of the campaign Obama has received extravagant donations from the same corporations that funded Bush’s campaigns – these organizations don’t just give their money away for free – they’ll get it back with interest once their guy wins. It’s significant that Obama chose to make his first speech after receiving the nomination of the Democrat party at the Israel lobby – not in front of his supporters, at a community centre, a union or even a Democrat rally – at the lobby of one of the biggest providers of financial assistance to political candidates, the Israel Lobby called AIPAC. It may come as a shock to some to learn that Israel is the recipient of 1/3 of all American foreign aid, many times more than any developing nation receives despite the fact that Israel is already a first world, developed nation. The link between the political funding of American candidates and both the financial, military and political support Israel receives is not inconsequential. If Obama had not already shown his willingness to act for the special interests that run America (oil, military, pharma, Israel) then the ruling classes would’ve destroyed him long ago and gone with Hillary Clinton - a tried and tested stooge, but not in keeping with the re-branding of the American image as she represents the Bush/Clinton dynasty that they're trying to re-brand. Remember that it is the media that have created this universal idea of Obama as the bringer of change – what has he actually done to justify this reputation?
Obama will preside over a country that is ranked by UNICEF as being the worst place to raise children in the developed world, as well as having the worst healthcare, greatest discrepancies between rich and poor and a staggeringly high infant morality rate in its poorest areas. This dire situation for the majority in the U.S has been brought about by the economic system used in America that cuts taxes for the super-rich and cuts back on social programs, such as schooling, for the for the poor. Obama will reside over the country that controls 51% of the World Bank and therefore controls the economies of the developing world, tying them into repressive deals in which they lose their natural resources and industries to foreign corporations in return for financial aid on terrible terms. Obama will reside over a nation in which pharmaceutical corporations set the rules for health; it is illegal in America for the government to try and lower the price of medicines that could help the many as it’s interfering with the ‘rights’ of business. The same industry that blocks other countries providing cheap AIDS drugs to Africa, so that they can maintain their monopoly on selling overpriced drugs to people that can’t afford them as millions upon millions die. The same country that has a defence budget equivalent to the rest of the world combined with ‘defence’ the furthest thing from their mind. The country this is the ‘land of the free’, but is ranked 135th out of 166 in the world for freedom of the press, below such notably free countries as; Afghanistan, Liberia, Iraq, Algeria, Lebanon and many many more. Full list here - http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247 .
Ultimately, it’s the banks that make the decisions in America and what’s good for business is good for the banks, it’s all interconnected: banks, corporations, the media, the government all sing from the same hymn sheet and the money goes round in a harmonious circle. The Democrat party and the Republican party are identical apart from a few fringe issues and receive their funding from the same special interests and corporations. An illusion of choice is created so that tiny divisions in policy are given so much coverage that they seem enormous, we hear from the corporate media about candidates’ haircuts, sexual discrepancies and other such nonsense, but nothing about the real issues that affect real Americans and real people all over the world. While abortion and gay rights are important issues, there are so many more issues that need to be part of the discourse but are never even presented to the people, and so might as well not exist in the eyes of the many. How can ‘The Greatest Country’ on earth have such a corrupt media system, such a poor healthcare system, such a low minimum wage, and other such pitiful conditions for their workers, including only two weeks holiday allowance a year? The people have been hoodwinked by the system for years and Obama is going to continue the hoodwinking in the name of ‘change’.
No comments:
Post a Comment