Send commentary through e-mail printer friendly version

Beware The Obama Hype. What 'Change' In America Really Means

My first visit to Texas was in 1968, on the fifth anniversary of the assassination of president John F Kennedy in Dallas. I drove south, following the line of telegraph poles to the small town of Midlothian, where I met Penn Jones Jr, editor of the Midlothian Mirror. Except for his drawl and fine boots, everything about Penn was the antithesis of the Texas stereotype. Having exposed the racists of the John Birch Society, his printing press had been repeatedly firebombed. Week after week, he painstakingly assembled evidence that all but demolished the official version of Kennedy's murder.

This was journalism as it had been before corporate journalism was invented, before the first schools of journalism were set up and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around those whose "professionalism" and "objectivity" carried an unspoken obligation to ensure that news and opinion were in tune with an establishment consensus, regardless of the truth. Journalists such as Penn Jones, independent of vested power, indefatigable and principled, often reflect ordinary American attitudes, which have seldom conformed to the stereotypes promoted by the corporate media on both sides of the Atlantic. Read American Dreams: Lost and Found by the masterly Studs Terkel, who died the other day, or scan the surveys that unerringly attribute enlightened views to a majority who believe that "government should care for those who cannot care for themselves" and are prepared to pay higher taxes for universal health care, who support nuclear disarmament and want their troops out of other people's countries.

Returning to Texas, I am struck again by those so unlike the redneck stereotype, in spite of the burden of a form of brainwashing placed on most Americans from a tender age: that theirs is the most superior society in the history of the world, and all means are justified, including the spilling of copious blood, in maintaining that superiority.

That is the subtext of Barack Obama's "oratory". He says he wants to build up US military power; and he threatens to ignite a new war in Pakistan, killing yet more brown-skinned people. That will bring tears, too. Unlike those on election night, these other tears will be unseen in Chicago and London. This is not to doubt the sincerity of much of the response to Obama's election, which happened not because of the unction that has passed for news reporting from America since 4 November (e.g. "liberal Americans smiled and the world smiled with them") but for the same reasons that millions of angry emails were sent to the White House and Congress when the "bailout" of Wall Street was revealed, and because most Americans are fed up with war.

Two years ago, this anti-war vote installed a Democratic majority in Congress, only to watch the Democrats hand over more money to George W Bush to continue his blood fest. For his part, the "anti-war" Obama never said the illegal invasion of Iraq was wrong, merely that it was a "mistake". Thereafter, he voted in to give Bush what he wanted. Yes, Obama's election is historic, a symbol of great change to many. But it is equally true that the American elite has grown adept at using the black middle and management class. The courageous Martin Luther King recognised this when he linked the human rights of black Americans with the human rights of the Vietnamese, then being slaughtered by a liberal Democratic administration. And he was shot. In striking contrast, a young black major serving in Vietnam, Colin Powell, was used to "investigate" and whitewash the infamous My Lai massacre. As Bush's secretary of state, Powell was often described as a "liberal" and was considered ideal to lie to the United Nations about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Condaleezza Rice, lauded as a successful black woman, has worked assiduously to deny the Palestinians justice.

Obama's first two crucial appointments represent a denial of the wishes of his supporters on the principal issues on which they voted. The vice-president-elect, Joe Biden, is a proud warmaker and Zionist. Rahm Emanuel, who is to be the all-important White House chief of staff, is a fervent "neoliberal" devoted to the doctrine that led to the present economic collapse and impoverishment of millions. He is also an "Israel-first" Zionist who served in the Israeli army and opposes meaningful justice for the Palestinians - an injustice that is at the root of Muslim people's loathing of the United States and the spawning of jihadism.

No serious scrutiny of this is permitted within the histrionics of Obamamania, just as no serious scrutiny of the betrayal of the majority of black South Africans was permitted within the "Mandela moment". This is especially marked in Britain, where America's divine right to "lead" is important to elite British interests. The once respected Observer newspaper, which supported Bush's war in Iraq, echoing his fabricated evidence, now announces, without evidence, that "America has restored the world's faith in its ideals". These "ideals", which Obama will swear to uphold, have overseen, since 1945, the destruction of 50 governments, including democracies, and 30 popular liberation movements, causing the deaths of countless men, women and children.

None of this was uttered during the election campaign. Had it been allowed, there might even have been recognition that liberalism as a narrow, supremely arrogant, war-making ideology is destroying liberalism as a reality. Prior to Blair's criminal warmaking, ideology was denied by him and his media mystics. "Blair can be a beacon to the world," declared the Guardian in 1997. "[He is] turning leadership into an art form."

Today, merely insert "Obama". As for historic moments, there is another that has gone unreported but is well under way - liberal democracy's shift towards a corporate dictatorship, managed by people regardless of ethnicity, with the media as its clichéd façade. "True democracy," wrote Penn Jones Jr, the Texas truth-teller, "is constant vigilance: not thinking the way you're meant to think and keeping your eyes wide open at all times."
 
www.johnpilger.com





Comments

Obama / Pilger
By Andrews, John

Corey

I would agree with Tom Costigan. To my knowledge, John Pilger has never ridden on any politician's bandwagon.

I saw him speak a couple of weeks ago in London and he was consistent in his comments about Obama. What he said in person was basically what he said in this article.

He was asked about politicians in Timor Leste, previously freedom fighters that he has written about in his books, and he could not get very enthusiastic about them now that they are in power. Similarly with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela; JP recognised the good works done but considered it had come up from the bottom and, in many respects, the radical agenda was been stilted by Chavez.

I have read John Pilger's work, and seen his documentaries, since the late 1970's. To my mind, 'he gets it' to use Carl Davidson's expression.

Reply to this Comment


Reply Pilger/Obama
By Costigan, Tom

John's a smart guy and i don't mean to answer for him, but no, John Pilger, was never on any Obama bandwagon. Writing in october Pilger already noted in an article for The New Statesman on prospects for peace and order following the US presidential elections that ' the beatification of Barak Obama is already underway; for it is he "who challenges America to rise up and summon the better angels of our nature" says rolling stone magazine, reminiscent of the mating calls of Guardian writers to the "mystical" Blair. As ever the Orwell inversion test is necessary. Obama claims that his vast campaign wealth comes from small individual donors, yet he has already recieved funds from the most notorious looters on Wall Street. Moreover the "dove" and "candidate of change" has voted repeatedly to fund George W. Bush's rapacious wars, and now demands more war in Afghanistan while he threatens to bomb Pakistan.'

Reply to this Comment


obama/pilger
By B, Corey

I hate to bring this up, but didn't Pilger drink the Obama Kool-Aid as well? I seem to remember him being a big Obama supporter and even an Obama delegate. has he had a change of mind?

Reply to this Comment


'Hype': News as Pshycological Warfare(definately not just talk
By Costigan, Tom

When so few people today can honestly stand and live in accordance with their dreams, or are able to work and fight for peace and equality where it does not yet exist, wherever they are on this globe, it is to do oneself a great service by not only reading the work of John Pilger but to see 'How' he has lived.

Reply to this Comment


Re: Useless Chatter
By Cameron, Ian

Carl its great to see you have such hope in Obama and what can be achieved during his presidency. However "useless cafe chatter", i believe it is not. To 'blindly' support a particular party, ideology or faith, can have particularly evil consequences, as has been demonstrated quite clearly throughout history. That Obama can make signifiacnt meaningful change that will measure up to any of our hopes would be quite spectacular and amazing. But as John Pilger has demonstrated in his article based on Obama's election platform and his behaviours it would seem that a new direction will not be forged. Misguided, unsubstantiated hope can become a powerful tool of exploitation, that i think, is what John is pointing out in his article.

Reply to this Comment


Not Just Talk
By Birch, Bruce

I'm not sure what people mean by cafe talk or cafe chatter, but I think John Pilger's article in fact points to a quite clear path of action. It is a similar path of action suggested by Znet commentators such as Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Paul Street, and others who refuse to participate in the jingoistic hype surrounding the election of Obama. The action these people suggest is grassroots organizing which exposes the motives of those in power and which puts pressure on them to begin acting on the basis of the wishes of the majority.

Reply to this Comment


Re: Useless Chatter
By Bent, John L.

In your world where it seems that Obamamania is alive and well, as well as in the world that Pilger is addressing, it is quite appropriate to articulate some of the important facts that underpin the “new” democrat administration. And to state what these facts amount to (albeit in a somewhat emotively charged manner – but who would deny the emotions invoked?) is not to do all the bad things you indicate, like “trashing” and “posturing” whatever you have in mind (if anything) by saying such things. To write the article that Pilger has written is “to do” something. There is more to doing things than moving matter from one place on the surface of the earth to another (although perhaps your style of writing raises doubts). As to having “a clue what do do” – well to begin, I am sure Pilger would remove Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff to the president, and many other obvious things as well.

Reply to this Comment


Led by the nose
By D.C., Kim

I might get all a-flutter about those "young people" if they had any idea what they were working for.  They were working for more of the same.  There's the old saying that if voting made a difference, it would be illegal.  It's as true today as it ever was.  What exactly has our President-elect done but spill platitudes?  Every step he's taken since the election has proven that he is more of the same.  Some of us already knew that and refused to vote for another backstabbing Democrat who would betray everything we held dear.  Unfortunately, others are content with platitudes.

Reply to this Comment



By Mason, Mark

The "innovative and dynamic upsurge of young people" has  been co-opted by the usual suspects of power in America: corporations and more corporations. Desperate as we are to believe in the political system, I do believe Mr. Pilger is spot-on. Sadly, tragically so. I, too, want to whoop it up in the streets and be a cheerleader for Obamania, but the facts do not persuade me to do so. It's broken. The pump doesn't work. The vandals took the handle of democracy. No amount of wishful thinking will deliver an ounce of justice. What good there is has always come from the bottom up. The state exists to protect the interests of the wealthy, the politically predatory--fueled on fear. In a sense, Mr. Pilger's essay may be cafe talk. Whether or not any nation state can overcome the jingoism of national-ism, is unknown. Is it possible for any definition of us that contains an explicit other offer a path to greater justice? Not knowing the answer, the services of Mr Pilger's analysis reminds us to not accept cheap sentiments and wishful thinking. We can do better--Yes we can.

Reply to this Comment



By Beyman, Lewis

Humbug, by all indications Obama is assembling the usual reactionary crew.  Perhaps you need to take your head out of the sand and start doing something.

 

Reply to this Comment


Useless Chatter
By Davidson, Carl

Sorry, but this is useless cafe chatter. So what if he scores points about the Empire? All he can do is trash the most innovative and dynamic upsurge of young people in some time, and offers absolutely nothing as to the road ahead for organizers. I think it's because he hasn't a clue about what to do, save writing more articles, striking a pose, and trashing those most likely to do something about it.

Reply to this Comment


Recent Pilger ZNet Articles

Recent Pilger ZMag Articles

Recent Pilger Commentaries

Recent Pilger Blog Posts

Recent Pilger Audio

Recent Pilger Video