Obama's known for a long time that the way forward (for him) is to cover over the yawning gap between the interests of the elites and those of the majority. That's why we hear so much from him about "unity." ("Change" and "hope" are effective synonyms.)
In his book, The Mendacity of Hope, he writes "...perhaps the biggest casualty of [the Vietnam] war was the bond of trust between the American people and their government – and between American themselves ... Increasingly, many on the left voiced opposition not only to the Vietnam War but also to the broader aims of American foreign policy. In their view, President Johnson, General Westmoreland, the CIA, the ‘military industrial complex,’ and international institutions like the World Bank were all manifestations of American arrogance, jingoism, racism, capitalism and imperialism." Now, that's serious and has to be dealt with.
Obama and his co-conspirators know that those are the views that have to be put down (along with the incidental objection that "the biggest casualty of the war" may have been four million dead Asians). Therefore he praises Reagan for "changing the trajectory of America" -- as he intends to do. (Nixon and Clinton didn't, he said, but Kennedy did -- ranking presidents on the success of their media-aided lies to the country.)
In Newsweek in November 2004 Jonathan Alter wrote,
"On the day after the bitter 1968 presidential election, Richard Nixon held a press conference. After edging Hubert Humphrey by less than 1 percentage point, Nixon wanted to strike the right tone. So he recalled a hand-lettered sign he had seen in the hands of an Ohio girl while campaigning by train earlier on. The sign by the side of the railroad tracks said simply BRING US TOGETHER. Aides later speculated that the sign had been placed there by the Nixon advance team, but the president-elect's point was clear. He knew the country wanted to hear a few soothing words about unity and peace."
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme *pose*... --CGE
shag at cleandraws.com wrote:
> I'm reading all these politically-oriented blogs and I'm so irritated (I
> know! I know Eric! I shouldn't be. But I am!) by the way people have
> consistently ignored what Obama said about the excesses of the 60s and 70s --
> as if he wasn't talking about those nasty identity politics movements that
> screwed everything up. As if he wasn't laying the blame for it at the feet of
> the black power movement, AIM, women's liberation, the antiwar movement, etc.
> (I'd add the wildcat striking labor movement, Chavez, etc. because he's such
> a big champion of "special interest" labor. But these issues would, of
> course, make very little dent in the liberal democrat imagination. Wah? Wuz
> that? Unions? Huh?)
>
> Good ol' triangulating Clinton attacked "party of ideas" phrasing and it just
> got worse as everyone prattles on about what he really meant re ideas, change
> agents. fuck me dead.
>
> Was "change agent" not the term used for people who move into corporations or
> take "leadership" roles to get people used to the fact that the org was
> changing which meant ratcheted up hours, more stressful work conditions, few
> benefits, pay cuts, etc.
>
> Anyone know the etymology?
>
> Doesn't matter anyway... I just need to get a shower after reading all this
> spew defending Obama, when no one bothered to check the language "excesses,"
> "dynamism," "entrepreneurialism" and "accountability" and recognize that, it
> wasn't just praise of Reagan for being a "change agent" -- it was praise of
> Reagan for some of his ideas. And maybe a man who seems to have made his
> bones in the deep fissures opened up by the the likes of Reagan -- for
> community-based activism to step in when government programs that had barely
> been implemented were routed -- would feel beholden to Reagan for help making
> his career possible.
>
> Not that Clinton is any better. She's a master of triangulation and bi-
> *spit* partisanship.
>
> shag
>
> http://cleandraws.com WEAR CLEAN DRAWS 'coz there's 5 million ways to kill a
> ceo