Duck! and Gather

Obama: Messianic, not Corrupt nor Pandering

Posted on: March 4, 2008

I just finished reading Matt Gonzalez’s well-written piece The Obama Craze: Count Me Out. I knew of Matt from back in law school — his class graduated one year ahead of mine. Also, back in 2003, I closely followed his run for San Francisco mayor — I was disappointed he lost.

I have little argument with his piece on Obama. However, as Matt probably is aware, one could start with the same issues addressed in his piece, yet write an article reaching the opposite conclusion — i.e. one showing Obama to be progressive. If both views are true, this would suggest Obama is rather “flexible” in his positions. Indeed, near the end of his article, Matt suggests that Obama ought to “stop pandering to win votes”.

This means Matt doesn’t see Obama as a Manchurian candidate sent by the Right wing, the corporations, or the money interests. Instead, he sees Obama as a garden-variety pandering politician — albeit one with a golden tongue.

So Matt is taking a guess as to Obama’s underlying motivations. I disagree with Matt’s guess. Yes, I can see that Obama’s political behavior looks a lot like pandering, at best, and, at worst, corruption. But even though Obama’s behavior looks like that, I’ll suggest that his underlying motivations are quite different.

Basically, I suspect Obama’s underlying motivations are informed by his belief he is the messiah. And I see messianic impulses as quite different from corrupt/pandering ones, even though some of the outward behavior might look similar.

This difference starts with the observation that the panderer sees himself as a human, and sees the panderee as a comparable human. Same with corruption. This is corruption: “You scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours”. But you see, this aphorism assumes that my back is a human one, prone to periodic itchiness — as opposed to being the back of a god which knows no such discomfort.

So I come to my belief about Obama’s seemingly pandering and corrupt behavior. I believe Obama thinks he truly is the messiah. As the messiah, he is worthy of love and reverence from all of his subjects. So it would be bad form for him to behave in a way that would disappoint any of his subjects, whether his subjects are AIPAC, Wall Street, or the military-industrial complex, or the Palestinians, the working class, or anti-war progressives. We are all his subjects. He is the One.

Digression: At our residence, we still get mail for the long-deceased wife of the fellow from whom we bought our property. That mail comes from, of all entities, Scientology. It’s comical stuff. Last one had a colorful flyer offering a unique program for $3,148.56. I kid you not. In many of the photos in the flyer, on the wall behind the depicted cult member, is a framed picture of the Great Man himself (L Ron Hubbard). You watch: Five years from now, pictures of Obama will be hanging on walls in every corner of this nation.]

I know what you’re thinking: “Nice hairline distinction, Peter. What’s the possible relevance?”

The relevance is that these are not normal times we’re living in. America is on the verge of an epochal collapse. As I predicted back in late 2004, crude oil has surpassed $100/barrel, and gold yesterday reached $990/ounce before retreating (I predicted > $1000/ounce). These numbers are mere symptoms of a systemically diseased nation.

By the time Obama takes office next January, the collapse will either be well engaged or imminent. So President Obama will be faced with a collapsed nation of suffering people. Faced with that, I believe he will do what any messiah would do. He’ll do whatever it takes to raise us little people up. That means he’s going to whack the corporations, and stick it to the rich. Just like FDR did before him.

When he does that, he’s not going to spend much time worrying that he’s “betraying” these former constituents of his. He won’t think he “owes” anything to them. He doesn’t owe anything to anybody. He is, after all, the messiah.

But the rest of us are humans. And when some of us humans turn out to be the ones that President Obama has turned against, he’s going to have pissed off the very sorts of folks that Matt writes about in his piece. Those folks are going to say: “We bought that boy. He’s paid for. We own him. Now he’s turning on us?”

As so, this is why I fear that, just as the “betrayed” folks did to FDR before him, and as the “betrayed” folks did to Lincoln before FDR, Obama’s “betrayed” folks are going to take a shot at the President.

Digression #2. FDR actually survived two separate attempts against him. The second was a failed coup engineered by certain among the “betrayed” Wall Street crowd. The earlier, one, interestingly enough, came from the opposite end of the political spectrum. In other words, the first would-be assassin of FDR was an anarchist. Evidently, some among the extremist progressives saw FDR, early on, as being not nearly progressive enough. Yet another Obama parallel.

I hope the historically scheduled future attempts on President Obama fail. And I really hope that even if such an attempt does succeed, it comes late enough to have allowed Obama to have united this fractured, bleeding nation before he leaves the stage.

So I’m glad Matt is on the national stage saying what he’s saying. Nader obviously suffers from his own messianic impulses. But Matt’s not like that at all. He was just asked along for the ride.

What would you say if a national figure asked you to ride shotgun on the adventure of a lifetime? I’d say: “Hell, yeah! Count me in!” I wouldn’t care that Nader is a dick-head. Running on a Presidential ticket (even a shabby one) would give me the opportunity of expanding the audience for the views I’ve been expressing on this site for the past four years. And I would learn what the nation thinks of these views. How fun would that be?

So even if you think Nader is an asshole, look closer at Matt. He’s a different animal.

And look closer at Obama. He really drinks his own Koolaid. We fat Americans need a guy like that.

7 Responses to "Obama: Messianic, not Corrupt nor Pandering"

That was quite interesting. He smokes too. America is far too media driven to actually have a candidate that is full of integrity. Or maybe the position for candidacy is paradoxically to someone running who has integrity and a holistic vision. I don’t know.

I’m not quite sure that FDR truly did anything to hurt corporations or raise people up… For example–the New Deal was a bunch of state-capitalist debt creation programs that raised up the lenders at least as much as it did the people. And in raising the people’s standard of living, it strengthened their subservience to and dependence on the government. This tactic of psychological warfare (convince the people that they could not survive without the government/corporations) is probably the most harmful thing in our society and the New Deal was a huge step in solidifying it as reality in the collective American psyche.

Not to mention the Gold Confiscation Order… ( which took all of the real money out of the hands of the people and put it into the hands of the US Central Bank or the Bank of International Settlements. This confiscation order was not repealed until 40 some-odd years later, after the Bretton Woods agreement had been instated, served its purpose, and then dismantled by Kissinger/Nixon.

As for Obama, I think it’s dangerous to take anything that any national politician says in a speech and superimpose it onto how they will behave in office… It’s historically proven that speeches given while campaigning and behavior in office have little or no correlation with each other. I think it’s a foregone conclusion that whoever wins the democratic nomination will win the presidential election. The Republicans have had their turn to implement their part of the two-party-one-agenda agenda. I think the primary will probably end up being handed to Hillary and will be hotly contested by Obama supporters and will end with people accepting that Hillary “stole” the election but voting for her anyway… I don’t believe that any distinction made between the two candidates is real anyway so in my mind it doesn’t make a bit of difference.

The next president, like all before him/her and like all who will follow him/her, will serve the corporate interests first and foremost. There is simply no way that something inside of the American Government can be the agent of change that the American people need. It’s more than just not biting the hand that feeds you, it’s not biting your own hand. The US Gov’t is a corporation–a wholly owned subsidiary of the conglomeration of major international corporations/governments. People’s dependence on and subservience to this corporate-government/global economic system/addiction to materialism/addiction to mass-media is what keeps the money flowing (and hence, what keeps them alive), and I don’t think the movement towards breaking this dependence is going to come from the system itself.

If you recognize that the design of the system requires that people are dependent on said system, and recognize that Obama is an agent of said system, how is it also possible that Obama is the agent of change that will break people’s dependence on the system? It seems contradictory to me. In my eyes what Obama represents is the illusion of change, not the substance of change. The “choice” between presidential candidates who are deemed by the mass-media/corporate-state/government to be “electable” is the illusion of choice, not a real choice between different options. False profit? Maybe. Messiah? Doubtful… To me at least…

In my mind only one thing is for sure–ClintObamaCain will be the next president and the agenda will go forward as planned regardless of which physical human body sits in the oval office. Any support of an “electable” candidate is tacit support for the status quo to continue.

Kathy & Andy — Thanks such for your comments. I’m in the middle of migrating my development environment to another machine and I lost track of some threads like these.

Andy, I see where you’re coming from on your points. What I’d suggest is to look at folks like FDR and Obama in the historical context in which they emerged. FDR inherited a country owned and ran by enormous corporations. What he did was to take much of their power and money, and move it into the government. I don’t believe that circa 1936, the U.S. government was as owned by the corporations as it is today. Instead, I think history shows that corporations fought FDR’s vision right up until the last 20 years or so. Remember back in the 1980s when “deregulation” was the big catch word? That was because 20 years ago, the government wasn’t yet completely owned by the corporations. Today you ominously don’t hear that word anymore.

Which brings me to Obama. Yeah, I can definitely see your point, as well as Matt’s. None of us know what a guy who has said anything and everything to anybody is going to do 2 years from now. But still, looking at Obama relative to the others — Clinton, McCain, and so on — he seems to me the most likely to break toward the way you and I are thinking when the shit hits the fan in this country.

We’ll see!

Kathy – You write: “[Obama] smokes too”. It’s worse than that. He’s been a smoking addict all his adult like. Then we started running for president over a year ago, this addiction looked harmful to his candidacy. So what he did was to the tell the media: “My wife ordered me to stop smoking, and so I did.” You see? He’s a god! He’s not like us human who have to trade one addiction (smoking) for another (donuts). No, he’s a supernatural guy who can just “turn it off.” 🙂 p.s. I hope he wins!

I don’t believe that circa 1936, the U.S. government was as owned by the corporations as it is today.


Didn’t the Central Bank buy the Gov’t in 1913? 😉

I don’t think any distinction between government and corporate power is valid. They are the same power. They simply use one face or the other in their PR campaigns to try to present their actions as being motivated by some sort of concern for “the people.” Any time we speak of distinction between corporate power and government power we’re buying that PR illusion.

Andy — Dunno why I didn’t get a email notifying me of your response until just now, but better late than never … I think back in the pre-Roosevelt years, Gov’t was tiny compared to what it is today. But big-business back then was, relatively-speaking, as powerful and even more so as it is today. And back then, wealthy magnates could just personally outright “buy” politicians. I suspect it was more of a gentleman’s club thing. Today, it’s automated factory system. Faceless huge Corporations interfacing with Gov’t through “lobbyists”; getting the President to a appoint their people to run the bureaucracies; etc. Subtle, out of the public eye stuff, that no one thinks is strange. But it’s pervasive.

That’s why when Obama says the main difference between him and Clinton, and him and McCain, concerns accepting lobbyist money, that’s a pretty big signal. That’s the “soft”, Disney-approved way to raise the anti-corporate flag. i.e. “I’m not anti-corporate, I’m just going to cut off their lifeblood.”

As for the Gov’t/Corporate distinction, it follows simply from the ego triad: fame, money, and power. That list comprises the three different ways in which social animals can separate and elevate themselves from the herd. The Entertainment industry covers the first; Big Business the second; Gov’t the third.

I was researching the same thing when I saw this.. I can not agree more – but I am still going to look for a better source

Comments are closed.

for the money has gone too far

Blog Stats

  • 10,050 hits
March 2008
« Feb   Jun »
%d bloggers like this: