Don't believe the hype

Barack Obama is being lauded by liberals but the truth about him is that he represents the worst of

By John Pilger Published 13 November 2008

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. Save 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 on 31 October, 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 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 since 4 November (eg, "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 voted 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 US and the spawning of jihadism.

No serious scrutiny of this is permitted within the histrionics of Obama mania, 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 Observer, 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 that 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."

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Barack Obama obamania

View the discussion thread.

159 comments

Wed, 2008-11-19 02:05 — gnuneo

"why is it irrelevant to point out that the Palestinians had had their own attempts at "aggression, murder and attempted ethnic cleansing" long before any retaliation from the Jewish people? It doesn't justify anything - it's just a fact"

i see... so why was there no conflict in Palestine/Israel in 1805? Why were the native Palestinian inhabitants not fighting Jewish SETTLERS back then?

such an easy question really, odd how often this is "airbrushed" out.

you want to start apportioning blame? Lets go back even further shall we? Bet you change topics now, that's your method.

"I never said that determining the who the initial aggressor was would end the conflict - that was your addition. "

[sighs].

right. I made 1 post mentioning that, and it was in response to YOUR continued emphasis upon it through your posts. If you regard it as also irrelevant - except in some weird 'lets pin the blame on the donkey' fetish - then WTF were you focussing so much about it for? Or did i already answer that...

"Surely no-one could be so barbarous as to deliberately end discussion on how to end this conflict, because their own 'side' has the current military advantage, and every year that passes more land is stolen from the Occupied Territories? "

"If the Palestinians were just concerned about their Sovereignty, they could have accepted the 1947 partition plan, or the 2000 peace offer..They want more than that though - they want all of Israel destroyed. (see the current government Hamas' charter)."

why am i bothering... oh yess, in the small case you MIGHT be genuine. Getting rather tired of wasting so much time on you 'serial zionists' though, you change your names and your opinions stay the same, and you never answer the questions that hurt.

but - lets continue...

how many Palestinians today were even alive back in 1947? How can any moral person justify the continued conflict between these two groups upon a botched deal well over half a CENTURY ago?

as for Hamas...

Fri, 2008-11-14 02:00 — bodek_tzitziyot

Since when has the word Zionist been a term of abuse in the pages of the New Statesman? And in the taxonomy of bile that passes for political comment here nowadays, what is the difference between a "Zionist" and an "Israel-first Zionist" ?

In its heyday, when the magazine was a leader of thought and political action for the left in Britain, the New Statesman hosted many committed Zionists of the left and supporters of Israel. Figures such as Sidney Silverman, Brigid Brophy, Paul Johnson, Ian Mikardo, Richard Crossman and others were all pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. Today, the socialism espoused in these pages resembles National Socialism more and more. Jews are abused for defending Israel from physical attack, while those who kill Israelis are admired and given aid and succour. In parallel, the history of Israel and the Jewish people is distorted, and our character is perversely inverted with fanatical hatred and malice by the likes of Pilger and his friends.

Meanwhile the Palestinian rejectionists, who continue to try to defeat Israel by violence and wipe it out, are given encouragement, as if their failure to do so up to now needs to be rectified.

Fri, 2008-11-14 02:05 — Jane2

Mr. Pilger knows about as much about Americans as I know about physics which is absolutely nothing other than how to spell the word.

Obama wanting to war against Pakistan is hysterical nonsense. His ugly comments about Biden and Rahm are not worth defending against.

Frankly, by my reading Mr. Pilger's article, I have wasted both time and brain cells, and I will immediately promise myself NEVER to do it again.

Wed, 2008-11-19 02:15 — gnuneo

as for Hamas wanting all of Israel destroyed...

http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32367&

and

http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32922

"By the way, I feel the Palestinians have been badly betrayed by their leaders (al-Husseini, Arafat and now Hamas) and the neighboring Arab states, who have never had the Palestinians interests at heart. Why did Jordan keep control of the West Bank, and Egypt of Gaza, after the 1948 war?"

oh, i completely agree. I have absolutely NO problems in critiquing the neighbouring Muslim States, or indeed the errors and corruption of various Palestinian leaderships as well. And now you have found that out, you will change this topic too.

doesn't really matter to you, does it? As long as the argument can be dragged out, and you can throw some unfounded media-clichés around for those who don't have any historical perspective, you really don't care what is said. You certainly have no interest in finding a conclusion to this whole mess.

and not only is that unarguable, but it also says everything we all need to know about you, and your role in this debate.

Fri, 2008-11-14 02:08 — explodingbadger1

Just because someone criticizes Israel or an Israeli or a black man doesn't make them a Jew hater or racist or Marxist. Throwing around empty insults like that doesn't get us anywhere. Its a waste of time and distraction from the truth. But I suspect that's the required effect of those writing such garbage because they don't have any real argument.

I pray Obama will change things for the better things for example end the brutal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, or introduce universal welfare But I can't see it happening. Also if he IS keeping these extreme right wing people in office it does not bode well.

Many people had many hopes when Blair came to power and he became a worse demon than Thatcher ever was.

Wed, 2008-11-19 03:14 — a.m.r.

gnuneo: "i see... so why was there no conflict in Palestine/Israel in 1805? Why were the native Palestinian inhabitants not fighting Jewish SETTLERS back then? "

Short answer : because they weren't in the process of building a Jewish state, and there was no imported European anti-semtism of the viurlent Nazi strain at the time.

Longer answer : there's an extensive history of massacres of Jews in the Middle East, including in the 19th century. (see Bernard Lewis, David Litmann, Nartin Gilbert). There are none of Jews massacaring others, that I'm aware of.

gnuneuo: "how many Palestinians today were even alive back in 1947? How can any moral person justify the continued conflict between these two groups upon a botched deal well over half a CENTURY ago?"

There was also the rejected deal of 2000. Good question though, why are the Palestinians still fighting and trying to destroy Israel and kill Jews? It's a pity they've set up such a strong indoctrination of their young to murderously hate Jews.

gnuneo: "as for Hamas wanting all of Israel destroyed..."

You then link to a couple of articles about the National Conciliation Agreement of 2006 (the 'prisoner's document'). The articles, like many others, interpret the document as an implicit recognition of Israel's right to exist.

And yet, despite some of the media's claims, and your claim, in fact, none of the 18 points of the document recognise Israel's right to exist, even implicitly. Which is why the Israeli government rejected it (along with the fact that it calls for violence and the 'right of return').

Here's a link to an English translation, please point out where the implicit recognition of the right to exist is alluded to? http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=10371&CategoryId=32

Fri, 2008-11-14 02:59 — explodingbadger1

Interesting analysis on media lens:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php

Fri, 2008-11-14 04:39 — Jonathan B

I'm with Toby on this one. This is a clasic case of intellectual subjectivity and racism - it doesn't matter that its dressed up in a tawdry NS blog. Ask yourself this you extremists - who SHOULD the US people have voted into their presidency this time around? Got any suggestions?

Wed, 2008-11-19 03:40 — a.m.r.

gnuneo: "serial zionists"

As in "serial killers" ?

From the ShirazSocialist blog linked earlier:
"In the course of his New Statesman piece [on the "boycott Israel" campaign], Pilger appears to question the truth of the well-documented fact that Arab leaders called for Jews to be “thrown into the sea”, appears to blame Israel for the ‘war on terror’ (I say “appears” because Pilger’s latter-day prose style is far from clear), dismisses the “premises of Zionism” as “racist” and those who oppose the boycott as “Zionist fanatics”, seems to dismiss anti-semistism as a “mere threat” and backs the “courageous Israeli historian” Iian Pappe’s call for ”a single democratic state to which Palestinians are given the right to return”, as the “only feasible and just solution”.

It’s a filthy piece of work that marks a new low in the degeneration of this once respect-worthy journalist."

To which I add: and some of Pilger's followers are also quite hair-raising as well.

Fri, 2008-11-14 05:40 — lavinia moore

John Pilger has for years shown all of us that what we are told about what is going on often has very little to do with what is actually going on.
The history of the USA over the last fifty or so years demonstrates that while the American system may undergo what appear to be ideological shifts, at its base it stays pretty much the same. The unfortunate thing is that whoever is president or whichever party rules, the system and those who control it continue to shape and direct US policy and governmental practice.
I am glad that Obama was elected over McCain. But that does not mean that I have no doubts that he will shift the USA towards a purely multilateralist position insofar as military intervention and geopolitics is concerned. Or that he will be more consultative in matters of trade and the world's economy . Or that he will act in the world's best interests, regarding the future health of the planet, above and beyond parochial concerns or short-term policies aimed at mollifying potential critics and adversaries from amongst the powerful conglomerate US corporations.
I expect he will do some things and not other things that I think he ought. While I do not expect miracles, I am expecting is some shift in US politics that will improve some things for Americans and for the rest of the world.
However, although we non-Americans are impacted on by what the US does, we don't get a vote. All we have is our voice and our pen.We can be active and hope that someone as intelligent as Obama will heed our voices and on occasions consider that what we are wanting is something that in the long run may be in America's interests too.
If McCain had been elected I would not have any such hopes.
With Obama I do.
And as i said, where I dont agree, and particularly where I disagree strongly, I will do what I can to speak up.
My first comment for example will be for him to reconsider the Palestine question and ask him to consider Kenya as an occupied country in 2008.