Beware of Groundhog Day
Barack Obama is a politician of a system described by Martin Luther King as "the greatest purveyor o
By John Pilger Published 11 December 2008
One of the cleverest films I have seen is Groundhog Day, in which Bill Murray plays a TV weatherman who finds himself stuck in time. At first he deludes himself that the same day and the same people and the same circumstances offer new opportunities. Finally, his naivety and false hope desert him and he realises the truth of his predicament and escapes. Is this a parable for the age of Obama?
Having campaigned with "Change you can believe in", President-elect Barack Obama has named his A-team. They include Hillary Clinton, who voted to attack Iraq without reading the intelligence assessment and has since threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran on behalf of a foreign power, Israel. During his primary campaign, Obama referred repeatedly to Clinton's lies about her political record. When he appointed her secretary of state, he called her "my dear friend".
Obama's slogan is now "continuity". His secretary of defence will be Robert Gates, who serves the lawless, blood-soaked Bush regime as secretary of defence, which means secretary of war. (America last had to defend itself when the British invaded in 1812.) Gates wants no date set for an Iraq withdrawal and "well north of 20,000" troops to be sent to Afghanistan. He also wants America to build a completely new nuclear arsenal, including "tactical" nuclear weapons that blur the distinction with conventional weapons.
Another product of "continuity" is Obama's first choice for CIA chief, John Brennan, who shares responsibility for the systematic kidnapping and torturing of people, known as "extraordinary rendition". Obama has assigned Madeleine Albright to report on how to "strengthen US leadership in responding to genocide". Albright, as secretary of state, was largely responsible for the siege of Iraq in the 1990s, described by the UN's Denis Halliday as genocide.
There is more continuity in Obama's appointment of officials who will deal with the economic piracy that brought down Wall Street and impoverished millions. As in Bill Murray's nightmare, they are the same officials who caused it. For example, Lawrence Summers will run the National Economic Council. As treasury secretary, according to the New York Times, he "championed the law that deregulated derivatives, the . . . instruments - aka toxic assets - that have spread financial losses [and] refused to heed critics who warned of dangers to come".
There is logic here. Contrary to myth, Obama's campaign was funded largely by rapacious capital, such as Citigroup and others responsible for the sub-prime mortgage scandal, whose victims were mostly African Americans and other poor people.
Is this a grand betrayal? Obama has never hidden his record as a man of a system described by Martin Luther King as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today". Obama's dalliance as a soft critic of the disaster in Iraq was in line with most Establishment opinion that it was "dumb". His fans include the war criminals Tony Blair, who has "hailed" his appointments, and Henry Kissin ger, who describes the appointment of Hillary Clinton as "outstanding". One of John McCain's principal advisers, Max Boot, who is on the Republican Party's far right, said: "I am "gobsmacked by these appointments. [They] could just as easily have come from a President McCain."
Obama's victory is historic, not only because he will be the first black president, but because he tapped in to a great popular movement among America's minorities and the young outside the Democratic Party. In 2006 Latinos, the country's largest minority, took America by surprise when they poured into the cities to pro test against George W Bush's draconian immigration laws. They chanted: "Si, se puede!" ("Yes we can!"), a slogan Obama later claimed as his own. His secretary for homeland security is Janet Napolitano who, as governor of Arizona, made her name by stoking hostility against Latino immigrants. She has militarised her state's border with Mexico and supported the building of a hideous wall, similar to the one dividing occupied Palestine.
On election eve, reported Gallup, most Obama supporters were “engaged” but “deeply pessimistic about the country’s future direction”. My guess is that many people knew what was coming, but hoped for the best. In exploiting this hope, Obama has all but neutered the anti-war movement that is historically allied to the Democrats. After all, who can argue with the symbol of the first black president in this country of slavery, regardless of whether he is a warmonger?
As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, Obama is a "brand" like none other, having won the highest advertising campaign accolade and attracted unprecedented sums of money. The brand will sell for a while. He will close Guantanamo Bay, whose inmates represent less than 1 per cent of America's 27,000 "ghost prisoners". He will continue to make stirring, platitudinous speeches, but the tears will dry as people understand that President Obama is the latest manager of an ideological machine that transcends electoral power. Asked what his supporters would do when reality intruded, Stephen Walt, an Obama adviser, said: "They have nowhere else to go."
Not yet. If there is a happy ending to the Groundhog Day of repeated wars and plunder, it may well be found in the very mass movement whose enthusiasts registered voters and knocked on doors and brought Obama to power. Will they now be satisfied as spectators to the cynicism of "continuity"? In less than three months, millions of angry Americans have been politicised by the spectacle of billions of dollars of handouts to Wall Street as they struggle to save their jobs and homes. It as if seeds have begun to sprout beneath the political snow. And history, like Groundhog Day, can repeat itself.
Few predicted the epoch-making events of the 1960s and the speed with which they happened. As a beneficiary of that time, Obama should know that when the blinkers are removed, anything is possible.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


105 comments
"I think Europe and the world would have been better off if the first world war hadn't occured."
No shit.
me; Amerika voted for a Kenyan, and the last time I said that on this site, I was CENSORED! lol
writeon: "I am not a Marxist! He's to far to the "right" for me. But to be fair to Marx, he didn't make many "predictions" at all. He wasn't a vulgar determinist."
Didn't Marx make a prediction that capitalism would fail due its own inherent flaws, and that there would be a proletariat revolution that would lead, via a period revolutionary terror and a dictatorship of the proleteriat, to a state of communism?
Isn't capitalism still here?
Didn't all the Marxist socialist revolutions turn out to be far more cruel and deadly than what they replaced?
Didn't they finally (re)embrace democracy and property rights for increased prosperity and freedom?
Wasn't his labour theory of value shown to be wrong? (at the very least in the simplistic form that he used).
Wasn't education made available to everyone under democratic market economies, unlike Marx's impression that it was capitalism denied it to the working class (no, it was actually the remnants of feudalism)?
“… the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
- Karl Marx
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”
- Karl Marx
“Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.”
- V. I. Lenin
“… when people charge us with harshness we wonder how they can forget the rudiments of Marxism.”
- V. I. Lenin
a.m.r.
The reason I put many of these terms in quotes is because I don't accept the way they are defined and used by many people. I think they are problematic. Like the words "terrorist" and "freedom fighter." I'm only indicating that I think these concepts are not as clear-cut and easily defined as one imagines.
Marx, wrote a lot of stuff. I don't agree with much of it. I'm not a Marxist. so I hope you'll excuse me if I don't get into a skermish with you over quotes. I honestly am not sure what they really "prove." It seems unfair as they are quotes from a time long gone. We don't really know the precise context they were made in. I seem to remember that Marx was particularly angered by the countrer-revolutionary "terror" as he saw it, that occured duging the revolutions of 1848 and during the supression of the Paris Commune.
I'm even less enamoured with Lenin than Marx.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe Marx was necessarily wrong about capitalisms future problems. I don't believe he was really making predictions in the sense or being a prophet. This would have been against the German materialist and rationalist tradition he came from. He did though seem to believe at one stage that capitalism was doomed, though later on, towards the end of his life, I seem to remember he modified this stance somewhat.
I'm not sure. I think the world's very complex and confusing, contradictory and paradoxical. I don't think I believe that "capitalism" exist anymore in the classic sense. I think the state is merging with the "market" and a new hybrid system is evolving. The "socialism" we see under construction in the United States isn't a temporary phenomenon. I think it's state capitalism of an interesting kind. So perhaps Marx was right after all and "capitalism" as he recognised it and defined it, is dead?
I'm not exactly sure what "evidence" you mean. I don't think an opinion, or an example, or an attitude, can be defined as evidence. I don't think Ron Pual is evidence.
"The reason I put many of these terms in quotes is because I don't accept the way they are defined and used by many people."
Stop piddling around with words- you always do that. Its not clever- its a waste of time. It forces everyone to debate english rather than the actual subject at hand.
"Marx, wrote a lot of stuff. I don't agree with much of it. I'm not a Marxist"
Dont you mean a "marxist"?! Why dont you tell us what you are? Without quotation marks- and without flimsy definitions. How much of the economy should be the state? Are you pro democracy or not? No word games, please.
(quotes above taken from Paul Bogdanor's website www.paulbogdanor.com)
"me" that was hilarious very funny and scary at the same time people would believe that.
Here are the top contributors to obamas campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
University of California $1,069,898
Goldman Sachs $884,907
Harvard University $732,150
Microsoft Corp $714,358
Google Inc $704,649
JPMorgan Chase & Co $600,210
Citigroup Inc $586,866
National Amusements Inc $566,409
Time Warner $517,748
Sidley Austin LLP $496,445
UBS AG $484,369
Stanford University $482,199
Skadden, Arps et al $473,424
Wilmerhale Llp $471,729
Columbia University $427,766
Morgan Stanley $425,502
Latham & Watkins $425,324
IBM Corp $416,946
University of Chicago $416,055
Lehman Brothers $410,974
a.m.r.
I do feel that you are trying to force me into a corner and get me to defend positons that I don't actually have.
I think on sites like this one is, of necessity, using language in a fashion which I don't particularly like, and simplifying how one uses complcated concepts, which is why I use quotes so much I suppose.
You seem to ask me lots of questions. I don't think I ask you very many. Why is that I wonder? You seem so sure of both yourself and what kind of society we live in, how it works and what characterises it. You seem to have faith and a lot invested in it. I, on the other hand am very sceptitcal about it. I don't think it works the way it appears to do on the surface at all.
I don't believe the democractic process we can observe in the USA conforms to it's own professed standards. I don't believe it's as simple as parties get votes in direct proportion to their support among the electorate, or rather those who bother to vote. It puzzles me opinion poles show that Americans have core attitudes that are very similar to European Social Democrats, yet they vote for conservatives. This would appear to be irrational and contradictory behaviour.
Why do voters who are poor vote for parties run by very rich people? I think it's odd. I'm well-off and I would never dream of voting for them, even though they clearly look after my narrow, selfish, "class-interests" before those of the great mass of the people who aren't wealthy.
I don't believe the "playing field" in soiciety is level or just or neutral at all. The "game" is clearly "rigged" in favour of some and disadvantages others. It's an unjust system, as is the entire "market democracy" model. The market is manipulated and unfree and I believe there is masses of evidence that the political system is as well. I think this systemic manipulation of the "free market" and "market democracy" reinforce, compliment, support and create a kind of "culture of manipulation."
Pilger's right. A lot of us here in the US see that this is not "change you can believe in." The appointments - for both foreign and domestic policy - reveal a great deal about where we're headed. Groundhog Day 1992. It was predictable based on the large support Obama received from Wall Street throughout his campaign. But the appointments are even worse than many expected. Really amounts to a betrayal and it will be very interesting to see how people react under these economic conditions.
writeon, fair enough - perhaps I got the wrong impression. Maybe it's the fact that you rarely seem to acknowledge the progress that's been made under modern democracies,compared to the myriad doubts you express as to the essential reality of such progress. This, coupled with your use of marxist-type terminology, and your defense of Marx's record, maybe can lead to an an incorrect conclusion.
Also, was it necessary to compare me to a Nazi brownshirt and accuse me of having a totalitarian mind - you remarked this to Pencils whilst I was trying to counter his outrageous denial of state crimes carried out under Stalin and Mao - in fact the very post of Pencil's that you replied to contained the offending material, which really made me wonder where you stood. Clearly, at the time you felt it was better to attack me than defend the truth.
I don't think our aims our at all different, by the way.
I think most people would place the elimination of poverty and human suffering worldwide as the number one aim, but perhaps we differ in our approaches.