The Madmen did well

The first 100 days of Barack Obama’s presidency have shown him to be a marketing exec’s dream, a Mar

The BBC’s American soap Mad Men offers a rare glimpse of the power of corporate advertising. The promotion of smoking half a century ago by the “smart” people of Madison Avenue, who knew the truth, led to countless deaths. Advertising and its twin, public relations, became a way of deceiving dreamt up by those who had read Freud and applied mass psychology to anything from cigarettes to politics. Just as Marlboro Man was virility itself, so politicians could be branded, packaged and sold.

It is more than 100 days since Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. The “Obama brand” has been named “Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008”, easily beating Apple computers. David Fenton of MoveOn.org describes Obama’s election campaign as “an institutionalised mass-level automated technological community organising that has never existed before and is a very, very powerful force”. Deploying the internet and a slogan plagiarised from the Latino union organiser César Chávez – “Sí, se puede!” or “Yes, we can” – the mass-level automated technological community marketed its brand to victory in a country desperate to be rid of George W Bush.

No one knew what the new brand actually stood for. So accomplished was the advertising (a record $75m was spent on television commercials alone) that many Americans actually believed Obama shared their opposition to Bush’s wars. In fact, he had repeatedly backed Bush’s warmongering and its congressional funding. Many Americans also believed he was the heir to Martin Luther King’s legacy of anti-colonialism. Yet if Obama had a theme at all, apart from the vacuous “Change you can believe in”, it was the renewal of America as a dominant, avaricious bully. “We will be the most powerful,” he often declared.

Perhaps the Obama brand’s most effective advertising was supplied free of charge by those journalists who, as courtiers of a rapacious system, promote shining knights. They depoliticised him, spinning his platitudinous speeches as “adroit literary creations, rich, like those Doric columns, with allusion . . .” (Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian). The San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote: “Many spiritually advanced people I know . . . identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who . . . can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet.”

In his first 100 days, Obama has excused torture, opposed habeas corpus and demanded more secret government. He has kept Bush’s gulag intact and at least 17,000 prisoners beyond the reach of justice. On 24 April, his lawyers won an appeal that ruled Guantanamo Bay prisoners were not “persons”, and therefore had no right not to be tortured. His national intelligence director, Admiral Dennis Blair, says he believes torture works. One of his senior US intelligence officials in Latin America is accused of covering up the torture of an American nun in Guatemala in 1989; another is a Pinochet apologist. As Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out, the US experienced a military coup under Bush, whose secretary of “defence”, Robert Gates, along with the same warmaking officials, has been retained by Obama.

All over the world, America’s violent assault on innocent people, directly or by agents, has been stepped up. During the recent massacre in Gaza, reports Seymour Hersh, “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel” and being used to slaughter mostly women and children. In Pakistan, the number of civilians killed by US missiles called drones has more than doubled since Obama took office.

In Afghanistan, the US “strategy” of killing Pashtun tribespeople (the “Taliban”) has been extended by Obama to give the Pentagon time to build a series of permanent bases right across the devastated country where, says Secretary Gates, the US military will remain indefinitely. Obama’s policy, one unchanged since the Cold War, is to intimidate Russia and China, now an imperial rival. He is proceeding with Bush’s provocation of placing missiles on Russia’s western border, justifying it as a counter to Iran, which he accuses, absurdly, of posing “a real threat” to Europe and the US. On 5 April in Prague, he made a speech reported as “anti-nuclear”. It was nothing of the kind. Under the Pentagon’s Reliable Replacement Warhead programme, the US is building new “tactical” nuclear weapons designed to blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war.

 

Perhaps the biggest lie – the equivalent of Smoking Is Good for You – is Obama’s announcement that the US is leaving Iraq, the country it has reduced to a river of blood. According to unabashed US army planners, as many as 70,000 troops will remain “for the next 15 to 20 years”. On 25 April, his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, alluded to this. It is not surprising that the polls are showing that a growing number of Americans believe they have been suckered – especially as the nation’s economy has been entrusted to the same fraudsters who destroyed it. Lawrence Summers, Obama’s principal economic adviser, is throwing $3trn at the same banks that paid him more than $8m last year, including $135,000 for one speech. Change you can believe in.

Much of the American Establishment loathed Bush and Cheney for exposing, and threatening, the onward march of America’s “grand design”, as Henry Kissinger, war criminal and now Obama adviser, calls it. In advertising terms, Bush was a “brand collapse” whereas Obama, with his toothpaste advertisement smile and righteous clichés, is a godsend. At a stroke, he has seen off serious domestic dissent to war, and he brings tears to the eyes, from Washington to Whitehall. He is the BBC’s man, and CNN’s man, and Murdoch’s man, and Wall Street’s man, and the CIA’s man. The Madmen did well.

www.johnpilger.com

10 comments

josephCape's picture

Pilger pretty much has the field to himself as far as blanket cynicism towards the Obama administration goes, which doesn't in itself show that he's wrong but against such consensus - even from the major repositories of leftwing thought - it seems unlikely.

There are some interesting points here, e.g. picked up in the last couple of lines, which seems to be the old Trotskyist argument that "worse is better" as far as the political economies of liberal capitalist societies are concerned. America's global leader status surely would not survive another couple of Bush 2.0 Admins such as the one that would have been formed by McCain/Palin. Amazingly, it looks like there was almost no thought gone into the long-term sustainability of Bush-type politics, despite its involvement with think tanks such as, "A new American Century", and equally amazingly, the Bush never alluded to long-term self-interest as a motive for foreign policy: short-term concerns were the only viable kind for pitching to the public (even if it takes suspended disbelief to accept that they were ever seen as credible motives).

As Pilger rightly points out, there's nothing ethical in pursuing self-interest more intelligently.

But there are differences. Obama is patently an intelligent creature, and he accepts facts about the world we live in such as global warming on thouroughly non-political grounds. With this issue, he doesn't have an electorate to pander to, as most US citizens are climate sceptics. Its just the nature of climate change: if you understand it, you care about it because because universal catastrophe is something everyone has an interest in avoiding.

The tendancy in left-wing discussion is to focus on the gross systemic properties rather than individuals, which is often laudable. However, it can be inappropriate - the president enjoys more power,e.g., than a PM does here. Of course Obama is lumped with the existing system but his personal qualities are of consequence too.

delduca79's picture

it's all just a case of informing oneself. Before casting an opinion we should base it on facts rather than being fooled by marketing techniques or simple rhetoric. Critical thinking is what is needed and should be encouraged this is the way to truth. I believe that he touched a very important subject when he mentions psychlogy in PR and therefore recommend a 4 part documentary "the century of the self" which explains the psychological techniques used to gain the approval of the masses and about the use of these techniques by the father of PR, Edward Bernays, nephew of Freud. Should be a must for studying journalism and more.

Camus's picture

Hi, Mitchy. Well Attention is what I have paid. Bush and Obamam "they're both just puppets for the regime" are they? Sounds very pessimistic to me, but then maybe you believe that there is a cabal of wealthy people who decide what happens in the USA(or anywhere else.) That may be the case in Russia but I don't think that it is correct to say that Obama is a puppet. He has to fight against powerful lobbies, sure and he has the whole of the GOP against him, but he has made some good decisions and started to alter
the course of the US and those who are ready to deny that these decisions are of no significance live in a
cloud cuckoo world. That means you, Mr. Pilger!

Footnote Hooligan's picture

The difference between Capstan Full-Strength and Benson & Hedges is actually greater than that between the now less popular Bush/Cheney smokes and the Obama novelty pack. Corporate motivatiion - rapacious greed to maximise profit - is identical in each case, and both inevitably kill large numbers of customers. The nicotine-free product, however, has a record worse by far when it comes to killing passive bystanders.

Torture? Again, a matter of branding. When expediency requires, governments have always tortured and always will: such is the nature of the State. 'Pour raisons d'état', to avoid chaos, anything is ultimately justifiable.

In January Obama 'banned' the use of waterboarding. In April the Department of Defense refused to say whether it was still being used 'for training purposes.'

mitchy's picture

@Camus:

Pessimistic perhaps, Camus, but it really depends on your point of view. I see my position as being realistic, and I'm sure many would agree.

'but then maybe you believe that there is a cabal of wealthy people who decide what happens in the USA(or anywhere else.)'

Its not a case of belief. Conspiracy theories aside, this is pretty much the case in most western countries to a greater or lesser degree. I think to try to refute this is to try to ignore the elephant in the room.

I'm not saying that Obama hasnt done anything of worth in his first 100 days, but none of it even begins to address the burning issues (see previous post). To me, its all window dressing.

However, let's follow your advice and see what's happened 3 years down the line:

'Take a deep breath you Obama bashers and keep on holding until three years have passed.'

I'd really love to be wrong, but I suspect my 'pessimism' will prove to be justified.

taghioff.info's picture

John

You spoiled my morning again, but you are probably right on this one.

Lets see if he nationalises the banks. If not, then he is Bush 2.0, the continued slide of American power due to Right-Wing-Capitol Hill disconnect from reality.

Never thought I'd be upset with Neo-liberalism for destroying America, but there you go, funny old world.

LizA1's picture

John

What another brilliantly written analogy of this presidents 100 days in office. New face but same agenda. I was watching recently a video on utube with Robert Kennedy jnr. and he was highlighting the fact of news in the USA as in the UK that there is not a lot of difference in the corporate propaganda that is perpetrated through to us citizens and fed only what they want to tell us and thank the lord that we have a brilliant investigative journalist in you John and it seems to be a dying breed these days. Getting back to Robert Kennedy jnr. he was comparing the international news that the US gets now has whittled down to only the BBC and America has no other international news served to them. I think in anyone`s mind that is totally repugnant. Keep up the excellent work, we need you!!! and your documentaries are also awesome.

Daniele's picture

Just voted yes to this week question as to Obama's first 100 days.Now that I have read this article -and I have great respect for Pilger's take on the world- I feel foolish for wanting to believe that Obama could genuinely be different .Just like it would be nice if there were really lovely fairies at the bottom of my garden or if there was a nice God supervising the world, I wanted to believe that maybe this guy had been elected by mistake and that he would change America despite the establishment. How bloody desperately hopeful is that? Unfortunately, John Pilger is most probably absolutely right and Obama has in fact been placed where he is to offer a more acceptable image of America while at the same time the system continues with the same fundamental policies. How depressing!

mitchy's picture

Havent you been paying attention, Camus?

The figureheads have changed in the US, sure, Obama isn't the imbecile Bush was, but they're both just puppets for the regime. The real 'power behind the throne' hasnt changed, it's business as usual. Packaged differently perhaps, but same crap in the box.

It's fine to be optimistic if there's reason to be (I was initially too), but dont be fooled by the propaganda. Do you really think Obama will close the black holes like Bagram, Abu Graib etc? Guantanamo maybe, but it's just the tip of the evil iceberg they want you to see. Do you think he will bring the Israeli's to heel over Palestine? Do you think the US will get out of Iraq or Afganistan and make serious reparations to these brutalised countries?

None of the things which actually matter will change, the US Hegemony will continue until some kind of violent revolution kicks the self-styled 'elite' out of office, and either puts them up against a wall or in a cell.

Camus's picture

Why isn't there just a little more optimism and a sense of expectation that President Obama can achieve
some of the necessary changes to bring a little common sense into US politics? This 100 day moaning is just space filling in a large virtual trash heap. Take a deep breath you Obama bashers and keep on holding until three years have passed. Or would you rather have another era of Bush?

Latest tweets