« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Barack Gorbachev?
What can we expect from an Obama presidency?
If he gets a huge mandate and a Democratic Senate and Congress, there are two possibilities that I can see, either he doesn't try to really change anything... a lot of disappointed kids and a lot of wasted time.
Second possibility, he does try to change things... and it all falls apart.
How will we know right away? In the first year?
Whatever the positive effect of his being "articulate, charismatic and Black", it will not last very long if he doesn't face down AIPAC and the Israeli government in his first year in office. There will be no peace in the Middle East until an American president implements UN-242 or something very much like it.
I don't think Obama will ever dare to do that, Karma is Karma... Maybe a rich old geezer, can get a face lift, a hair transplant, eat Viagra like candy and leave his loyal old lady for a trophy wife, but that doesn't work for countries.
Like it or not, what is left of America's prosperity, the dollar and its influence, has come to depend on America's military presence all over the world. This is one of America's greatest tragedies. And don't forget... Nobody is waiting for moral lessons from America. America has created its role as world gendarme and that is about all it still has to sell that can't be easily bought elsewhere.
We are not talking about change, we are talking about disaster management.
Things have practically unraveled already; they were unraveling before Bush, but he has accelerated the process by about twenty years. Without military credibility and endless shopping, the USA is going to see its "way of life" implode.
What has happened?
The secret of much of what is happening today is that America was almost as badly damaged by the cold war as the Soviet Union.
Like the Soviet Union, while others were learning to build good cars and TVs, airports and roads, Americans only built 'intelligent' munitions. People are waking up to reality and in true American fashion, they are reaching for the tranquilizer... the man with a plan, the change they can believe in... Not that dumb? We are talking about the same people who reelected George W. Bush, now with buyer's remorse... Wheeee!
The USA is just waiting for an amateur to tinker with it.
Is Barack Obama to be the American Gorbachev?
Michail Gorbachev, in contrast to Barack Obama had a very rigorous ideological formation and a deep practical knowledge of his system from the bottom up and he was really tough... No choirboy ever got to the top of the CP-USSR. Obviously he should have chosen the Chinese path, but in fact he and Raisa had so much faith in Marxism that they thought it would survive his tampering.
Michail Gorbachev tried to change his system and it fell apart in his hands, everybody outside the USSR thought he was wonderful, he was a movie star for the whole world... In Russia they have never forgiven him. Putin calls what he did the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century and most Russians agree.
Is Barack Obama to be the American Gorbachev?
Think very carefully before you answer that... remember that after Gorbachev comes Yeltsin and Putin.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Comments (32)
"Not this time" ~ Barack Obama
May 20, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, McCain and Clinton are scheduled to speak at the AIPAC annual conference June 2-4.
Our dollar is based on the speculation of the petrodollar and the defense industry is financed through China.
Present economic system that has failed this time was a consumer based economy. On credit. We haven't had a manufacturing based economy for close to three decades.
USA = Russia. That's just weird.
I don't understand your neurosis.
May 20, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you missed the point.
The cold war turned the USA into a paranoiac war monger. The USA and the USSR were both damaged by confronting each other, neither the USA or Russia can make a decent car or TV set, fridge or camera. Both produce excellent weapon systems.
May 20, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh...and another thing mentioned at your blog (which has about 20 comments total) is the subject of Bush's ability to campaign. Have you ever heard of the Hatch Act?
I guess you don't explain that to your readers. You rather excite them to a frenzy by your nihilism and racially derogatory undertones.
May 20, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The president of the USA as Commander in Chief has ways of "campaigning" that don't fall within the provisions of the Hatch Act... Besides Bush doesn't usually name people in his attacks, hes says things like, "some say that..." and then puts in the knife.
May 20, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
*Chokes on stuff*
Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." Really, you are surprised that Vladimir Megalomaniac Vladimirovich Fucking Putin thought at election time that dismantling the Soviet hegemony was bad?
Exactly how many Russians do you know again?
May 20, 2008 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Putin wins elections and the polls say he has about 71% approval ratings... It appears that the Russians like him a lot. The collapse of the USSR brought enormous hardship to the ordinary Russian. Clinton (Bill) didn't handle that well at all.
May 20, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not claiming that the FSU would not have collapsed without Gorbachev, are you?
May 20, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
What passes for democracy in the USA is not that attractive in many parts of the world. Compared to the Russian collapse, China's model is quite attractive.
China has transformed itself successfully and from a point of view of governance China is doing OK... If you compare how they are handling this huge present catastrophe and compare how the USA botched up the much less terrible Katrina on every level: local, state and federal, it would be unfair to say that the Chinese state doesn't take care of its people.
May 20, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the FSU was an economic disaster waiting to happen. Once their oil production peaked, they just didn't have the margins to maintain their huge military and bureaucracy. There was no shortage of reformers like Gorbachev ready to tinker with the system, but ultimately their planned economy couldn't compete with market-based economies.
May 20, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see if I have this straight:
USA = USSR
Obama = Gorbachev
Obama = "choirboy"
Obama = "amateur"
Obama = "either he doesn't try to really change anything..."
or
Obama = "he does try to change things... and it all falls apart"
USA = DOOMED
Therefore:
Seaton = Glib peddler of despair (crypto-racist variety)
Seaton = Black hole of negativity
Seaton = Purveyor of glittering BULLSHIT
Special note for newer readers:
Mr. Seaton fancies himself an authority on all things American, but has not actually lived in the US for the last 4 or 5 decades.
May 20, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
News for you.
Americans understand little of the world, but the world knows everything about America.
Funny, huh?
May 20, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, certainly, David - we are all ignorant of the wider world, while Europeans are hip to every nuance of American life. It makes perfect sense.
May 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, certainly, David - we are all ignorant of the wider world, while Europeans are hip to every nuance of American life. It makes perfect sense.
May 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW
The USA is not doomed. America is a great country. Look at Russia, another great country, they have been through a very rough patch, but you can't write off a place that produced Leo Tolstoy.
What I do think is that the USA is headed for uncharted waters at the moment.
I thought/think that Al Gore is/was the right man for the USA right now. Experienced, with a grasp of the 21rst century, the new technologies and the challenges facing the States... With great, worldwide prestige... I think he could have won in a walk this time too.
But it looks like Al is too dull and the people (at least the Democratic variety) have (in their infinite wisdom) decided to confide America's destiny to a community organizer, from one of America's most corrupt political machines. And I think the Democrats, megawankers that they are going to blow it again.
So be it. Vox populi, vox dei
May 20, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're more like an expatriot than an expatriate. Why don't you take on Spain's monarchy.
May 20, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Supporting Al Gore makes me some sort of Benedict Arnold?
May 20, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Early on in Spain I learned that if the bulls don't charge there is no fiesta.
May 20, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that many people will expect great changes if Obama is elected. But really, once in the White House " Obama would be left holding the bag... a bag that dates at least back until the 1940s and not everyone on the helm since then has been as useless as Bush, in fact some of the Presidents since WWII have been top class, in that group I would even include such flawed figures as Lyndon Johnson and Richard (shudder) Nixon... Nixon, hateful as he was, forgot more about geopolitics in a minute than Obama will ever know.
The USA today, contradictions and conflicts, warts and all, is what we have all made it... day by day and year by year. Paraphrasing Donald Rumsfeld, "you don't go with the country you want, you go with the country you have".
May 20, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You misquoted Rumsfeld,
He said "you don't go with the army you want, you go with the army you have". Which was an appalling statement for the Sec. of Defense to say.
You're just being a charlatan.
And I don't expect great changes from Obama. I expect to great changes.
You're in a country that rules people as subjects.
But see, I doubt you can even come back here. And if you got run out of the country. Good. It just seems you hate the United States Government for some reason.
Other than that I just think you're touting fascist idealism around because you think you're Jack Schitt. But you're not.
May 20, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I expect to make great changes".
May 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
quasar, you said that David Seaton misquoted Rumsfeld; however, please note what David actually said:
"Paraphrasing Donald Rumsfeld, "you don't go with the country you want, you go with the country you have".
the keyword there is *paraphrasing*, and it doesn't mean to quote exactly.
with reading and comprehension skills such as those you've demonstrated, no wonder it's hard for you to distinguish who the charlatans and fascists really are.
May 20, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in a country with socialized medicine, a country where after a massive attack by Al Qaeda, in March 2004, not one Muslim was harassed. A country where there is no persecution of the possession of small quantities of drugs for personal consumption, a country where gay marriage has existed for several years... but why go on... You should be so lucky.
May 20, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a Soviet affairs expert by any means (although they did provide munitions to my erstwhile movement in those bygone days when we were still in the jungle), but I think the parallel is strained.
By opening up the closed Soviet system, Gorbachev unleashed forces that ultimately proved beyond his control. This was a radical shift. While Obama speaks often of fixing the "broken system," it's unclear exactly what he means by this other than steps to curb the influence of lobbyists in Washington, whatever that may entail. In other words, it seems more a rhetorical device than a substantive shift. Looking beyond his campaign rhetoric, his proposals are fairly modest - although certainly a sea change from the Bush administration.
In foreign policy, too, it is the Bush administration that has proved a radical departure from the general consensus that prevailed before "9/11 changed everything" (their words, not mine). Obama is likely to rely more on soft power and diplomacy than the naked efforts to assert US hegemony we've seen over the past 8 years. Again, this is nothing like the reorientation of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev.
I'm not sure why you posit facing down AIPAC as the measuring stick (of what, I'm not certain). Here, as well, Obama's foreign policy is likely to return to the Clinton/Bush I consensus: some limited pressure on Israel to make concessions in the interest of achieving a two state solution. Nothing radical about that. How exactly this is supposed to signal the end of the American Empire I fail to see.
You say that "[w]ithout military credibility and endless shopping, the USA is going to see its "way of life" implode." Yes, it's true, as you point out, that other countries have begun to catch up, but the US is still unquestionably the world's economic giant, dwarfing all others. For all the talk of emerging markets such as China and India catching up, the fact remains that when the US economy sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. This is a far cry from the utterly stagnant, failing economy of the Soviet Union that Gorbachev inherited.
The one parallel that I do see, however is Afghanistan/Iraq. The Afghan war accelerated the Soviet Union's demise. At this point, the US military is bogged down in a similarly fruitless and draining occupation. If Obama is able to achieve a responsible end to this fiasco, there is no reason to think the US is on the verge of the type of collapse the USSR saw under Gorby.
May 20, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
First let me thank you for a serious and constructive critique of my positions. Mostly I get spitballs from kindergarteners.
Things have deteriorated a lot in every sense since GHW Bush's day. The former president is said to believe that the modest attempt he made to curtail Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is what cost him his second term.
Things are worse today. The very name of James Baker, not to mention Mearsheimer and Walt gets "friends of Israel frothing at the mouth, both in Washington and Jerusalem. I suggest you read Tony Karon's excellent blog or Phil Weiss's Mondo Weiss or of course Juan Cole to get up to speed.
The comparison with Russia is mostly about tampering with a stable if deficient system.
Frankly I don't think Obama is going to do anything at all... I'm not alone in this. However if he does, I think that it will be disastrous. America has very little room to maneuver at the moment.
In order for their to be meaningful change, first I believe that America needs another Martin Luther King (of any color) to lead a mass social movement outside government to raise consciousness.
May 20, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post raises an interesting point and as I mentioned, looking at Iraq, I for one can't help but think of the demise of the USSR - troops bogged down in a gazillion dollar misadventure that undermines its credibility and places huge strain on its already failing economy. However, as I also mentioned, I still think the US is a much stronger country, in a much better economic position built on a far more stable foundation. I hope I'm right. I live here, after all. I am hopeful that Obama will steer the ship slightly toward the center in both domestic and foreign affairs. I don't see it as a house of cards.
With respect to your point about Israel, I don't see how this would contribute to the demise of the US you envision and wonder if it deserves its place at the top of the list. (I'm in the minority on this). The pro-Likud/no compromise lobby has been hugely influential in this administration, but still represents a minority view in the US and Israel. I just read (forgot where) that Obama is now supported by something like 2/3 of American jews. Unless the McCain campaign is able to tar him in some fundamental way, this is only likely to increast going into the general.
May 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. I lived in both the former Eastern bloc (when it still existed) and in the US, so I have some basis for comparison. There is no comparison.
When Gorbachev took power, he didn't change nearly as much as it might have seemed to Westerners. And how could he? All the mid- and low-level cadres were still in their positions. It is naive to expect that a system that has been pretty consistently developing in one direction for nearly 70 years can change in just a few years. That's exactly what Gorbachev thought... and he was wrong.
Sure the Russians are bitter now. Who wouldn't be, after losing an empire.
May 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
or, in some (perhaps very many?) cases, *create* consciousness! which, I dare-say, would require the power and grace of God Almighty!
May 20, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The premise of this article is so foolish that trying to refute it is probably a waste of time... but anyway.
When Gorbachev became the Soviet head honcho, the country was already broken beyond repair. Gorbachev deserves enormous credit for allowing the Soviet empire to disintegrate with minimum bloodshed.
Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Soviet CP in 1985. By 1989, the Soviet empire was too busy falling apart to do anything else. If anyone seriously believes that a single person can cause the downfall of a country the size of the USSR in just four years, I have a bridge to sell you!
In 1985, Soviet economy was already in tatters. It was incredibly inefficient and the best anyone could say for it was that people weren't starving. The USSR was spending billions on the war in Afghanistan and was technologically lagging ever more behind the West.
For people living in the Soviet bloc, the question in 1985 was not whether communism is going to collapse, it was when. The system was not stable and this was clear to people living within, probably clearer than to people living outside.
The USSR had also a major problem with nationalism. Russians forcibly integrated a number of outlying regions into the USSR (some of them pretty big - Ukraine, Kazakhstan) and ruled over many satellite countries. None of these people actually liked Russians, and that's exactly why pretty much everyone got (politically) as far from the Russians as they could at the earliest opportunity (ie. 1989).
Gorbachev chose a risky strategy designed to save the USSR. The strategy failed because the USSR was already beyond help. The US is today in a position that is nowhere near as bad as where the Soviet Union was in 1985. There are no credible separatist tendencies in the US and extremely low likelihood that the country should disintegrate.
Two things are clear: First, David Seaton really, really doesn't like Obama. Second, David Seaton has no clue about recent history.
May 20, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, David Seaton; much of what you say makes sense to me.
And I appreciate your perspective as well. Btw, Spain does sound a lot more appealing than the present US to me! hoho!
oh oh, we can hardly imagine what this note may evoke!
but, after all, we (who remain in the US) are living here among not only those who re-instated BushCo deliberately, but all the rest who couldn't take him out! only a very few even tried, evidently!
May 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I thought/think that Al Gore is/was the right man for the USA right now. Experienced, with a grasp of the 21rst century, the new technologies and the challenges facing the States... With great, worldwide prestige... I think he could have won in a walk this time too."
David, do you know what a know-it-all like Al Gore could do to the country? What would he do, establish "The People's Bureau for New Innovation"?
Stayed tuned on the global warming front. If it gets warmer, I will reconsider Al Gore. If it gets colder, I hope you will reconsider.
But except for this, i enjoyed your article.
May 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, no chance Obama could actually be successful? And you based that on what, exactly?
May 20, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment