By: Andrew Kimbrell
It was Teddy Roosevelt who with characteristic aplomb dubbed the presidency a “bully pulpit.” T.R. used the nation’s highest office as the perfect platform to rally the American people around a vigorous and, in his case, often controversial agenda. With Obama, we have, for the most part, an empty pulpit.

During the campaign, Obama identified himself as a “progressive.” During his presidency, however, we have witnessed an ongoing failure to rally his base and the American people around a progressive agenda. In the absence of a progressive voice resonating from the White House, the radical Right continues to dominate the political noise, forcing its policy narratives into the media and policy decisions. Even as the nation is galvanized by the union-busting tactics of state Republicans in Wisconsin and elsewhere, perplexed by the bombing of Libya, and the growing prospect of the dismantling of our public sector the President seems content to triangulate between the two parties and mostly hole up in the White House poring over poll numbers with his small cadre of Wall Street-centric advisors.

Let’s be clear: the Republicans have been as cynical, malevolent, obstructionist, and downright zany during this administration as anything I have seen in the twenty-five years I have been a D.C. denizen. This includes the overtly racist “birther” attacks now hopefully finally put to rest. But as T.R., who was also routinely libeled, knew, it is not the job of the president to accept roadblocks from his enemies in Congress and then quietly whisper “uncle.” It is his job and that of his surrogates to aggressively go out to the public with a principled message and progressive narratives and to marshal the millions who support them to contact Congress and change their obstructionist and misguided ways.

This has been the signature failure of the Obama administration. Instead of standing on principle, Obama’s modus operandi has been to accede before the battle has really been joined. We have seen this repeatedly in the major issues of his presidency: the emasculation of the so-called “stimulus package“; the abandonment of the health care public option; acceding to the Bush tax cuts; failure to push for effective global warming legislation; surrendering to the hawks on the Afghan war; failure to stand up for the rights to public trial for those detained in Guantanamo; and now complicity in irresponsible and unnecessary cutting of critical government services.

Of course, politics is the art of the possible and leading is often about compromising. This we know. But there is a critical difference between compromising on strategies versus compromising and even abandoning basic progressive principles and narratives as Obama has done. The immediate result is that the administration compromised badly or was outright defeated. Obama has not become a clever compromiser but rather a recidivist capitulator. But the longer-term damage of the president failing to step into the pulpit of the presidency has been the failure to counter the Right’s reactionary narratives with progressive narratives. This resulted in a disastrous failure to mobilize the base in 2010 and offered no encouragement for independents to join with progressives.

Not surprisingly half of the Democrats and the vast majority of youthful voters did not even show up at the polls in 2010. The House majority was lost and if it were not for the buffoonery of several Tea Party Senate candidates, the Senate would have been lost as well.

So what were some of the progressive narratives that have not even been articulated by Obama, and therefore left reactionary policy narratives to win the day? Every frustrated progressive will have his choices. Here are my top five:

1. Reactionary Narrative: Government is the problem. It is bad, even evil, and should be eliminated or privatized as much as possible

Countering Progressive Narrative: Government is good and a major part of the solution to our economic and social problems — large, robust local, state and federal government services are critical to our individual and national well-being

To be true to their “anti-big government” message, Tea Party rallies should have been festooned with signs such as “Fire the Fireman,” “No More Police,” “Bite the Postman,” “We Support Fewer Teachers and Overcrowded Classrooms,” “Collapse our Bridges — No More Infrastructure,” “We’ll Pave and Build Our Own Roads,” “Citizens for Salmonella,” “Unsafe Drugs for Everyone,” “Americans for a Weak Defense,” “Senior Citizens Against Medicaid and Medicare.” These signswere missing, of course, and instead we have the endless brow furrowing over “big government” in both parties as the discussion remains conveniently abstract.

This vagueness is important for the Tea Party and their big corporatefunders because the entire “big government is evil” narrative is incoherent once it is actually thought through. Everyone wants and needs robust and effective government services. However, in the 1980s the Reagan spinmeisters cleverly linked “big government” to “welfare moms” slurping vodka and driving Cadillacs, which had the advantage of being both apocryphal and racist. Over the last three decades “big government” has been artfully equated with helping the poor, immigrants, and other “undesirable” communities. This clever narrative about “big government” remains a rallying cry for the Right because large corporations use this mantra as a convenient cover to work against regulations that might protect the American people or the environment but cut into their profits. Additionally, the more the Right can cripple government through spending cuts the more they can show how it’s not working.

Meanwhile, it is indisputable that the two great crises in the Obama presidency, the financial meltdown and the gulf disaster, were both a direct result oftoo little government, too little regulation of corporations acting badly (actually criminally). So how is it conceivable that within just a few months of the Obama presidency “big government” suddenly became the culprit for our current economic malaise, rather than the failure of our government to reign in corporate influence and corruption that actually did cause it? Well in part it’s the empty pulpit problem. Perhaps in fear of the “big government” label, Obama simply has not forcefully reminded the American people that big government services are critical to each and every one of us, as are the public servants who perform them. Those first responders on 9/11, our teachers, firemen, police, health professionals, and those protecting our environment and ensuring our food and drugs are safe, are heroes not villains. They are the “care economy” that represents over 30 percent of our entire economy; they devote themselves to our collective welfare without the lure of profits and wealth.

Instead of standing up for government, for the care economy, and even expanding government programs to create an FDR-like jobs corps, Obama has frozen wages for public workers, defended the firing of teachers, and been mysteriously quiet during the recent Republican union busting jihad in the Midwest. Even worse, he has openly avowed his admiration for Reagan and his belief in limited government interference with the “invisible hand” of the free market.

It was jolting on the night of the 2011 budget compromise to hear Obama proudly proclaimed that we have made “the largest annual spending cut in our history.” Should we celebrate a 33 billion dollar “compromise” on the budget where the administration joins with the Republicans to further dismantle our public sector and public services. Certainly the President’s 2012 budget is far more humane than the Draconian, not to say loopy, Republican version It still is based on trillions in budget cuts and augers further compromises in the coming years with the Republicans as Medicare, Social Security, and the entire public safety sector is eroded. So we have a fundamental failure of the President to articulate the counter-narrative to the “evil big government” mantra. As a result instead of balancing the budget by taxing the richest among us, chopping corporate welfare to the oil companies and so many others, taxing currently untaxed major Wall Street transactions and massively reducing our defense budget including getting out of Afghanistan and other foreign adventures, the burden again falls on the beleagured middle class and the poor.

Republican Big/Small Government | Lower Taxes — Hypocrisy

2. Reactionary Narrative: Quality health care is a commodity available to those who can afford it.

Countering Progressive Narrative: Quality health care is a basic human right.

In 1944 as part of his “Second Bill of Rights” State of the Union Address FDR declared that “the right to adequate health care” for all Americans was critical for our progress as a nation. Unfortunately he died before being able to realize this goal. When Obama decided, rightly or wrongly, to prioritize health care he should have started with this basic progressive narrative. He should have rallied the millions of women, men, and children with no health insurance to declare that quality health care is a basic right and urged his base to relentlessly pressure Congress. The White House should have been working overtime to make sure the stories of the uninsured working people of this country were in the media — front and center to the American people.

Working under this principle of health care as a “right” Obama should have taken the legislative lead with a call to extend Medicare to every citizen, and compromised from that position of principled strength. Instead Obama articulated no basic narrative or principle in the health care fight; there was no call-out to millions to rally behind a shared belief in this critical area of social justice. In lieu of this kind of real leadership he made a quick behind-closed-doors deal with the pharmaceutical companies and then left the entire legislative “sausage making” to five different Congressional committees, many of them dominated by representatives and senators whose votes had long been paid for by “big pharma” and the insurance companies. What’s worse, Obama in his haste for some kind of compromise prematurely threw the public option under the bus, alienating his base and significantly weakening the bill. The bill that emerged continued to support the reactionary paradigm of treating health care as a commodity albeit making buying this commodity mandatory. Its passage caused pharmaceutical and insurance stock to rise.

With the base discouraged and no progressive organizing having been done, the nascent Tea Party was able to seize the public space to violently attack the already weak bill and bizarrely label its supporters as “socialists.” During this late summer of tumult the White House remained inexplicably mum. Finally under unrelenting Tea Party pressure the White House decided to abandon even this weak bill, but Nancy Pelosi and the House leadership realized the very viability of the presidency was at stake and artfully passed the bill even though it was far weaker than the House version. The counter-narrative of health care as a “right” was never even given a chance by the Obama administration.

Healthcare Terrorism in America

3. Reactionary Narrative: Free market competition is the basis for our economic life — the benefits of the winners will trickle down to the losers.

Counter Progressive Narrative: The free market is a dangerous fiction (as is trickle-down economics) — not everything is a market commodity and even then those commodity markets have always been regulated. The question is how and for whom to regulate markets so as to create the most equitable distribution of wealth.

Here’s an economics quiz. Who said the following: “From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government..” Ronald Reagan, Milton Freidman? Newt Gingrich? Nope. That’s Barack Obama just a couple of weeks ago in his much awaited speech refuting the Paul Ryan Republican budget. This was reminiscent of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner explaining the Obama approach to dealing with the recession; “We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we’d like to do our best topreserve that system.” Well they sure did.

To be fair Obama’s recent budget speech did give some kudos to limited government control of the market. However, when economists look back at the Obama presidency I suspect what will puzzle them most is how free market fundamentalism still somehow survived to dominate our public policy yet again. This despite one of the most dramatic economic collapses in our history itself caused by badly regulated markets. What shows Obama’s market fundamentalist tendency most clearly is the Administration’s bended knee to Wall Street. Currently the financial sector (even excluding real estate) accounts for more than 40 percent of corporate profits in the United States and around 25-30 percent of our GNP. So to an alarming extent the United States is becoming a “casino” economy. In fact today more than $680 trillion is invested in various derivative investment “bets” worldwide. That’s ten times the entire world’s gross national product! Instead of warning about the growing power of this metastasizing, dangerous, and massively destabilizing financial “complex” (as Eisenhower did about the “military industrial complex”) Obama sees Wall Street as a manifestation of his belief in free markets (albeit with a glaze of regulation) and yet ironically believes that massive government investment in this sector will “trickle down” to the rest of the economy. Well it hasn’t happened and it won’t happen. The federal funding to Wall Street will be used by those receiving it to invest in yet more exotic financial products and bets; if the bubble bursts again at the old Wall Street casino they can count on the government again to provide “house” money so they can keep on playing.

Obama should have embraced the progressive narrative that free markets cannot and have not protected workers, our environment, or even the stability of our financial systems. Over the last two centuries the purported “free market” oppressed generations of workers, utilized child labor, caused exponential destruction of natural resources, and created huge booms and busts in the financial system. This is because the free market was based in the fiction that labor, land and its resources, and money were actually commodities subject to the laws of supply and demand. Well labor is really human beings, not a commodity. Land and many resources are not commodities that can be endlessly produced but rather non-renewable natural “capital” that we destroy at our peril. And money is an exchange medium that is not a commodity and that should not be subject to the ups and downs, inflations and depressions, of investment betting.

Starting with Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Era it was understood that the free market was thus a fiction. It was also correctly seen that these contradictions were creating large scale worker unrest and even revolution, destruction of the resource base of the country, and unsustainable inflation and depressions in the financial markets. So for the last century virtually the entireregulatory system of the United States was established to protect themarket system from itself. Labor as a commodity was taken off the free market with the establishment of the Department of Labor in 1917 and the promulgation of, among other reforms, workers protection, workplace safety, social security, a minimum wage, and unemployment insurance. A flood of laws and regulation from zoning to the major environmental laws of the 1960s and ’70s were put in place to protect our resources fromthe undiluted market. The FDIC and laws restricting and controlling by whom and in what manner investments could be made were put in place to protect the financial system from the market.

The Republicans under the sway of free market fundamentalism have forgotten this entire history. They now openly seek to tear down the very protections that keep the market system they profess to believe in functioning. Instead of busting the free market, trickle-down economics myth, Obama with his free market rhetoric and Wall Street-friendly policies has opened the door to a return, after a century of dormancy, of these “zombie” economic ideas. Of Obama’s capitulation to the Bush tax cuts and embracing of free market and trickle down ideology Paul Krugman wrote, “…it’s one thing to make deals to advance your goals; it’s another to open the door to zombie ideas. When you do that, the zombies end up eating your brain — and quite possibly your economy too.” And that is just what has happened.

Republican ‘Voodoo’ Economics | Tax-Cut Delusion

Republican War on The ‘New Deal’

Republican War on The Poor

Republican War on Women / Single Mothers

4. Reactionary Narrative: You counter terrorism by fighting land wars and overthrowing dictators (especially when oil is involved).

Counter Progressive Narrative: The Best Way to Fight Terrorism is through Cooperative International Police Action and Foreign Policy Changes — Not Land Wars.

It was probably the most important, lost moment in the last presidential election. On July 31, 2008 the Rand Corporation, a conservative think tank started by the U.S. Air Force, produced a new report entitled — “How Terrorist Groups End — Lessons for Countering Al Qa’ida.” The report studied 648 terrorist groups between 1988 and 2006 and found that military operations against such groups was by a wide margin the least effective means of success. The evidence was unmistakable: terrorist groups very rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a war-type military campaign. Therefore the study concludes that the so-called “war on terrorism” simply would not be successful as it was currently being implemented and that the efforts against terrorist networks should not be characterized as a “war” at all. The study demonstrated that terrorism was best defeated by treating it as an international criminal matter not as a “war.” The report summarized, “Al Qa’ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.”

Of course you don’t need to be the Rand Corporation to see that this “war on terror” narrative is anomalous to dealing with any international terrorist network. Terrorist networks almost by definition are not bound by any country and can operate anywhere from Frankfurt to Jakarta or Elizabeth, New Jersey. Invade one country and they simply go to another. Moreover they can have “cells” anywhere and communicate via the Internet. Obviously international intelligence and police work is what’s required to deal with these networks, not WWII style military operations. Case closed.

Moreover, progressives know that many of the real foundations for terror lie in misguided oil-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, including decades of support for brutal dictators and also an overweening obeisance to the Israel Lobby. Obama missed his historic opportunity to clarify this during the campaign, to “bust” the misleading “war on terror” narrative. Instead, he kept saying that Iraq was the “wrong war” and then stating with misguided enthusiasm that the “real war” was in Afghanistan. He made the same fateful error as president. He spent many months reexamining the U.S. Afghan policy, reportedly receiving counsel from all sides. But, locked into the prism and prison of the “war on terror” narrative, he decided to increase our presence there by tens of thousands of troops. A position he still forcefully adheres to.

This has doomed Obama into a Rube Goldberg type policy in Afghanistan which goes something like this: even though al-Qaida is no longer in Afghanistan we have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, and the lives of our soldiers and innocent Afghanis, to take sides in a civil war against our former allies the Taliban. And we are committed to support the dictatorial warlords and their opium industry just in case al-Qaida might someday come back to Afghanistan even though they are not there now and we have no evidence they would ever come back. Moreover this bizarre policy has left Obama in the embarrassing position of trying to defend sacrificing our soldiers and treasure to uphold the hopelessly corrupt Karzai government. It is projected that in 2011 the Afghan War will cost more than $117 billion and probably more than that in 2012. So Obama’s folly in Afghanistan means that these funds, much of which will probably end up in the bank accounts of the Karzai clan and their cronies, will not be used to create jobs, repair infrastructure, pay teachers, or clean the environment.

American Imperialist Empire — Neo Colonialism & Hypocrisy

5. Reactionary Narrative: Global warming and other environmental problems are either vastly exaggerated or don’t really exist — and if they do exist, the solution is market and technology based.

Progressive Narrative: It’s the ecology stupid — global warming is the greatest threat to the survival of civilization. The solution to global warming and other major environmental crises is governments at all levels cooperating to change our economic and technological systems to better comport with the principles of ecology. In April 2009, Carol Browner, the White House coordinator for energy and climate policy, convened a meeting with advocates who were working on the climate change bill. The administration had a clear message. Given their polling data, the administration told advocates that they should avoid talking about climate change and focus on green jobs and energy independence instead.

Environmentalist Lee Wasserman commented on this meeting: “Had Lyndon Johnson likewise relied on polling he would have told the Rev. Martin Luther King to talk only about the expanded industry and jobs that Southerners would realize after passage of a federal civil rights act. I could imagine Dr. King’s response.” Obama has stayed true to the polling. In his 2011 State of the Union Address there was not a single mention of global warming. (I actually prefer the term climate destabilization to climate change.) It is one thing to fail to mount the pulpit and warn Americans of the dire crisis we and future generations are in, it is altogether another to order advocates to stop using the term altogether. Given his timidity about even using the term, it is not surprising that Obama also failed to push a meaningful climate destabilization bill. Advocates constantly complained that the administration was a “no show” as they attempted to get a bill passed. There has not only been complete failure to pass a climate bill but instead the environmental community is now fighting off a last ditch effort by Republicans to remove the authority of the EPA to regulate climate destabilization gases, an authority upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. Additionally with no bully pulpit defending the science of climate destabilization, the global warming deniers have had a field day in the media and we have seen a marked increase in the number of Americans who now doubt the existence of global warming.

Climate destablization has not been Obama’s only blind spot when it comes to the progressive environmental agenda. In his book “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Vintage),” Obama does not mention the environment once. As for policy, it was Obama’s Department of Interior that gave the final permit for Deepwater Horizon. The administration then was very slow to recognize the dimension of the disaster. What’s worse, the Obama EPA allowed for the massive use of potential toxic dispersants despite claims that they were controlling the use of these little researched and understood chemicals. Finally the administration was actively complicit in prematurely claiming an end to the harms of the spill as this stance became politically expedient due to the upcoming election.

Obama’s focus on jobs over the environment is especially harmful as the progressive narrative is that whether we like it or not our human economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of ecology. Wall Street investments and indeed the whole gamut of market economics and employment, if based on non-ecological principles, are not only not sustainable, but actively speed the exhaustion of the remaining stores of the earth’s resources. Appropriately, there has been much talk about peak oil. But we also face peak water, peak topsoil, pollinator collapse, and a myriad of other crises all exacerbated by climate destabilization. Obama’s unwillingness to take a leadership role in redefining our societal relationship to the natural world at this critical time may be his most lasting failure as a leader.

Climate Change Deniers

Conclusion: There is no immediate panacea to the “empty pulpit” problem we now face with the Obama administration. However, as we approach the next presidential election it is important, at a minimum, for several progressive candidates to challenge the president in the primaries. Not because there is a serious chance of having these progressive candidates defeat Obama. But rather so that progressive narratives and voices so critical at this time can mount the pulpit and speak to an America that I believe is truly hungry for this vision.

About The Author: Andrew Kimbrell — is Executive Director of both the International Center for Technology Assessment and the Center for Food Safety. He is also the editor of “Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy Of Industrial Agriculture (See all Ecology Books).” Andrew is one of the country’s leading environmental attorneys and the author of books on the environment, technology and society, and food issues; his most recent is “Your Right to Know: Genetic Engineering and the Secret Changes in Your Food (See all Food Science Books)” (2006). Kimbrell’s articles on law, technology, social and psychological issues have also appeared in numerous law reviews, technology journals, popular magazines and newspapers across the country. Mr. Kimbrell’s current work emphasizes policy and grass roots work on food issues including promoting organic and sustainable food, and opposing destructive technologies and practices such as genetic engineering, factory farming, irradiation, sewage sludge and the patenting of seeds and other life forms. He has been featured in numerous documentaries including the recent film “The Future of Food” and has appeared on numerous radio and television programs across the country. He has testified before numerous congressional and regulatory hearings. In 1994, the Utne Reader named Kimbrell as one of the world’s leading 100 visionaries. [ MORE ABOUT ANDREW KIMBRELL ]

Once again, the right-wing media has found a way to criticize basically anything Obama does or says:

Conservative media figures are attacking Michelle Obama over her efforts to encourage healthy eating and reduce childhood obesity, baselessly claiming that Americans “will be reported” or be “jail[ed]” for eating french fries. [ READ MORE ]

Right-wing media have seized on reports that, when reviewing the Afghanistan war’s strategy, President Obama “avoided talk of victory.” But many military leaders, including Gen. David Petraeus, agree with Obama and have said that Afghanistan is not a war “you win.” [ READ MORE ]

They’ve also attacked Obama for omitting the words “the Creator” when quoting from the Declaration of Independence. You see, to them, this is just further evidence that Obama is a godless, heathen, secret Muslim, anti-colonial Kenyan…or whatever. [ READ MORE ]

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

1. The Great ‘Tea-Party’ Fear: Pollution of The White ‘Stock’ — The Strange Sexual Obsessions Driving the Tea Party Movement: The great white fear of interracial “pollution” has found its most acute expression with Obama as president. He is the offspring of not simply an interracial relationship, but an international coupling as well. He is the child of 21st century globalization, the symbolic representation of a hope for a world without borders, without race prejudice, without white privilege. — [ READ MORE ]

2. America Just Can’t Deal With Reality Any More

3. The Real ‘Un-Americans’ and Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘Summa Idiotica’

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

This is ludicrous.

This is America.

Only the country that gave you American Idol would be capable of this.

The head general in the Afghanistan War went on Afghan TV to apologize to the Afghan people for killing innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire of the recent fighting. What does this be-medaled dolt think war is? It’s killing.

We killed half a million people in Iraq. Go on TV and say, gee, I’m sorry, as if a television apology makes it alright.

This is truly Beyond The Valley of Orwell. The ultimate extension of the TV generation into madness. I’m sorry we’re killing your people who are innocent of anything more than being in the wrong place, but you see we have to do it. Okay?

What is the Afghan citizen watching the TV set living in the abject poverty of his mud hut supposed to say back to the TV screen to the foreign general? I accept your apology, go on with the killing?

Using television to try and absolve yourself of complicity in violent death as the world’s mightiest superpower attempts to impose its will on one of the poorest regions of the earth? There is a fantastic quality to it, men who claim to be leaders going about this business heedless and without the involvement of mind-numbed American people, who are so spaced from reality they can’t even see the insanity of it all. Attempting to make war acceptable to a television audience in which members of that audience are some of the ones being victimized.

“We pause for station identification.” POW! BLAM! The roof caves in and buries you and your TV set. I’m sorry. You were in the way. What ever happened to the slogan “War is hell?”

I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we send text messages to the families of innocent people killed that say, I’m sorry your loved one got his head blown off. Then sign it, General Bullright.

It’s madness. Lunacy. The people running this country have syphilis of the brain. A nine-year open-ended war that will go on forever in which a conventional army with sophisticated weapons fights a ragged insurgency in which the bad guys don’t even have shoes on their feet. Can we win? Are we proud?

I know I know. They’re all evil and we’re all pure and righteous and blameless for whatever happens.

This is in actuality a first. Never before in recorded history has a general gone on television to ask the natives of a country with a much lower standard of living than the country the general represents, to understand and be patient with the general and his forces for destroying a part of that impoverished country. If it wasn’t tragic, this could be a comedy.

Conventional wisdom is that a conventional army captures and occupies territory (or a town) and installs a friendly regime. The insurgency, faced with an opponent with overwhelming superiority in firepower and weapons, disperses into remote areas and waits out the occupation while continuing hit-and-run attacks. Because the conventional army occupies ground and drives the other force off the battlefield, they (conventional army) claim victory, or progress maybe.

The insurgency simply moves off and takes up new positions and hunkers down to wait as they have through ten previous invasions going as far back as the Romans under Mark Anthony. If we capture one of their leaders, a new one steps up.
Perhaps we can go on TV and ask them to surrender.

YOU MORONS!

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

   By: Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez
Over the past several months, conservatives seemingly made headway convincing a good portion of the U.S. public that Congress may not be able to produce a national health care plan that will not bust the budget – something that president Barack Obama has promised not to sign. And then came Afghanistan.

Conservatives almost had the nation convinced that despite the laudable goal of improving the overall health of the nation, insuring everyone is simply too costly. There’s no money to save lives, to prolong life or to heal those who would otherwise die or live in deteriorating health, but out of the blue, there will be money for Afghanistan just as every year our brave and courageous political leaders of both parties manage to find hundreds of billions for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

So here’s the equation: Money to save lives? NO! Money to kill? YES!

As is well-known, in this recession and in this economy, the biggest losers are the young because the similar equation is at work: No money for education, but plenty of money for war and more war. Plenty of money for bombs, but not books.

How did the values of this nation get this skewered? The truth is, more than oil, the nation’s leaders are spiritually addicted to war.

Always have been, i.e. Providence, Manifest Destiny and Divine Mission. However, war in this country has always also had its secular counterpart – the idea of U.S. exceptionalism and its need to spread “democracy.” It has also always been aided by linguistic jujitsu: war is actually peace. This is not a page from former president George W.
Bush warped lexicon. Truthfully, all of history’s despots have made the same claim; the more war, the more peace. Thus the nation inherits not simply an insatiable thirst for war, but a spiritual imprimatur to go with it.

At the core of this ideology is dehumanization. As long as U.S. lives are kept to a minimum, the nation’s leaders do not have to account for the killing of hundreds of thousands of the “enemy.” The loss of life is irrelevant – especially with the use of drone technology – as long as leaders employ the use of phrases such as peace, democracy and national security.

But dehumanization is old news. Back to the economic argument about the nation being too broke to afford health care or it being a crime to saddle the next generation with permanent debt because of Obama’s intent to impose a government-run socialized and rationed health care system.

As tempting as it is to call it Bush-logic or Bush-Math or the world according to Bush-Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, the truth is, we are now long-past that era. Yet, under president Obama – and despite his Nobel Peace Prize – we continue to live under the same nonsensical policies that have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. Worse, this administration continues to support virtually all of the Bush-Cheney war policies. This includes defending the unchecked right of the executive to trample upon the Constitution – all under the guise of national security and “keeping the nation safe.” This also includes shirking from his Constitutional responsibilities in terms of holding the former administration legally accountable for foisting upon the world a clearly illegal war.

It defies logic how the nation’s political class manages to discuss the war(s) and health care reform as though they were unrelated. The actual price tag (more than a trillion dollars) on both wars has already far exceeded the projected cost of the president’s health care reform. That does not take into account all the added costs from the tens of thousands of veterans who are returning with permanent physical and psychological injuries that in many cases will require lifetime medical care.

Beyond the moral and political arguments, it makes perfect economic sense to stop both wars. It would be nice if the same politicians who invoke economic arguments regarding the un-affordability of health care reform used the same logic for fighting wars. Perhaps a fiscally conservative Congressional bill is in order: the United States shall not engage in war unless it is fully paid for; the United States shall not engage in war if it contributes to the nation’s deficit.

Regardless of what the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have to say in regards to health care reform, the majority of the U.S. public still wants the Democrats to find their backbones. The majority will now also hope [push] that president Obama use the moral power of his Nobel to actually end both wars.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
•    Rodriguez can be reached at: XCol...@gmail.com or PO BOX 85476 – Tucson, AZ 85754

•    NEW AMERICA MEDIA COLUMNS — http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/

•    ARCHIVED COLUMN OF THE AMERICAS — http://web.mac.com/columnoftheamericas/iWeb/Site/Welcome.html
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

AlterNET: Armed clashes between insurgents, the US military, and the ISAF are up 24 percent this year, and have displaced tens of thousands more people. With over 1,000 recorded incidents of violence in May alone, Afghanistan is experiencing the worst security since the war began. And to make matters worse, the UN reported concluded, “The next period will likely experience an increase in the level of violence compared with the same period last year, including complex suicide attacks, intimidation and assassinations carried out by insurgents.” That period, unfortunately, coincides with the Afghan presidential and provincial council elections slated for August.

The deadly consequences of militarizing the political crisis in Afghanistan may seem logical, but they’re no less disturbing as we see staggering numbers of civilian casualties from this war. Complicating matters is the fact that insurgents have been targeting NGOs and aid workers. In the past six months, there were over 60 security incidents involving NGOs, with many aid workers reported killed or kidnapped. Such violence undercuts the chances of already underfunded humanitarian efforts, and yet the Pentagon has responded with more troops and airstrikes, creating more violence, more casualties, more anti-American sentiment, and the need for even more aid. [ READ MORE ]

June 11: Filmmaker Robert Greenwald talks about his film, “Rethinking Afghanistan” which is aimed at showing Americans a different face of the war – the civilian casualties.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-