Cowardice

by: Paul Rosenberg

Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:30


On Wednesday, virtually the entirety of Rachel Maddow's show was devoted to an annihilation of Robert Gibbs.  It was carried out by almost entirely ignoring Gibbs himself, and instead focusing on the reality that Gibbs and Obama desperately want everyone to ignore.

Of course, there is so much reality Gibbs and Obama want us to ignore, it would have been impossible to cover it all.  So Maddow focused on just one aspect, an aspect in which the gap between promise and performance is particularly striking, and particularly inexplicable: the foot-dragging over the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", during which the careers of hundreds of GLBT military personnel continue to be destroyed for no reason.

Maddow did separate segments on three different service members, and she finished her program with the following segment (short transcript excerpt below):

On tonight's show you met U.S. Army Captain Jonathan Hopkins, Catherine Miller and Lieutenant Colonel Victor Ferenbach who are having their careers ended....  Why are we kicking people out while we are waiting for the views of the Commander in Chief, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If you are changing the policy soon why not hold off the ruination of lives under the policy now? Why not? I'll tell you why. Because that would take some political capital. That would take guts. And liberals, according to this White House, ought to be drug tested. Stop complaining and be happy for what you have. Lieutenant Dan Choi, Colonel Ferenbach, SBT Hopkins, they are expendable. Watch their careers destroyed, but stop complaining about it.

Barack Obama is a moral coward.  And Robert Gibbs is his would-be enforcer.

They are not our leaders.  They do not represent us.  They represent tokens of appeasement from a power structure that has no use for any of us. And certainly no morals, no decency, no honor.

There is a tendency--an understandable one--to see this whole Gibbs affair as a tempest in a teapot.  And in one sense, it most surely is.  What matters isn't what one administration official--even the Press Secretary--says in one interview.  What matters is what the Administration does. But what Gibbs said matters precisely because of how it brings into focus all that the Administration has done--and all that it has not.

This Administration is a failure by choice.  It has not been defeated by its enemies, but by itself.  By its own actions--and more tellingly, by its own inactions, its failure to act, or even to think of acting.  It is a victim of its own lack of imagination as well as its lack of courage.

Oh, sure, one can argue that it's not a failure at all.  That it's doing exactly what the ruling class wants it to do.  But though true in one sense, that's utter bullshit in another.  FDR was hated by the ruling class.  But he saved their bacon by going against their petty, narrow-minded, self-destructive instincts.  Obama is destroying America--including America's ruling class--by not standing up against the self-destructive passions of the moment.  Heck, he can't even speak out for the First Amendment against hypocritical clowns like Newt Gingrich.

We are in a fight for the soul of America, as well as the soul of the Democratic Party.  And although those who stand against us have a great deal of organizational power, they are losers at bottom.  They are liars and cowards.  Their vision of America is a sham and a disgrace.  And they are condemned by all the minute particulars of what they have done and not done in our names.

Shame on them all.  And shame on us, if we let outselves be cowed by them.

Paul Rosenberg :: Cowardice

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Cowardice | 22 comments
and moral cowards are the most electable (0.00 / 0)
because the react the polls only (political 'realities') not balancing polls and right behavior, or leading the blind to the light.
We get few chances to make strong statements of clear, responsible, government.

"Barack Obama is a moral coward. And Robert Gibbs is his would-be enforcer. " (4.00 / 4)
and if we accept them as the "best possible alternative",  they will destroy every hope we have, of ever having a fair and just society, a  progressive alternative to the prevailing two-party consensus  policies of bigotry, war, economic disparity, environmental depradation, and curtailing rights and liberties.

Crisis and Cowards (4.00 / 1)
Moral cowards usually do swell under normal conditions.  Cowardice only really makes itself plain in times of crisis  -- like say, war and economic depression?

People compare Obama to Jimmy Carter -- but at least Carter, however ineffective, understood the plight of the common people.  The Obamas seem oblivious and that alone will defeat him in 2012.


Carter was a "good government progressive" (4.00 / 2)
in the tradition of elite early 20th c. progressives, and his fiscal policy helped laid the groundwork for the neoliberal mess we find ourselves in today.

He's probably the second best ex-President we've ever had (John Quincy Adams getting the gag rule overturned makes him the winner).  But his humanitarianism while in office came through in foreign rather than domestic policy.  He's done wonderful work since, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for his intellect, candor and commitment to justice.  

But Obama's neoliberalism has deep roots in the Democratic party, and, based on his fiscal policy, Jimmy Carter should be understood as the first neoliberal Democratic President.    

 


[ Parent ]
If it wasn't for Carter's love affair (0.00 / 0)
with the Shah, hostages might never have been taken. He was a lot like Obama - talked a good talk, but made good with the establishment after taking office.

[ Parent ]
Bit of a non-sequitur (4.00 / 1)
They are not our leaders.  They do not represent us.

hits it exactly on the head.

But - as, Obama makes crystal clear for the umpteenth time by channeling the message through his top spokesman - that's not a bug, it's a feature.

He would only be a coward if he were a soldier in the war being waged by progressives: he isn't.

We have 18 months of presidential record - and, so far as I'm aware, it's pretty consistently pro-corporate; but, beyond that, he's gone out of his way to dissociate himself from progs and their ideas.

The way, with his marquee bill on health care, he led progs (notably, the CPC) by the nose towards a corporate welfare-based bill shows that this is basic strategy. The 'I didn't campaign on the public option' was crossing the street to poke progs in the eye. The Gibbs piece is just for those who've not being paying attention.

Washington Dems are not closet progs cravenly serving The Man, but who, if they had their druthers, would be signing up to single payer, an end to the War on Drugs and a curb on the military-industrial complex: they are loyal corporate servants because they like it that way.

And, the Constitution and political infrastructure are so entrenched that nothing short of a war or another Great Depression would allow outsiders to change this significantly.


I stand corrected! (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for pointing that out because it is something I've figured out as well.  We're lying to ourselves if we believe these folks have any intention of changing.  

I think this really needs to be fully accepted because it really goes to the heart of why we play the game and whether we must change the rules.  Liberals, progressives, cannot win within the Democratic Party.  It's cooked into the stew.  We may lose a little less, but we can't win.  So maybe we need to build our own new kitchen.  


[ Parent ]
You're right, of course. (0.00 / 0)
I suspect that the Obama team see the progressives as losers like Kucinich. The Obama team can be distinguished because they have won the Presidency almost literally from a standing start. The Obama team is thus not only quite smart, they are also successful politically.

Why should they change and become Kucinich or Ralph Nadar? They are winners instead.

From inside the White House bubble all they can see is their own glow of success. It must reflect off the inside of the bubble.  


[ Parent ]
Not True (4.00 / 1)
He would only be a coward if he were a soldier in the war being waged by progressives: he isn't.

It's perfectly clear that the course we're on will be terribly destructive for the big boys as well.  It's not just progressives that Obama is betraying.  It's America.

Even the big boys will suffer for this.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
But they clearly don't believe it. So skeptic06 is right. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
FDR is the counter-example.

Not the only one.  But the big kahuna.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Paul, thank you for writing this. (4.00 / 4)
You have put my generally inchoate feelings into clear words and done so excellently.

Barack Obama is a moral coward.

[...]

This Administration is a failure by choice.  It has not been defeated by its enemies, but by itself.  By its own actions--and more tellingly, by its own inaction, its failure to act, or even to think of acting on what was promised.  It is a victim of its own lack of imagination as well as its lack of courage.

They think they can get away with their moral cowardice because the alternative to having Obama in the Presidency and the Democrats in charge of Congress is so truly frightening. The results of the Bush/Cheney administration have been disastrous on almost every level. It was so bad that the Republican Party has collapsed and is currently searchimg through the outer reaches of its worst extremists to find viable candidates for national offices, and all they are finding is libertarians and even worse wack-jobs like Tom Tancredo and Sharron Angle.

It is not clear to me, though, why the Obama people fantasize that the collapes of the Republican party into desperate insanity gives the President the license to abandon or slow-walk action on the promises Obama made to justify electing him as President. My best guess is that the Obama team was lying big time during the primary and the election in 2008 and now they feel that since they occupy the White House they don't need to carry through with what they promised and implied. Why should they? They have no competent adult competition inside the beltway and they seem to have no recognition that there is reason to look outside the beltway at the rubes they suckers in 2008. What are we suckers going to do? Let the crazies take over because Obama is a coward and refuses to act?

I don't remember being this mad at George W. Bush and his minions, although my anger at Cheney, Rumsfeld and the idiots they appointed like Bolton were certainly close. But at least the Bush team actually appointed people and got them into their jobs. How many unfilled political offices still exist going into the two-year election?

You are quite right. The Obama administration has demonstrated moral cowardice and chosen failure. I bought into a bright shiny lie sold by a set of snake oil saleman and they are laughing all the way to the bank as I steam.  


Well said. Damned well said. (4.00 / 3)
Obviously, I couldn't agree with you more.

And, if Obama has no primary challenger in 2012 - I figure that's about as likely as his having an epiphany - I don't know whether to Hope™ he's an exception to Harry Truman's observation, or not.


Thanks for this -- (4.00 / 5)
One of the things the Dem Elites in DC along with Obama and his Administration don't understand is that the "great unwashed" outside the Beltway ain't the clueless folks they used to be.  We watched the Health Care debate and learned more than they will ever know. Certainly that process showed us how fundamentally corrupt the Democratic Party is.  We now know that they are part of a never ending Kabuki Theater that was designed to entertain and mesmerize us and has prevented us from seeing the truth of the matter.  Re: the Health Care bill - Obama got pretty much want he wanted.  There never was going to be a "public option" - it was always a corporate welfare bill for the very start.  The same is true of the Wall Street - Bank Reform bill.  The political ebbs and flows that happened while these bills were being discussed & passed were all aimed at entertaining us and preventing us from seeing that the process and players were and are 100% Corporate owned and operated.

To the Democrats in Washington we are just doormats to be used and abused as they pleased.  That's the nasty truth of what Gibbs' was saying.  What is shocking is how self-assured he was in saying it and how sure he is that he will win in the end - essentially he was saying that we will bitch and complain but in the end we will come home and vote for the Corporate Dems like we always have.  

Frankly Gibbs might be right but to prove him wrong will require us calling his bluff and not voting for those Corporate Dems/Federal Offices at all.  Right now that's what I want to do - just not vote for those offices.  I won't vote for the Republicans but I won't vote for the Corporate Dems either.  Essentially we are in the uncomfortable position of having to hand the Government to the Republicans to save the Democratic Party. For sure we are looking at some real short term pain for long term gain but its clear that there is no way around it.


We watched the Healthcare debate and learned more than they will ever know (4.00 / 1)
I think that is so, so, so true.

That specific "episode" was extraordinarily revealing and disheartening. But my feeling now is one of gratitude: we needed to see with our own eyes exactly how corrupted the system is because, until then, we could still kid ourselves that we just need a few more good Democrats and all will be well. Only when false hopes are dashed can we start really confronting the reality of what's wrong.

What's happening now, I think, is the beginning of the wave of realization really coming home to people. You go from hearing words: "the banks own this place" and intellectually tossing the concept around, to internalizing the truth of the words and accepting their validity.

Though, what happens then is anybody's guess.


[ Parent ]
Thank you (0.00 / 0)
for a fantastic diary.

messaging? (0.00 / 0)
I think it's also possible that Gibbs' message wasn't directed at the Left at all but was specifically directed at the bankster class.  Right now, the biggest agitation the "professional Left" is giving them is about the Elizabeth Warren nomination.  I think Gibbs was making it perfectly clear to Wall Street they have nothing to fear from Warren, that the "professional Left" will not win this round, and hence Wall Street can safely keep swindling.

a similar thought was also expressed today by Daniel Schechter (0.00 / 0)
That we are speculating on such motivations is an indicator of how depraved this administration has proven itself. It may not be worse than the Bush administration but I am hard pressed to think of a worse Democratic administration in the last century.

http://www.commondreams.org/vi...

"While circumstantial, the best evidence for why Gibbs would feel like uttering the aforementioned remarks is the shift of money from Wall Street to Republicans ahead of the election... The Democrats earned 57 percent of campaign contributions from securities and investment industries.

The situation compels the Obama Administration, especially White House press secretary Gibbs, to whip the left and the sections that are most listened to by voters into line not only because money from business interests needs to swing back the other way but because disappointed and disillusioned voters will likely stay home, not donate to Democratic Party campaigns, not make phone calls, and refuse to go door-to-door canvassing prior to Election Day if they do not fall in line."

According to a preliminary analysis, the Center for Responsive Politics reports that "individuals and political action committees linked to the financial and real estate sectors swung hard to the Republicans with their giving since last year....

In March 2009, 70 percent of money from the sector went to the governing party, but by this summer, 68 percent was going to the opposition, as Democrats fought to pass some version of a financial overhaul."

The motivation for Gibbs' remarks may or may not be tied to signaling Wall Street but the deeper truth is that everyone, right and left alike, seem frustrated and at the same time powerless to check the continuing economic decline. "


[ Parent ]
so what are we waiting for? (4.00 / 2)
this faction in the democratic party has told you that they don't care about you or your opinion, if it in any way forces them to change their policies significantly.  so you have two choices, which are complementary - one is to mount a significant challenge within the democratic party, and the other is to mount a significant challenge outside the democratic party.  Neither of these need be an electoral challenge, but it does need to have strength.

So what is the delay, in the short term?  The delay is that there are many progressives who are still identifying too much with the democratic party's interests and not enough with their own.  That's my reading anyway.

Just run Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore on a third party ticket or even better as a Democratic Primary candidate.


Too much presidentialism (4.00 / 2)
Just run Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore on a third party ticket or even better as a Democratic Primary candidate.

You cannot fix a party or a government by changing one person at the top. That isn't to suggest that Obama himself doesn't matter (or that he doesn't bear a great deal of responsibility).  But the problem is institutional.  A real challenge to Obama could not happen absent significant support from party elites - without that, I think it would be a distraction.  The behavior of the White House reflects the priorities of the party as a whole.  Start to pressure those other actors, in Congress, at the state and local level, etc., and you can change direction. Run a primary for the top position and leave all that stuff intact, and very little is likely to change.

The delay is that there are many progressives who are still identifying too much with the democratic party's interests and not enough with their own.

That I couldn't agree with more. A political party should be the people's instrument for their own agenda - not the other way around.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
i don't disagree with you (4.00 / 1)
The whole thing is predicated on a social movement, of which this could be a part (particularly in sending a message).  Hence this nonthrowaway line "Neither of these need be an electoral challenge, but it does need to have strength."

I'd go further and say that this actually needs to not just pressure all those people you talk about, but build a popular movement that can (re)build the institutions that can then be a place to engage in real discussions and debates and place solid pressure on all the people you're talking about.  But i say that about once every three comments and I usually get no response, so I've basically given up in the broad statement and focused on specifics in context :)


[ Parent ]
We have a limited-time opportunity to win! (0.00 / 0)
The teabaggers (and media big-braines) have handed us and opportunity in splitting the Republicans.  If Progressives (renaimed Populists - anything but "Liberal" - a poisoned word now) were to move forward, we'd have a four-way political split between: Progressives (Populists) / status-quo Democrats / Republicans / Teabaggers.  

How do we win?  If we can get a Teabagger to run for President, it will draw away only from Republicans.  Obama could be easily primaried or another party created: Movement Populism.  All agree that, on issues alone, Populists have a sizeable majority.  Right?  By focusing on issues (not labels), I see a voter breakdown of:
Teabaggers: 11%
Republicans: 27%
Democrats: 28%
Populists: 34%

Remember, I'm talking "issue-based"; not, label-based.  OK?

This won't last - because the media will regroup their message and they always win.  Repetition works.  My Marketing Degree wasn't wasted: advertising works.

However, if we can get a Populist president, we can get the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  The FD is our only hope for getting the media (and the wealthy who own it) under control.  It's an opportunity that could lift Democracy off its knees.  The media is how we are controlled; Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine and you've seen the last 30 years, right?  Do you want more of the same, or do you truly want change?



Cowardice | 22 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS