Jack Ross writes:
In this past decade, my politics evolved from committed Green, which
had so much invested in the narrative of the founding of the Republican Party on the slavery question, to jaded classical liberal, with at least a couple of stops in hardcore paleo-libertarian land, but with enough rounded perspective now.
In all that time I have remained committed to the proposition that the crisis of empire, which came into relief following 9/11, is analogous in its significance in American history to the crisis of slavery. Let it be clear on this note - it is a mistake to reduce the question solely to Israel/Palestine - yes, no question. It is much at the center of the crisis of the American Empire both on the political and moral planes, but we must still not lose sight of the bigger picture.
I have no reason to believe that Lincoln was not personally indifferent to slavery, as reflected by his statement that if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave he would and that if he preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves he would. But Lincoln did recognize the power of the slavery issue to galvanize a political base when no one else was willing, just as Obama recognized, however cynically, the power of the issue of empire to galvanize a political base when no one else in the mainstream was willing.
What Lincoln was really committed too was the vindication of the "American system" of Henry Clay, which naturally translated into preserving the Union at the highest human cost. Likewise Obama seems really committed to the vindication of the historic American left as he understands it, an understanding which as yet remains quite elusive. He likely feels just as Lincoln about the empire, if he could enact his program and preserve the empire in total he would do it, and if he could enact his program and dismantle the empire he would do it.
And yes, likewise, if he could do it by supporting Israel to the hilt he would do it, and if he could do it by pulling the rug out from under them he would do it.
As the force of events more than acts by a heroic individual brought slavery to an end through the Civil War, so too the force of events will bring down the American empire and the ghastly legacy of Zionism. We should not delude ourselves into attributing these things to mythic individuals.
One of Jack's sentences scans even better by substituting 'Osama' for 'Obama' –
But Lincoln did recognize the power of the slavery issue to galvanize a political base when no one else was willing, just as Osama recognized, however cynically, the power of the issue of empire to galvanize a political base when no one else in the mainstream was willing.
Why else did Bush attack Afghanistan, if not to show that the mighty American empire can punch back anywhere on the planet? Osama found America's hot button, and pushed it. Then he issued his mocking videos, urging, “I don’t care what you do with me, Brer Bush. Just don’t fling me in that Afghan briar patch over there. Roast me, Brer Bush, but don’t you fling me in that briar patch,” said Brer Osama.
Now Brer Obama witlessly continues Bush's legacy, blowing up scores of Pakistanis with his pilotless drones. And blowing billions a month on shaky logistics.
Frankly, I don't know whether Osama was really the Islamic Ho Chi Mihn or not. At the least, he might have been just a labor contractor for some intelligence agencies. Evidently, he was just as surprised as we were when the towers fell.
But whether military genius or mere figurehead, Osama did indeed sucker the U.S. into economically ruinous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan … to the point that the whole glorious, global, debt-fueled 'Second Gilded Age' has gone up in smoke, in a 1930s-style crisis of capitalism. Yet the sclerotic political leadership keeps cluelessly, fecklessly fighting its losing wars, subsidizing insolvent institutions, attempting to borrow its way out of a debt crisis, and other risible existential idiocies.
OSAMA 1, OBAMA 0. We're no. 2 [pun intended] …
@ Jack Ross,
there are some really interesting insights in this post, but basically you seem to be saying that what drives Obama is "the vindication of the historic American left as he understands it, an understanding which as yet remains quite elusive", and that he is willing to "vindicate" it with or without Zionism as a partner and with or without preserving Empire, but that he doesn't really even have a firm understanding of what exactly he is trying to vindicate.
In other words, he's a typically clueless Democrat. There is absolutely nothing new about the species. In fact, this, in a nutshell, has been their problem for years: they have no sense of themselves, or of objective right and wrong. The same can be said for contemporary Republicans. And similarly, each's only vague sense of moral right and wrong seems to revolve around "protecting the Jews" by underwriting Zionist atrocities and projecting Empire on Zionism's behalf. So I seriously doubt that either will be dumping the Zionists any time soon under any circumstances. They're just not that bright, intellectually, morally or spiritually.
jack, it's good for us anti-zionists to remember that zionism isn't the only source of evil in the world. as a case in point the british empire was plenty evil long before its 1917 marriage to zionism (beyond the fundamental sin of invading and occupying a foreign nation think of the opium wars and the amritsar massacre). this is the problem with people such as bzrezinski or mearsheimer and walt who see american empire as more or less benevolent except for zionism. chomsky and finkelstein see the problems of empire but downplay the role of zionism and its lobbies.
Jim – You do a grave injustice by comparing Osama to Ho Chi Minh – Osama bin Laden is the greatest military genius since Napoleon, he will be remembered as the slayer of both the Soviet and American empires, as the one who, in Murray Rothbard's phrase, broke both of the great irreversible clocks of the 20th century, both bolshevism and menshevism. All praise is due to Allah for the breaker of the clocks. However, having said that, I suspect that like Napoleon, bin Laden will only in the end have served to indispensably strengthen his mortal enemy, the Shiites, as did Napoleon the old order.
Ed – You could be right, but I think the establishment now recognizes it has to somehow step back from the brink in Afghanistan, and at the very least put the Israel Lobby back in its place, i.e. before Bush and perhaps even before Clinton as well. Therefore I find it highly dubious that Obama is going to somehow be even more Zionist then Bush.
Chimpsky – I think you're unfair to both Walt and Mearsheimer to accuse them of believing in a benevolent American empire, though Brezinski is another matter. And yes, the problem with Zionism was that it wed itself to a great evil in the British Empire and not that said marriage consummated the evil. But my problem with Chomsky and his acolytes such as Finkelstein is that they, while certainly not doctrinaire Marxists, nonetheless have a very one-dimensional view of how empires work, especially the American. Only an understanding of the human element can explain how the American empire became so madly invested in Zionism.
@ Jack Ross
The USA became invested in Zionism for some simple reasons. Most Americans do have a capacity for empathy. And they do, once enlightened, have the will to stop unfairness, whatever its color. The main reason for the USA not being outraged about the Israel First
agenda of their own governmental representatives is The MSM, which filters POV available to most Americans–who mostly arrive at home exhausted at night just wanting to be distracted by mindless entertainment, so they can go to work with energy in the morning. In short, its not so much "the human element" that explains how the American empire became so madly invested in Zionism. but rather the fact that
it takes a lot of money for somebody to keep or get an elected seat government as a representative of "the people." The Israel First crowd
with its singular agenda and tons of money to place or boot any USA governmental representative, is the reason the USA is now enmeshed
in the Zionist agenda and can not distinguish between the USA's best interest and Israel's. Obama is only the most recent big name to
learn this is so, and it explains, given his history, why he is acting the way he is now in terms of the Middle East.
Kudos to Ed, Jim Haygood, and chimpsky for their astute, concise observations, and the fact they gave their energy for free just to
help the USA and the world as a whole.