28 March 2009

The Conservatives' Big Lie + How it Won Obama the Presidency + The Truth

Villagers protest drone bombings authorized by President Obama which have murdered donzens of civilians.

“Barack Obama wants to wave the white flag in the war on terror.” I think most people can remember hearing similar statements during the exceedingly long presidential campaign. Some people might even remember believing it after having it drilled into their heads for so many weeks by GOP politicians, conservative pundits, and right-wing talk radio. The intense onslaught of spin and propaganda was intended to “wake up America,” “expose the radicals,” and in short, damage Obama in order to keep a Republican in the White House.


However, I regret to inform Rush Limbaugh and the lot that the effort to paint Obama as a European-style peacenik (an image Obama was happy to accept) is precisely what handed the election over to him. It is a dying shame that the overwhelming effort to make this big lie into a publicly recognized truth put the Stop Obama Express on a countdown to self-destruction.


The irony is that, rather than inflame the conservative base enough to drown out or reeducate the left, the lie actually ignited overwhelming numbers of young liberals. Once the idea of Obama as a candidate for peace began to be perceived as true, the GOP could kiss their presidential hopes goodbye, as that is exactly the type of candidate so many in our generation want. Even outside left-leaning student circles, America was ready for change, ready to leave the ways of militaristic power struggles behind; and conservatives showed them exactly who to vote for. The only problem was that many of these Obama voters did not have the wherewithal or desire to do the research necessary to find out they were being duped.


One needed only listen to what President Obama expressly stated in any number of nationally televised debates during the primaries to know that, far from waving the white flag in the war on terror, he would keep the nuclear option on the table in relation to Iran, raise troop levels in Afghanistan, carry out military operations across Pakistani borders without their permission, and continue anti-terrorism aggression in Iraq. For what it’s worth, Obama was at least honest, since he has followed through on all of the above.


Just this week, President Obama reminded the American people that they should be scared; al-Qaeda is “actively planning” attacks on the U.S. from Pakistan! He then had the gall to ask Congress for over a billion dollars to fund a military solution to the problem and mask it as a favor to the people of Pakistan. He also stated that we will "defeat terrorism," yet refrained from defining either what terrorism is, or exactly how many people need to be killed in order for it to be defeated. I hope I’m not the only one having some major déjà vu right about now:

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush (9/28/2002)

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney (9/14/2003)

If Conservatives wanted to win the election, they need only have pointed out the bare naked truth about Obama’s militaristic tendencies and refusal to Imagine a United States that can hold itself together without a war. Loyalty would have then been fragmented away to third party candidates who offered a platform of peace, and John McCain would have won the election.


Bearing this in mind, for the time being, maybe we should count our blessings.


15 comments:

  1. Hey Ben,

    This particular article seems to be a thread that you weave through many of your comments, articles, postings, etc. I'm really interested in hearing what you would do to resolve things like 9/11 terrorism, terrorist camps in various middle eastern countries that are allowing training to occur for attacks on western targets (or for that matter middle eastern targets; i.e. marketplace bombings in Baghdad). Are you an isolationist? And, how far does the U.S. go to involve itself in world affairs as they did in Bosnia, Kuwait, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  2. sorry for sounding a bit like a broken record! i promise i'm going to expand to new topics :)

    though my main point in this was to explore how the attempt to demonize obama may have inadvertently contributed to the success of his campaign, i simply had to point out the inconsistencies; this leads to your question about isolationism.

    i'm not by any means an isolationist, as i think all nations have a responsibility to keep each other accountable for upholding human rights. at the same time i do everything i can to adhere to non-violence. in many ways this is a paradoxical move.

    ReplyDelete
  3. however, i simply can't support military intervention in bosnia, kuwait, afghanistan, japan, panama, or anywhere else the U.S. has historically done so, nor can i buy into arguments for just war.

    military solutions only fuel more hatred, and do not address underlying issues of cultural, economic, religious, and/or ideological tensions. therefore, i think true solutions should address, be derived from, and be directed at these problems.

    i think we need to be creative about how this can happen. i'm not oblivious to the suffering that will go on while this happens, but i think the world will be a better place if we stop assuming that large-scale murder is the first and easiest solution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. to maybe directly address your question about how to resolve terrorism and countries that allow it to flourish, i think it should start with a prolonged and intense effort towards mutual cultural understanding. for instance, al qaida sees us as greedy, immoral infidels, and we in the west see them as ignorant, immoral psychopaths; both conceptions, while surely containing truth, are over-simplifications i think. i also think a major project that should be undertaken is a global campaign for peace education. from sudanese militants, to terrorist, to western soldiers, i think, again, that too many people see violence as an effective and viable tool for solving conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  5. on a side note, the types of economic solutions i'm talking about would arise out of an approach diametrically opposed to the philosophy of the G20, the world bank, and other abstract, self-promoting ideas of economy. they must therefore be concrete, embodied, localized solutions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rush Limbaugh is actually was the few big conservative voices during the campaign who said that Obama would further ruin foreign relations with other nations.
    So, be weary of what the Media portrays Rush as, I.E. being congruent with Republican party politics of the election.

    ReplyDelete
  7. yeah, he said he'd ruin foreign relations, i.e. meet with Iran, etc. but i heard Rush with my own ears say that Obama would mean defeat in the war on terror, that he was a softie liberal who wanted to cut and run, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ben, a couple of things…

    Your non-violence mindset is admirable and altruistic, probably quite Jesus-like. If I could explore a little deeper with you, I have a couple of questions.

    Your assessment of underlying issues such as cultural, economic, religious, and/or ideological tensions is probably a fair assessment.

    When you say “i think we need to be creative about how this can happen” and “it should start with a prolonged and intense effort towards mutual cultural understanding” that includes “a major project that should be undertaken is a global campaign for peace education” and “they must therefore be concrete, embodied, localized solutions,” those too are admirable and altruistic.

    My first question is this; since all of this is so critical to world peace and stability (and I hope you agree it is critical) and you’ve identified the parameters for making it happen; are you willing to commit your life to making these things happen? Will you be joining some of the organizations that are promoting and having a direct impact in seeing these things come about?

    Will your passion for this take you to al Qaeda camps, to the Sudanese militants, to terrorist, to western soldiers? I was just wondering what are you personally are going to do make some of these things happen?

    One additional question; when you identify the need for “a major project that should be undertaken is a global campaign for peace education” would you equate that to something like our national campaign for sex education?

    The reason I ask is because that’s what we’ve heard from lots of social and political pundits for decades now, and we’ve spent countless billions of dollars on everything from sex education in schools, to free condoms, to Planned Parenthood.

    Sadly, sex education plans in our country haven’t brought an end to our massive amounts of STDs, unplanned pregnancies, and the continuing spread of HIV/AIDS.

    And, all of those sex education efforts bore many of the same characteristics that you described as would be needed for this global effort: sex education efforts have been creative, they’ve focused on a mutual cultural understanding and they’ve been concrete and embodied localized solutions.

    Would you agree that our country’s sex education efforts haven’t worked?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I love the last line, BTW.

    Anyhoo, well written. It's scary to think that we've elected a guy who's going to go farther in the "War on Terror" than W. would have.

    If you ask me, the India/Pakistan conflict being reignited by the murders in India a few months ago was a setup, or at least ignored much the same way 9/11 was to create a public resentment of the country the incoming president already promised to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ken- thanks for making the connection between theory and practice. i definitely feel called into the exact environments that you mentioned. i've always had a passion for international relations and human rights issues. i'm still in the developing stages of how this will all play out for me personally, as far as vocation, but i'm definitely willing to do absolutely anything i can to work for these things.

    as for sex education, it's hard for me to address that directly since i'm not especially knowledgeable on the subject. regardless, i think peace education needs to be a ground-up effort. it won't be helpful to compare it to other education efforts, since no effort like this has ever been taken up on an institutional level, that i know of. i think one could maybe draw parallels to mennonite communities, or gandhi's work in india, especially at his ecumenical commune at the beginning of his career. definitely some things i'd like to bring up in future blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ben, a follow up to your comments…

    I think I can help point you in the direction of a starting point for your involvement in anti-war/international relations/human rights organizations.

    First, the very types of organizations you describe (especially ground up) efforts have been around for a long time; a little research into movements like the McGill Middle East Program, the National Peace Council, the Peace Pledge Union or The American League for Peace and Democracy would provide you with that history and information about some early organizations. As Solomon once said “there’s nothing new under the sun.”

    As such your statement “since no effort like this has ever been taken up on an institutional level, that I know of” is uninformed since organizations like The World Can’t Wait, United for Peace and Justice (U.F.P.J.) and Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (A.N.S.W.E.R.) pop up virtually all the time; in fact there are thousands worldwide.

    Many of these organizations are staffed with people fresh out of high school and barely into college; especially at the grassroots level. When you say that “you’re willing to do absolutely anything I can to work for these things” I bet they could use lots of door-knockers, volunteers and paid interns throughout the summer, or for that matter any time of the year.

    Since you did mention “Mennonite communities” a little research into the International Fellowship of Reconciliation might be of great benefit to you, especially since this organization does the very thing you’re espousing, and from a faith-based perspective.

    One last comment; regarding Gandhi, there’s no doubt that he was an amazing leader and instrumental in the quest for Indian autonomy. However, I’m dumbfounded that all of Gandhi’s efforts never impacted the Indian caste system which is probably one of the greatest human tragedies when it comes to injustice that our world has ever known—Slumdog Millionaire provides a great picture of that.

    Lastly, you may (or may not) be aware of a new church plant we’re undertaking in Franklinton (urban Columbus). Franklinton is terribly blighted; kind of the armpit of Columbus. The population is most Appalachian, the high school dropout rate is 40%, the divorce rate is triple the national average and over 60% of the people have no religious affiliation of any kind.

    I’m wondering how you would feel if I assessed the situation in Franklinton from the comfort of my Short North townhome, felt a burden for the suffering people, sensed a call to serve them in the name of Jesus, but then realized I have a son graduating from high school this year with the possibility of heading off to college, so I bag the idea of doing something like this so that I can pay for my kid’s college by having a well-paying job in ministry in the Short North.

    Too often we don’t seem to want to move from the comfort and convenience of our lives into the messiness of what it really takes to make change happen.

    ReplyDelete
  12. i guess this tread died

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sorry, this "thread" died?

    ReplyDelete
  14. hey ken, haha. sorry! i moved on to other things and totally forgot to keep checking the old ones.

    i'm familiar with a couple of the orgs you mentioned and looked up several of the others. thanks for the info! IFOR in particular is very intriguing to me.

    when you mentioned sex education my mind automatically jumped to government efforts in public schools, etc. that's what i meant my 'institutional.' and now that you mentioned it, maybe a few of those orgs have done work in such areas.

    ReplyDelete
  15. i've tried to stay in the loop on the franklinton plant, and it sounds like some very cool things are already going on. i love the idea of using things as simple as laundromats to address the concrete needs of the people in the franklinton context, and that ties back to what i'd like to see (and make) happen in relation to peace and reconciliation efforts.

    to your final comment, i see your point. and i think it's impossible to address peace issues 'out there' if one is not always striving to be a peacemaker 'here' first. personally, the steps i'm taking into graduate studies, etc are being taken specifically to make me more effective in such areas. also, toronto is such a diverse and unique place, there will be plenty of opportunity for me to get involved :)

    i'd definitely like to hear any thoughts on my most recent post if you had any!

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for contributing to the conversation!