Zachary Davidson, guest writer
On Nov. 4, the candidate of “change” became the president-elect of a country in dire straits. What is this “change” that has been promised, and what is this “change” that has millions upon millions of people heaving a sigh of relief? Does this “change” have any definition beyond the promises sketched out in Mr. Obama’s rousing campaign orations? Not at this point, but maybe Mr. Obama will supply us with the necessary leadership to help the United States “get back on track” as a country. Maybe he will alleviate the crucial conditions in which our economy resides. Maybe he will help us “redeem” our international reputation through foreign policy reform and diplomacy. Besides, is not having a black president a testament to the progress we have made as a nation? These possibilities do warrant some initial consideration. However, what lies beyond the horizon of the presentalso invites inquiries that question the very nature of this optimism in its entirety.
Let’s go back to this “change” with a perspective that takes into account the subtler aspects of political manipulation and approaches political events of this magnitude with a more critical eye.
Is this “change” simply a slickly crafted campaign slogan that panders to a politically ignorant populace? Could this “change” be a buzz word that plays on the naivete of a public that places hope in a “progressive” fix-it-all savior before it examines the maleficence of the very infrastructure of its governing body? Is it likely that this “change” is a blatant indication of the degree to which we Americans have become satisfied with ambiguous platitudes, empty promises, smiling rhetoricians and Real Politique rationality as the basis for our political cognizance? Would it be unreasonable to deem this broad sweeping endorsement for “change” as yet another manifestation of a culture that is, at once, infatuated with the acceptable renditions of alteration at a distance and yet terrified of the utter intimacy required for genuine transformation?
My estimate is that the extent to which this adulation has arisen around Mr. Obama is a congruence of all of the above inquiries and more. What is more? I tend to think it sound advice that a leader is shaped by those with whom (in this case) he chooses to surround himself, not merely what his declared intention is. When one examines the likely appointments to the Obama cabinet, one will begin to see that these individuals are not simply “experienced” politicians, they are some of the very individuals who have participated in the think-tanking of US policy foreign, domestic and financial for decades. In fact, many of these individuals are the most prominent architects of our current financial crisis and economic depression. Lawrence Summers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Timothy Geithner, Dennis Ross, Susan Rice, Anthony Lake, Richard Clarke, Ivo Daalder and Paul Volker, to name a few, are just some of the names that will likely represent this campaign of “change” that “we the people” so willingly swallowed. With respect to these handlers, “change” will likely be a continued acceleration towards Francis Fukayama’s End of History via global corporatism masquerading as liberal democracy with the War on Terror stamp plastered the world over.
Socialist/Marxist/whatever-you-want-to-label-Obama’s-ideology aside, it would be naive at best to think that this “change” will represent anything more than the expansion of elite sponsorship in our “interconnected global village.” This is not to say that McCain/Palin represented any alternative, quite the contrary, a McCain administration would have been the same old military-industrial lap dance of the past eight years; but make no mistake, the Obama administration will only variate and recapitulate the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war except with the “Democratic” preference of putting on the velvet gloves of “humanitarianism” over the iron fists of superpowerdom.
Think manufactured wars, false flag operations, police surveillance state measures and government theft of the civilian population will cease in order to promote the “change” promised to the “people?” I would think again. “Change we can believe in” indeed.