Review By: Space Cowboy
In "The Obama Sydrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad." Tariq Ali abandons his often tried type face, "Fournier", because "it might overheat the text," opting instead for the "Benbo" type face (pg X). Indeed, this razor tongued, poisoned penned character is a traitor to his Oxford-educated class. And the writing is explosive regardless of his newly adopted typeface.
The essays (4 in total) which comprise the book are loaded with facts and ideas. Some of the ideas are insightful; others, provocative. All the ideas are expressed with eloquent panache. The essays aim to provide the reader with a report on the first term of the current US President (up to about June 2011). The Chapters are titled:
1. An unprecedented Historical Event;
2. President of Cant;
3. Surrender at Home: A One-Dimential Politician; and,
4. Sheriff of the World
Tariq Ali was born in Larhore , Pakistan England
Ali draws from lesser known sources and examples to clobber us over the head with his evidence. Ali's argument is that as politics was degenerating in many parts of the world, the people wanted their own items on the agenda (the degeneration of politics is only too stark in Australia – and in some ways ironic because it has followed the US in personalising attacks against one's opponent, see personal attacks by Australian radio shock jocks, and as a comparison, 2012 Republican presidential nominees). The economy was fractured, the imperial juggernaut that is the United States United States
The most recent published essay which appears in the book; "Sheriff of the world" allows Ali to deal with the recent targeting and execution of American's most wanted. Ali lays down the ground work:
"A casually dressed president, his secretary of State and military personnel watched a satellite link, looking like a scene from a Hollywood movie (which it undoubtedly will be with Katherine Bigelow pumping the adrenalin." (pg 120).
A passage characteristically Ali and not very enthusiastic in his praise for American propaganda that is the Hurt Locker.
I thought Bigalow did a great job in boasting morale "at home" and think she deserved an award for that. To be the first woman to win an academy award for best director was a morale boaster for aspiring women directors as well. It's like killing two birds with one stone; or, like two casualties with one EOD.
Ali swiftly moves to dissect Obama's post assassination speech beamed to a total of 56 Million viewers:
"And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts…" (except from Obama's speech as reproduced at pg 120)
I think the start of the speech is worthy of praise for its warmth and poignancy. Ali says as much. He compliments the speech for being carefully crafted, noting that Bush would never have been able to make such a speech, but then compares the conclusion of Obama's speech to many of Osama's sermons:
"Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: 'one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' Thank you. May God bless you. And may god bless the United States of America
The cheering crowds that appeared on the streets in Washington New York USA USA
For this to have occurred in any street in the world is troubling and repulsive. If the shoe was on the other foot; Bush having been assassinated, and Arabs were dancing in the streets chanting "Justice", wouldn't a similar repulsion be the most understandable reaction from an American (or an Australian). Of course it would.
This to Ali's credit is when he is at his most effective, his portrayal of events often are those that we have heard or seen in the news, yet his vivid descriptions is what distinguishes him as a writer and a word smith. Alongside the documented critique of international events, Ali argues in his first essay, "An unprecedented Historical Event; that Obama has carefully crafted his image for some time before we was a household name.
He draws from a lesser household name, that of Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther, who after the end of the organisations political activities in about the late 1970's, became a member of the Democrats, the Chicago Chicago
Ali draws from a range of sources, including Rush, to argue Obama is a product of the Chicago Democratic machine, and had predicted that Obama had no desire to prise himself loose from the Corporate Political System that had assisted his rise. (pg 7). One example of Obama's ability to craft himself is given in an account by Rush after beating Obama in the primaries in 2000:
"It's amazing how he formed a black identify," Rush said, rising from his desk and starting, theatrically, to sashay across his office, mimicking Obama's sinuous walk. "Barack's walk is an adaptation of a strut that comes from the street. There's a certain break at the Knees as you walk and you get a certain roll going. Watch. You see?" Rush laughed at his own imitation. "And he's the first president of the United States
Ali's provocative writing style is evident throughout the essays, and it doesn't get tiring: "From the beginning Obama projected a desperate and passionate sincerity to become president. All the arts of political manipulation and prudent diplomacy of which his intellect was capable were brought into play to ensure success. Simultaneously timorous and wily, he presented himself as a politician who could unite the country"; "The first hundred days revealed that no regeneration was in sight. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan showed few signs of subsiding, the Orwellian media sphere continued to proclaim 'peace is war' and 'war is peace'"; "With politics going to the dogs in most parts of the world (South America was a striking exception) and serious political columnists resorted to the clichés of airport thrillers, the campaign had succeeded in galvanizing a generation of young Americans across the class and race divide"; "Unable and unwilling to deliver any serious reforms, Obama has become the master of the sympathetic gesture, the understanding smile, the pained but friendly expression that always appeared to say, 'Really, I agree and wish we could, but we can't. We really can't and it's not my fault.'" This is what I call upper crust writing to telling effect. On reading and re-reading those sentences, I imagine that unfortunate recipient at the sharp end of Ali's pen, shrivelling like a salted snail.
The only criticism I have is that Ali doesn't pay credit to where credit is due. That might be the cynicism of Ali's self proclaimed title of being "a grey beard" but it may also be perceived as elite leftist bomb-throwing.
- Space Cowboy/First Striker?
Editor's Note: I've changed the title because it wasn't immediately obvious that this was a guest post by Space Cowboy or something/ First Striker. I've changed it so it is more obvious to who credit for this belongs to.
- Space Cowboy/First Striker?
Editor's Note: I've changed the title because it wasn't immediately obvious that this was a guest post by Space Cowboy or something/ First Striker. I've changed it so it is more obvious to who credit for this belongs to.
‘Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors—the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions—perpetrated by mankind’s governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy.’
ReplyDelete(Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)
Governments are comprised of the same humans as the population. The issue arises when the rulers become disconnected from the ruled.
ReplyDeleteIn a democracy it is hoped that ruled have a say to influence how they are ruled by the rulers. But beyond a certain size, complete democracy cannot be properly utilized as the population has gotten too large.
The solution, I cannot say because it requires a country of a certain size in order to manufacture and maintain the Western standard of living. Without the economy of scale many things are not possible. It isn't ideal but many things in life aren't.
Also Ayn Rand was a fanatic to another extreme. I can't say what the best government is, but it definitely would be one that combined approaches from the Left and the Right wings to solve issues.
Capitalism as described by Adam Smith was never meant to be this vast unfettered seeking of wealth alone. Governments had their role to play.
Besides, if we all ended up in Ayn Rand's dream world we'd be 20,000 leagues under the sea overseen by a man named Andrew Ryan. And we all know how that turns out. Insane splicers, whales breaking holes in the windows and creepy little girls.
Although governments are comprised of the same humans as the population, the economic and military presence of governments, lets say that of the big kahuna the US, is larger than any person elected to run that country. A few preferred Obama as Emperor over Clinton but this is merely an exercise in self indulgence, and futile discourse. The Empire stands beyond its leader.
ReplyDeleteThere is no easy solution, I agree, but the rule of law in accordance with due process is the determinate. The hypocrisy seen with devising laws post killing of "terrorists" and "tyrants" (including recently the killing of a US citizen, and often dummy dictators, propped by the US or supported by them - least we forget the US and Australia supported Libya's push for a successful bid on the UN Human Rights Council) is a breach of the fundamental notion of legality. And although no government can be held to account, or at least I can't think of a method, various individuals can and should. The defence used that these are time of war just doesn't stand up anymore. Justice may be seen to be done in the eyes of some, but in the absence of the rule of law, a totalitarian state awaits.
The rule of law ties in intrinsically to the notion of democracy. That word often the precursor a warm fuzzy feel good feeling, and so it should - it's a means of some sort of people protection. It includes at its heart, the rule of law in accordance with due process, as well as other things that make people feel warm and fuzzy, like voting for Obama as opposed to Clinton. Nor can it, I think, be limited by population growth. I may have misread the intention of your comment, Voodoo Child, but why do you think beyond a certain size, Democracy cannot be properly utilised. Is it because of a failure to meet western standards of living? If that's it, and it might not be, then I don't see how it fits in to the general understanding of the notion of western liberal democracy.
Following up on what Striker has said, unfortunately absolute rule of law is unattainable. Rule of Law and due process are fundamental to a functioning democracy but when the rule of law is modified by a class of people it will cease to have the same gyroscopic effect. As we all know the quality of justice is predicated on wealth. So equality under the law has qualifications.
ReplyDeleteAssassinating a tyrant or a terrorist is contrary to the essence of rule of law, so is enforcing a copyright infringement on a single mother of three without the means for due process.
That is all I wanted to add I'm not sure how that aids the discussion but there is my two cents worth. But in regards to democracy being ineffective in large populations, I don't believe democracy is subject to population. I think Voodoo Child needs to elaborate on that thought.
I was thinking in terms of Athenian Democracy as that first practised by the Greeks although that in itself has several caveats. Although in my first post, as you know me I rambled off course.
ReplyDeleteAh, it is called Direct Democracy. The people did not vote for representatives but the population of eligible voters themselves voted on the law. One man one vote. Quite literally back then. Slaves, women were not eligible for it.
But that is not what I advocate. I was just pointing out that when a country grows large, there comes a certain population limit where direct democracy becomes too unwieldy to be of use to a country.
We then turn to representative democracy where a group elects a representative who on the aggregate is supposed to reflect their will. Which seems to be further and further from the case in America and more in line with corporate interests.
But what are corporate interests you might ask? I suppose really in America right now, we're simply seeing the greed for more wealth and power being used to take advantage of the political system in ways unforeseen by the originators. The American system is not 100% Socialist, neither is it 100% Capitalist.
And now having tap danced my way around I return to your original points. I would agree with that. Rule of law for any government along with due process is key to its legitimacy. It just happens that humans are humans and have this inherent dislike when in power for having the rules apply to them. I have no idea how to apply sufficient checks and balances so that power does not make the executive overbearing but at the same time does not hobble them.
Actually, let us make that the current debate topic. What is, in your mind the qualities a good government should have and what is your ideal political system?
(in response to Anarcho Vandal only) Equality under the law does have qualifications but the qualifications vary from country to country. the varying degrees of qualification need not be as disparate. what you say, vandal is pragmatic to the extreme. What Im suggesting is not unachievable. its not eutopian pontification on law that distinguishes Dworkin, HLA Hart and Aristotelian arguments on law from their ivory towers. This is a basic rule that holds individuals to account. We can start with Cheney and Bush.
ReplyDeleteI don't get where we would be starting with Cheney and Bush at any rate. Is this the War Crimes argument? Along with Tony Blair etc... sort of thing?
ReplyDeleteActually, saying that the rule of law is starting to look shaky for quite a few countries. But there you go, leaders are unlikely to be held responsible for their actions when in power beyond being ousted from office.
I'm not saying it never happens, as is the case with the Nuremberg trials and with... Milsovenic? But these originate from an international judicial body rather than internally. This is regarding the more stable countries. In countries where political instability is rife I think its safe to say "Peace through power".
Where is this rule of law discussion going? I must confess I am confused.
Whether Rand is in fact a 'fanatic to another extreme' or lived in an unreasonable 'dream world,' I cannot say, for I have not studied her philosophy to a degree where I could, sincerely, judge.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, believe the extract is relevant, and reasonable, simply because government power can infringe individual liberties, if such liberties are not codified. Australia, and Israel, are Western examples where codification does not exist, thus the warning in the extract applies to anyone currently in Australia, citizen or otherwise, squarely.
On the question of functioning qualities and ideal form of government..
I honestly believe people get what they deserve, collectively and individually, and therefore it is not the ink-on-paper law which should be changed, rather the participatory nature of our own behaviour towards our own communities. Given time, and favourable conditions, this may shift the paradigm and organically develop a fuller, more enlightened, understanding of democracy, collectively and individually, to better reflect the localised aspirations of what law ought to be, what government ought to do, and the Greek etymology of "Demos Kratos."
The qualities of my government expound generosity and enlightenment, dignity and splendour, piety and public spirit.
My government shall teach you to recognise what is in your sight, so that that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing hidden which cannot become manifest.
My government shall teach you that blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.
My government shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind.
Once you have made the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that male not be male nor the female; and when you fashion eyes in place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then you shall be permitted to enter my corridors of Parliament.
Here you shall be instructed to leave without landing, and will be successfully quarantined in “the House of Strangers,” then you shall be permitted to explore, and finally granted an explanation of my government.
We have twelve that sail into foreign countries under the names of other nations (for our own we conceal), who bring us books and abstracts, and patterns of experiments of all other parts. These we call merchants of light. We also have depredators, mystery-men, pioneers, compilers, benefactors, lamps, inoculators, and interpreters of nature, who come three on three to twenty four.
My system of government is called nosce te ipsum.
First to striker's comments, I don't think what I said amounts to extreme pragmatism. It’s just a fact. You cannot achieve absolute of anything let alone rule of law. To criticise myself, I thought that was a superfluous and a rather conspicuous comment. All you have to do is point to the way investment bankers manipulate the market with impunity. You yourself gave examples in Cheney and Bush (I would add Kissinger). But I do agree with you rule of law (at least the belief that it exists) is one of the maxims that underpins democracy.
ReplyDeleteTo Voodoo Child, the US has been successful in developing a system that provides socialism for the 1%. As Stiglitz says "of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%." That is US in a nutshell.
I still don't see how you think population can become an anathema to democracy. There are so many flaws in democracy but with reform they can be mitigated. Campaign contributions, lobbyists and wealth disparity are just some of the roadblocks for effective democracy. Maybe as some have argued democracy and capitalism are not compatible. Democracy has paradoxical quality in that people must believe there is an effective democracy in order for people to participate in it. I don't think what the US has can be described as democracy. This is evident in the participation, rate less than 20% for people under 30. US Supreme Court last year struck out the ban on campaign contributions by corporations. Need I say more.
My system of government is called Athenian Democracy.* The qualities of a good government are the qualities inherent within it. It gets my vote over its symbolic, brand new, snobbish, less successful cousin, Western Liberal Democracy (WLIDEM). Even though my people wouldn't have been able to vote during that period, I am going to give Plato and Aristotle my two cents worth knowing that if either of them had been around, they wouldn't respond because they would probably be too busy protesting austerity measures.
ReplyDeleteJust to make it clear, I'm choosing Athenian Democracy over WLIDEM because WLIDEM is heavily qualified. WLIDEM supposedly stands for protecting the people, but governments constantly fail to go to war to protect or promote it often enough to get my vote. Athenian democracy, meaning majority rule, as Voodoo Child points out, excludes women and slaves (foreigners also) from voting. Minority groups, even though women made up 50% and slaves and foreigners would have pushed that number well above 50%, were kept off the electoral tablet. This allowed an educated aristocratic class to develop the arts, politics and the law in a disproportionately large amount to their actual population numbers. And although Athenian democracy had it's critics like Plato, himself an aristocrat, because it encouraged people to be "cowardly" and "idle", some of the worlds most notable philosophers, for example Plato, is a product of that period which continues to shape western civilization in largely positive ways today.
I also think women# would have been more satisfied, had they not received suffrage – for example many women now have overshot their original aim of achieving equal pay for equal work, which is largely a tangible measure of equality, to wanting the salary to cease being what defined women aspirations. Women in Athenian Democracy had been all the more wily. They succeeded for example in stopping the Peloponnesian war by refusing their partners sexual favours until the men agreed on a ceasefire. This type of subordination by the female sex is wrong in principle and a chief hindrance on human improvement. When women persuaded men to give them the vote by the turn of the last century their request started to snowball, taking many unsuspecting men by surprise – including limiting male free speech, which is contextualised in watching porn. Andrea Dworkins. A case in point.
Secondly, Slavery. I want to premise this next section because it is an emotional topic for me. Given the arithmetic of world population and decadency, there is a very high probability that everyone alive today, including me, and you, is a decedent of a slave. So I feel like I am in a position of delicacy, but am still in a position to criticise because they are in effect my people. Just like how a person of a particular race can make fun of that race, I shall now proceed. Aristotle said, some people are naturally born to be slaves. And if one follows the path of that logic – ergo, they should not be allowed to vote. Or watch TV. And even though they didn't get paid, they were still fed and housed. The freeloaders played an essential part in the foundation of many societies. Without them the world would have been a very different place.
* Not actually the true beliefs of the author because partner would probably water board him.
# And men.
I can't tell if you are being polemic to provoke debate or facetious.
ReplyDeleteWe can argue systems of government all day and achieve neither consensus nor workability/practicability.
ReplyDeleteIm pretty sure it was Mahatma Ghandi who said 'be the change you want in the world' or, from pop culture, Michael Jackson who said 'i'm starting with the man in the mirror.'
I don't like categorising this and that into little boxes with post-it notes, to remind me that anyone who identifies with this or that, must be, must act and must say this or that, because it limits the capacity of us all to evolve, learn new things, and change opinion in due course.
The main problem I see is our incapacity (inc. me) to fathom that our laws, government, etcetera, reflect inter and intra human relationship. Before laws were codified or turned into precedent, they were humble social norms which became so common that they required standardisation and consistency.
If we want to change the law, we must change our selves, because thereafter the law will not be representative.
To take your examples of slavery and women's rights. These are examples of individual and collective, inward and outward, attitudes that informed law. In other words law and types of government are an afterthought of the individuals intra and inter relationships.
So, what I prefer to focus on is how can individuals' intra and inter relations be enlightened. Practically and organically. Starting with me, myself and I.
PS. Anarcho Vandal. Chillax man, don't be so funereal.
I think First Sticker, and correct me if i'm wrong, was expressing envy of the simplicity of Athenian democracy, rather than treating a semi-serious issue with undue humor, in an attempt to contrast the idealised Athenian democratic concept with today's decadent Western conception of democracy for the 1%ers.
(To Vandal) I was being facetious :)
ReplyDelete(To Victorius) There was the element of contrasting the cousin systems with one another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WELkanHrSqw
ReplyDeleteHis the front runner in the Republican race. Love the expression on the albino's face.
I can't see anything wrong with that dude holding his opinion. He is obviously speaking from a moral point of view which, to him, justifies the sanctity of life. What is your alternative Anarcho? Global nihilism?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've created two more posts. It probably is a bit late for some of the governmental topics if people feel it has been adequately discussed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if not. Please shift discussion of governments and their ideal qualities to the latest post "Tian Xia" and any debate to the post "Abortion". Just helps to keep things tidy.
I just realized no one commented on First Striker's book review. Ahaha... I'll kick start it. I like the review, in depth. Really helped me to decide if I wanted to read it or not. In my case I'll wait till I meet First Striker again and get a verbal summary off him =D
thehairypatch comment has been relocated to "Tian Xia"
ReplyDeleteLets keep the rest of the comments to the review shall we? =D
Thanks
The general aim of the book review was, to some extent, to bring to light the topical issues mentioned in the book and further explore them throughout. And I think the comments, or at least some of the comments, were not inconsistent with that.
ReplyDeleteI highly recommend it, and as I stated in the review, it's loaded with some well known facts and some that are novel. His writing style is the stand out for me and it is that which made the book such a pleasure to read.
His point of view may appeal to some, Ali himself haveing once been a "red diaper baby" and still holds many of those views, but may irk others.
I'll see if I can't pick it up from the library. Although to be honest at the moment my reading time is short.
ReplyDeleteAlso, that is a interesting term. Red Diaper Baby. Man... they really hated Communism. Mind, I'm pretty sure the Soviets returned the favour so there go I guess.
Heh... well, we are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. If he raises valid points. Irked or not, swallow the bitter pill of truth