On July 2nd, Obama said, “I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new, and to the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the US is not seeking an antagonistic relationship but wants co-operation on nuclear non-proliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, that we’ll end up having a stronger partner overall.”(1)
MIM’s analysis of Putin is separate from analysis of Obama. Putin obviously went to some lengths and risks — not all of which we mention — to continue to let others associate him as having one foot in the Cold War. The reason must be the difficulty of dealing with the United $tates.
Likewise, my arch-enemies have gone to great lengths to make themselves enemies more important than me.
The way around the difficulties is for the united $tates to moderate on an international plane. Appointing Ralph Nader at the Pentagon could be such a step. One of the Zogbys or Cynthia McKinney also come to mind.
Obama chose to benefit from Putin’s willingness to associate himself with the Cold War and others’ willingness to create scandals such as lynching. Obama had help all along from Bill Keller and most likely Susan Estrich and Frank Rich: the young-’ins, I’m letting off the hook to some extent. The public affairs editor had asked Keller about the NSA story’s timing, only to be stonewalled, much as MIM snarked about liberals who kept their mouths shut in 2004.(2)
To be frank, had Annapolis been a success and had Bush then said to me, “replace Gordon England” at the Pentagon, things would have been different. I’d have given up the revolutionary career. There is a point where one must sell-out given what our situation is here.
When Annapolis was a failure, Obama chose a different route. And for the slackers out there, what I mean is that one does not get to say, “I’m new; everything before me was the pits.” Obama took over the United $tates, not the United $tates with all the Republican president years elided from history. That meant that he gets the blame for the failure of Annapolis, as the representative of the United $tates.
Obama’s retreat on the NSA/telecomm issue was a related example of how he handled cards in 2008.
If not appointing Bill Ayers as ambassador to Vietnam, then adding open Trotskyists to the government might be a good move to create disincentives for future lynchings. As far as I know, open Trotskyists have nothing to do with all the so-called persynal issues connected to lynching and the White House. As we speak, numerous females have received the clear message that lynching can help Democrats into power. Already at the time of the lynching, knowledge was widespread. Now it is much further spread.
It is a mistake to persynalize all these issues or imagine that I would be any less constrained by Congress, Obama and public opinion than an ordinary liberal or open Trotskyist, if placed in the U.S. Government. Even putting Nader in at the Pentagon would be a strong message that the U.S. government has matured and that an Arab-Amerikan might be in charge of policing the Mideast. By contrast, I believe my writings to be more radical than Nader’s and my involvement in the government at this point an unsuitable reward for lynching.
Notes:
1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6627412.ece
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Keller
