The opacity of hope

I'm sure we've all wondered: what's it going to take to convince the legions of Obama-loving progressives out there that the guy isn't on their side?  How many disappointments, betrayals, reversals and outright sell-outs must they suffer before they finally wake up?  Is there any limit to the cognitive dissonance they can rationalize away?

Sadly, no.  Case in point: an article by Ann Wright, who's currently taking part in the Free Gaza flotilla that will soon be confronting the Israeli navy in an attempt to break the siege of Gaza.  Now, I have nothing but respect for what these people (a good few of whom I know personally) are doing.  Not only are they courageous and dedicated, but—as you'd expect—they're also very well-informed when it comes to Israel, the Palestinians, and the critical role of the US.  But nonetheless, Wright shared this mind-numbing tidbit:

Many of us would like to see our boat renamed "The Audacity of Hope" as that is what we want to see from the Obama administration-- courage to challenge the Israeli government on the siege of Gaza.  It would be a really brave, bold move as every U.S. presidential administration since the formation of the State of Israeli in 1948 has blindly given free-rein to Israel in whatever actions it wishes to undertake no matter if the actions are a violation of international law.

Really?  Many of the people on the boat would like to see it named after Barack Obama's book?  The same Obama who gave Israel the maximum maneuvering room to savage Gaza in the month leading up to his inauguration by refusing to make any official statement about the invasion, under the ludicrous pretext that there must be only "one president at a time" (which of course didn't prevent him from commenting on numerous other issues)?*  The same Obama who's continued to finance Israel's military with $2.8 billion in aid in 2009 (in addition to over $3 billion in loan guarantees), and who just pushed to give them an additional $205 million?  The same Obama who's allowed Israel to continue its confiscation and colonization of Palestinian land?  The same Obama who repeatedly declared his devotion to Israel at AIPAC's annual conference?

But despite all of this, many of the people on the Free Gaza boats still wanted to sail under the banner of Obama's self-serving book title, in the hopes of prompting him to have the "courage to challenge the Israeli government on the siege of Gaza."  It's hard to fathom how anyone could believe Obama lacks only "courage" to challenge the siege that he has in fact allowed, aided, and abetted since before his inauguration, much less people like this who've paid attention to what he's done (and hasn't done) with regard to Israel and Gaza—but such is the awesome power of the Obama reality distortion field.

As depressing as this is, it's no surprise; anyone who lived through the Clinton years should have known what to expect, since Clinton's sway over liberal minds was on a par with Obama's.  And I'm sure at the end of Obama's tenure we'll see just what we did on the left after Clinton: a tiny percentage of people will be disaffected enough to abandon the Democrats, while a slightly larger percentage will lean in that direction but lose their nerve at the crucial moment—but they'll be dwarfed by the overwhelming majority, who'll spend the next few years explaining away the ever-increasing mountain of evidence that Barack Obama is not on their side, does not share their goals, and most certainly is not their secret friend in the White House.

---

* (Actually Obama did have one substantive comment about Israel's rape of Gaza: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."  Of course Obama apparently wouldn't expect Palestinians to do everything in their power to stop Israel from killing their children, much less give them tacit consent and political cover for it—not that anyone should waste their time on such a pointless and absurd analogy.)

Comments

[Jack Crow]

See the irony:

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/give-me-symbolism-damn-it-the-new-drama-news-business/

[Catherine]

I know, it sucks, but I doubt that she or anyone on the ships believes this. I think it's a position taken so as not to be seen as ignoring the president of the US (an obscenely powerful person/position), and definitely not wanting to criticize him, as other progressive voices do (and rightly so).

So, a protective stance. I hate it, but I see their point (at least I think I do). What's really important to me is that they're out there risking being blown out of the water by the psychpaths in the IDF.

[gfod]

Somewhat off topic comment: the titles of your posts are always hilarious. I enjoy reading the post then going back to the title and find the extra joke (it's like the prize in the crackerjack).

[Donald Johnson]

In some cases--maybe a great many cases, the link below might provide the right explanation.

link

[John Caruso]

Donald: Probably some (but definitely not the Free Gaza folks), though I thought StO and Michael Dawson's comments in that thread were closer to the mark than the actual posting.

Catherine: I think Wright was pretty clear when she said that "the audacity of hope" is what they want to see from the Obama administration--which implies that she and others believe it's a real possibility. Would they have named their boat after a book by George Bush under any circumstances? Or expressed hopes that Bush would have found the "courage to challenge the Israeli government on the siege of Gaza"?

But on the bright side, although many of them wanted to see a boat named after Obama's book it didn't happen--which means they were outvoted by enough other people who (one hopes) saw just how obscene it would have been. So maybe I should be looking at this glass as half full.

[Save the Oocytes]

Donald, I was just about to post that link (and quote myself), so thanks!

[Jenny]

This might make you all feel a smidgen better:

http://antonyloewenstein.com/2010/05/29/tell-israel-to-ditch-its-nuke-now/

[Donald Johnson]

Agreed about the free Gaza folks. I think it might apply to many Democrats though.

[Catherine]

Catherine: I think Wright was pretty clear when she said that "the audacity of hope" is what they want to see from the Obama administration--which implies that she and others believe it's a real possibility. Would they have named their boat after a book by George Bush under any circumstances? Or expressed hopes that Bush would have found the "courage to challenge the Israeli government on the siege of Gaza"?

You're possibly right. But I do think that some of the flotillians have to (or believe they have to) make statements that don't completely cut the action off from those in power, and it seemed to me that Ann Wright was doing this. But perhaps not.

[Malooga]

Dissent is carefully channeled into criticizing some aspect of the imperial state, rather than confronting and opposing it directly.

Criticizing the President -- or ineffectually appealing to his "better nature" -- whether Bush or Obama or anyone else, is to continually ignore the elephant in the room: the hundreds of corporations and billionaire beneficiaries of corporations, history's most powerful military-industrial complex, the Orwellian media Medusa, etc., all of whom directly benefit from and support the system of world hierarchical domination based upon neo-liberal epistemology.

This is a bunch of dogs yapping over the hood ornament while ignoring the car that will simply run them over and keep on moving.

Thus, such feckless "dissent" actually strengthens the system it claims to oppose by providing a veneer of dissent and the patina of open democracy to the juggernaut while never directly confronting the structures of actual power which the system is directly composed of.

All leftist groups and movements are easily infiltrated and the original intentions subverted; with all the money and media power in the world, it is child's play to the monster. Besides, the current world "economic crisis" means that 80% of the US is too busy worrying about putting bread on the table and a roof over their heads to even be aware of such theatrics or examine the dominant storyline for contradictions.

[John Caruso]

I'd largely agree, Malooga. The very reason I spend so much time chipping away at Obama is because his most critical function is to neutralize any deeper inquiry, dissent, or action. If I can make even one person think twice about their attachment to that hood ornament, I'd consider what I'm doing here worthwhile.

Donald: I think it might apply to many Democrats though.

Agreed, though in this posting I was specifically talking about progressives (a broken word at this point, but I mean people whose values and goals are generally aligned with my own). There are definitely large numbers of Democrats who just want imperialism with a smiley face, and Obama's the apotheosis of that--but I consider most of those people beyond reclamation and not worth the time to address. There will always be power worshipers in the world who feel there's some profound ideological gap between them and their counterparts on the other side, when it's actually little more than minor stylistic and procedural differences.

But what makes me despair is seeing those who know better--or should know better--putting their faith in and throwing their support behind someone who is, in reality, their worst enemy. The left's ongoing, self-defeating infatuation with champions of the status quo like Obama is one of the main reasons for its irrelevance in US politics.