US Presidential Election Special - In this issue I am going to explore the differences and similarities between the two candidates and what the result will mean to the US and the world.

The Navig8or Newsletter Nov 2012 (6252)

Because thinking isn't illegal....yet! 
Introduction

Welcome to the November issue of the Navig8or newsletter. This month we are going to examine the implications of the impending US Presidential election and what the two possible outcomes are likely to mean for the US and the world.
As usual I am hoping that readers can move beyond corporate media hype, assimilationist impulses and the unfulfilled belief in 'Black Firsts' (now seconds!) in order to take a considered  look at what this election means and represents.

In this issue:
 
1. Obama vs Romney = Oligarchy wins and we lose
2. My new book, 'What's Love got to do with it', out in hard copy today at http://www.createspace.com/4036666 and in Kindle format this week

1. Obama vs Romney = Oligarchy wins and we lose

Back to the Future - Before getting into the substance of this current election, let me take you back four years to 2008 and what I was telling you in the lead up to and just after the election of Barack Obama. This is important because I want to remind you that I have always stressed that:

(i) the US President is not a King, he is the representative of a network of powerful interest groups, often referred to as 'the oligarchy',
(ii) Presidents are selected (by the oligarchy) before they are elected
(iii) Just having an Afrikan parent never ever meant that Barack Obama would implement policies helpful to Afrikans in the US
(iv) Racism in the US would not reduce because of the election of a 'Black' President (in fact evidence suggests it has increased)
(v) It's not 'playa hating' to point out the policy positions of Barack Obama or the war crimes committed by his government
(vi) We have to stop being so emotional in our interpretation of politics

Navig8or Newsletter March 2008

In this issue of my newsletter there was an article entitled 'Barackamania'. In this article I noted that:

........He has surrounded himself with some seriously hawkish advisers. Go to www.informationclearinghouse.com or the countercurrents website or www.libradio.com to read and hear more about his ghoulish advisers. Just do a search on one of his key foreign policy advisers, Zibignew Brzezinski, and you may see what I mean.
His policy for dealing with the housing meltdown in the US shows where his loyalties lay (with the large corporations and corporatists). Whilst others speak of putting an immediate halt to foreclosures (repossessions), he speaks of giving $500 per household to help people out. This won’t even pay for the cost of the delivery truck when poor people are kicked out of their homes in a crash created by the greed of bankers.
Read below some excerpts from Bruce Marshall’s insightful article ‘Barack Obama Fronts Wall Street’s Infrastructure Swindle – What Change Really Means’ examining what Obama stands for and who stands behind him.
“Since he passed his audition at the Democratic convention in 2004, Senator Obama has been taken over by George Soros and other hedge fund millionaires to launch a campaign out of nowhere, based on nothing but rhetoric and Wall Street millions. As darling of the rich elitist Kennedy/Kerry/Dean wing of the Democratic Party, Obama's pseudo-Camelot will deliver Wall Street and the Anglo-American financiers the goods while disguised in a patina of racial teflon and faux populism from the upper crust.
For substance ask, where is the bill in the Senate by Kennedy/Kerry/Obama calling for a freeze on all foreclosures? Where's their filibuster against the war? Where is a real minimum wage in the form of a living wage? Where is impeachment of Bush-Cheney? Why did Senator Obama move against raising heating oil assistance to the poor in the recent spending bill?

The answer to this last question, besides Rohatyn, is Obama's top economics controller, Austan Goolsbee, a sinister Skull & Bones, Friedmanite Chicago School free trade/free market economist who has delivered the real answer to the question of the difference between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Goolsbee stated on CNBC that Obama is more market friendly, ­ more in the pocket of Wall Street.” (Marshall 17/02/08, Information clearing house)
Don’t believe the hype, believe serious research. If you support Obama’s policies then cheer on, however if you know nothing of what he stands for; ask yourself, what am I are supporting? Another Condeleeza Rice, Colin Powell or Clarence Thomas? And if you believe that just having a Black President, irrespective of his policies, is going to inspire all of your youth to achieve wonderful things then you need to ease up on the happy pills. Life is just not that simple. Melanin is necessary, but nowhere near sufficient.

Navig8or Newsletter November 2008
 
This issue was entitled 'After The Party - The likely implications and impact of an Obama Presidency'. In this issue I encouraged readers to consider President Obama's stated policy positions on entering the White House to see whether
they actually agreed with his positions. I listed 17 policy areas for consideration and  gave readers the following guide to assess how closely they agreed with his policies:

0-4 If you scored in this range and profess support for him then your support is based on pure emotionalism and self-deception. I would suggest treatment from an Afrikan-centred psychologist/psychotherapist/counsellor and reducing your sugar intake.
5-8 You have some alignment with him but not really enough to feel comfortable voting for him
9-12 You can make a solid case for supporting Obama. You are socially ‘liberal’, support welfare for big business and warmongering in support of corporations and Zionists.
13-17 It’s a done deal. He da man.
In policy terms Obama is little more than Bill Clinton with a shiny paint job, just as Hilary Clinton is little more than Bill Clinton with ovaries and a uterus. The fascinating part of the whole Obama/Clinton primary battle was how quickly many Afrikans who had always loyally trooped off to the polls to support Bill Clinton and vociferously extolled his virtues, discovered that he was little more than an old fashioned Southern Cracker - albeit an intelligent Cracker – who expected the ‘boy’ Obama to know his place in the pecking order, which was behind Hilary. Similarly it was interesting to note how many Afrikans were supporting Hillary Clinton in seeking the Democratic nomination until Obama received the endorsement of Whites in Iowa (95% White population).

I went on to cite the work of Amos N Wilson in his classic book 'BluePrint for Black Power'. Wilson analysed how policy, be it economic, social or political policy is really formed in the United States. A similar process is present in many other countries.






The above diagram is taken from chapter nine (page 170) of Amos Wilson’s classic work. I would thoroughly recommend that anyone seriously interested in understanding how political policies are really developed in the US reads this chapter. My apologies for the quality of the scan which is due to the layout of the diagram in the book. Next to the box marked ‘Universities’ at the bottom of the diagram it says ‘Reports, news items’ and the next box to the right says ‘National news media’. The diagram clearly depicts the linkages between Resources, Research, Decision-Making, Opinion Making and Law-Making and clearly refutes the notion that it is politicians who are solely in charge and that their policies are a result of listening to and interpreting the needs of the general public. The public is presented with a carefully selected menu of policy options from which to choose just as they are presented with a carefully selected menu of politicians to vote into high office.

Back to the Future

Ok, so we have gone back to set the platform for looking at the present and future. So let's look at the policy similarities and differences between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. An important point to note is that a lot of the similarities and differences between the two candidates are nuanced. It really depends on your viewpoint as to whether you see certain policy positions as similarities or differences and that in itself speaks volumes. There are relatively few areas of stark difference outside of social policy.

To give you a contrast in views I have excerpted comments from an interview with Joseph Stiglitz the Nobel Prize winning economist. Mr Stiglitz identifies himself as a 'progressive' and in the interview sets out what he sees as the case for voting for President Obama despite his own criticisms of many of the President's policies.  The transcript of the interview can be found in the link below:

Joseph Stiglitz: “Romney’s Plan is Based on Magic” Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz -- an Obama critic -- says Romney's cuts would be disastrous
By Andrew Leonard November 02, 2012 "
Salon" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32917.htm



What I have done is put in Mr Stiglitz's comments in speech marks on various areas of policy followed by my comments. Most of Stiglitz's comments relate to domestic economic policy - as one would expect - and so do not appear after every policy area. 

Similarities

Foreign Policy - This is an area where once again Obama supporters could point to nuanced policy differences however I believe that when you look at the general thrust of foreign policy one can say that Obama and Romney both believe in American Exceptionalism (which in their minds means the US cannot commit war crimes), the need for US global hegemony and Perpetual war as the means to achieve it. Let's look at a selection of 'hotspot' countries where the US has 'intervened' to exemplify what I mean:

Afghanistan - This is what President Obama described as a 'just war' even before entering office. He has continued the war crimes of his predecessor George W Bush with very little to show for it. Eventually the US will slide out of Afghanistan and the Taliban and others will get on with their business. Romney presents as a man with a voracious appetite for war. One can only hope he is not as reckless as he sounds. He believes in US boots on the ground so there is little prospect of withdrawal under him.
Pakistan
This is Obama's hidden war where he is using drone bombers to massacre many hundreds if not thousands of Pakistanis. For every one terrorist suspect murdered at least 10 civilians are being killed. Just so you understand the callousness of this policy, the Obama administration has designated that any male aged 15-64 found in the area where they have identified a suspect is automatically designated as a 'combatant'.
This is positively ghoulish and Orwellian. Romney has no qualms about these war crimes and will continue them.

Iraq - Obama failed to fulfill his 2008 campaign promise to withdraw US troops from Iraq within a year. US troops are still there, the US has built the biggest military base in the world in Baghdad. Obama redesignated 50,000 combat troops as 'advisors', problem solved. Romney will definitely not withdraw US troops.
Israel - Romney is a complete slave to the 'Israel First' lobby whereas Obama is merely a loyal servant. If you upset the Zionist lobby you do not become US President. It's that simple. Just check out their cabinets and advisers and you will see what I mean. Both excuse Israel's war crimes and human rights abuses. 
China - As with Russia the US is seeking to militarily encircle China. The US has interfered in Chinese territorial disputes with it's neighbours e.g. Japan, Vietnam etc. and is actively seeking to destabilise China internally. It is a delicate balance as China holds huge amounts of US debt and US currency and much of China's exports are actually produced by US corporations based in China. Once again Romney is even more hostile to China than Obama and says on 'day one' he plans to call out China as a 'currency manipulator'.
Russia -
Obama came in promising to "reset" relations with Russia. What occurred instead was the continued construction of the 'missile shield' around Russia. This is basically a policy of encircling Russia with nuclear missiles housed in former 'Warsaw Pact' countries. The US does not like the fact that Russia refuses to 'come to heel' and accept a subordinate position to the US amongst the 'White tribes'. Romney is even more hostile to Russia.
Iran - This is probably the area of most significant difference. Obama wants to wage a long proxy war against the Iranian government, using sanctions (which are killing children and the vulnerable in Iran and are in effect an act of war) and by supporting terrorist groups and internal dissidents in Iran. The aim is regime change without too much bloodshed. Romney's rhetoric is more to Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's liking. Romney talks of war with Iran on the slightest pretext.  A war with Iran could conceivably create a regional conflict and perhaps even a world war.
Libya - Another imperialistic, racist war in support of 'Western' (Caucasian) Imperialism. Obama got France and the UK to front this invasion. Libya is now in chaos with rampaging groups of militias and a recent massacre in Bani Walid by the 'freedom fighters'. Libya is likely to end up with a hardline 'Islamist' government in the not too distant future who the US will be 'forced' to overthrow at some point. Of course Romney supports the invasion whilst trying to suggest he could have done it better.

Syria - If you think you have seen this film before; you have, it's a remake of that US classic 'Regime change in Libya' starring 'the forces of democracy  and freedom', a Pentagon production. Very similar script, autocratic Arab ruler who oversees a stable government, but who does not toe the US line is overthrown by 'Western allies' via the proxy of 'freedom fighters' many of whom (particularly in the case of Syria) are foreign nationals and who want to religiously cleanse the country and put women back in their place. The US is supported by friendly Arab nations, many of whom operate government's far more repressive than Assad's, but who support the US when required. It's amazing that the corporate media just refuses to comment on the irony that in Libya and Syria 'the West' have supported the very same people they are supposed to be waging the 'War on Terror' against.

Banking and Finance Policy - Stiglitz "We face a choice between someone who is viewed as being too close to the financial industry and somebody who is in the financial industry. Of the two I’d rather have someone who is close but not in it. So to me, there’s just not much choice."
I
fayomi - Stiglitz makes a valid point to some degree, but fails to touch on the critical issue that both Obama and Romney support corporate welfare (unending bailouts etc.), both of their campaigns are massively funded by the FIRE sectors (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) and the very people who caused the economic crash and that President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have worked studiously to avoid the type of large scale criminal prosecutions warranted by the activities of the Banksters. Obama has pushed the 'It's incompetence, not criminality' line in order to avoid tackling his backers and core constituency. In order to understand the untenable nature of this position one needs to recall that it is estimated that 75% of the fraud in sub-prime mortgages was enacted by the lender! Secondly during the much smaller Savings & Loan scandal during the 1980s there were literally hundreds of bankers prosecuted and sent to prison, with a 90% conviction rate. Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPZ6KHLys5E  on the 2011 MF Global scandal (MF Global 'lost' $1.2 billion of its clients money) featuring William K Black who was the Special Prosecutor during the Savings and Loan scandal to get a feel for the rampant criminality that President Obama and his predecessor George W Bush have turned a blind eye to. Check out the links between John Corzine of MF Global and President Obama and Vice-President Biden (there is commentary on this about 4 minutes into the video) . It's a case of 'He who pays for the Presidency calls the tune'! The greatest indictment of Obama in this whole affair is that he was pushing against an open door on this issue. No one in the media would have dared criticise him for prosecuting crooked banksters and the public would have loved it, however he once again demonstrated where his true loyalties lie.

National Security - There are so many similarities here that I am going to bullet them. Romney supports all of these Obama policies:
- Presidential Orders/Decrees. George W Bush introduced these. They are completely unconstitutional. President Obama criticised them before his election and then continued them without missing a beat.
Extraordinary Rendition. This is basically kidnapping individuals and transporting them to a friendly country to be tortured. Bush the little established this as government policy and Obama has continued it.
- Torture. Same as above. George W. Bush found lawyers to say that torture techniques such as 'waterboarding' were not torture and the Obama administration holds its nose.
- Unlimited domestic wiretapping and surveillance. Once again George W Bush institutionalised wire tapping of US citizens without a warrant or court order and President Obama has continued the policy. This is not to even mention the trawling of personal email accounts.
- Indefinite Detention. Just as one example there is a UK citizen who has been held for 8 years in indefinite detention by the US government. There are many more like him. This practice is in complete breach of the US constitution and once again instituted by George W Bush, continued by President Obama and supported by Romney.
- Assassination of US citizens. President Obama has 'Terrorism Tuesday' meetings where his national security advisors provide him with a list of 'terrorists' who are to be assassinated. This includes US citizens and this is the first time in US history that a US administration has openly admitted to assassinating US citizens. Perhaps this is a triumph for 'open government'! 
Guantanamo Bay - Started by Bush, continued by Obama, supported by Romney. I think you get the gist by now. Obama promised to close it down but didn't. The US is still using torture at Guantanamo Bay.
- FBI instigated 'terror plots'. Of the almost 3000 'terror plots' in the US  since 9/11 virtually every single one has been instigated by the FBI i.e. they did not find someone or a group planning a terrorist attack, but rather they use undercover agents seek out vulnerable individuals and persuade them to plan an attack and then swoop to catch the 'terrorist' followed by a blaze of media headlines. This policy is designed to maintain the US population in a state of fear and justify the aforementioned abuses of the US constitution.  

Differences


Healthcare. Stiglitz - Access to healthcare for everybody is an important step. It wasn’t the kind of deep reform that one would have liked where you would have done something about the pharmaceutical industry and health insurance industry and so forth, but it did result in increased access and that was terribly important. In education, getting the banks out of student loans saved $80 billion over 10 years. That’s a big deal. Ifayomi - The irony of 'ObamaCare' is that much of it was modelled on what Romney introduced in Massachusetts where he was Governor. Since becoming a candidate Obama has had to harden his position to assuage his right wing constituency who do not believe that healthcare is a right and who see any suggestion of Universal healthcare as 'socialism'. Obama's student loan reforms will, as Stiglitz suggests save a lot of money. 


The Economy Stiglitz -  The Romney/Ryan budget promises to spend more on the military while cutting taxes and cutting the deficit, and that means only one thing. If you look at the arithmetic, it means less investment in infrastructure, R&D, education … it just can’t add up any other way. And that means we’ll be growing more slowly in the future.The irony is that these two things — lower growth now and lower growth in the future — means that our debt-to-GDP ratio won’t improve, it will get worse. So even if you were foolish enough to think that the debt-to-GDP ratio is the main determinant of future prosperity — which it’s not — the Romney agenda will fail. Ifayomi - Stiglitz fails to mention that Obama has no plans to cut the US military which is part of the $1 TRILLION annual expenditure on the US' national security apparatus.  This is actually the key to solving the US budget deficit, not cutting unemployment benefits or even Medicare. This is the giant elephant in the budget deficit room, however neither candidate dares, or for that matter wants to, slash the massively overblown military Industrial complex that is sucking money from the kind of government spending the US needs, on education, skills and training, non-military research and development, infrastructure, the environment etc. The other issue neither will talk about is the offshoring of US jobs by US corporations which is central to the gutting of the US middle class and the stagnation of median earnings in the US since the early 1970s. For Afrikans and most other US citizens The US economy will be bad under Obama and disastrous under Romney. The idea that Romney, a hedge fund director who specialised in gutting companies to sell off the pieces, and slashing pay, jobs and worker's rights will reinvigorate US employment is a joke unless you mean low paid, part-time unstable employment. 

Housing - Stiglitz - Housing policy has been a big disappointment. But compared to Bush, who didn’t do anything, and the Republicans, who haven’t proposed anything — Romney has been totally silent on the issue — at least Obama did something. So I am disappointed, but it represents a small step forward rather than zero. And I am worried that under Romney we will go back to the kind of deregulatory environment where we allow the banks to exploit our homeowners once again. Ifayomi - I agree with Stiglitz. Obama has not done much, but it has been better than nothing and Romney literally offers nothing.

Social Policy - This is the area of biggest difference in terms of domestic policy. Romney is not anywhere as 'conservative' as he makes out. He has had to 'evolve' his positions to assuage the Evangelical base of the Republican party who were highly suspicious of him as a fancy dan East Coast Republican who is a Mormon to boot (a Christian sect viewed by many US evangelicals as a cult) during the race for the Republican nomination. Romney is basically a pragmatist on these issues. He will support whatever policies will shore up his base and give him the best chance of being elected. The two high profile social policy issues in this election are gay marriage and abortion. Neither candidate is going to gain or lose too much on these issues since the vital undecided voters in the crucial swing states (Ohio, Florida etc) are more likely to vote on economic issues than social policy issues.

The Environment -
The recent hurricane Sandy has raised the profile of climate change and may have swung the election in President Obama's favour.  The Republican Party is full of climate change sceptics to outright deniers and so Romney will do nothing to address this issue if elected other than to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction and lift restrictions on drilling and fracking (A slang term for hydraulic fracturing) and whatever else takes the energy industry's fancy. As with many issues Obama talks a much better game than he delivers, however he may at least try to halt the increase in carbon emissions.

Conclusion
That's it. I hope you have found my review of the US Presidential elections useful. You can compare my take on the candidates to that you see on the corporate media and take note of not only what they say, but also what they don't say. The one thing that is certain is that the next four years are going to be very tough for most Afrikans in the US. 'Latinos/Hispanics' are now the No. 1 'minority' group in the US and other groups such as 'Jews' and gays have far more organisation and political  clout.  Dr Claud Anderson warned of the likelihood of African-Americans becoming a permanent underclass in the US by 2010 and his predictions are coming to fruition.  You can catch one of his lectures here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j2Y0qjEom0&feature=related
Sadly the things we need to do - co-operate economically, form stable relationships, communicate across generations, reconnect with Afrika and our Afrikaness - become more difficult during an economic depression, when stress, anxiety, worry and even depression cloud our thinking and keep our eyes on the short-term and not on 'The Prize'.  No US President (of whatever hue or gender) is going to save you or me, however we can save each other.  


2. My new book, 'What's Love got to do with it - Seven Steps to Solving the Crisis in Black Male/Female Relationships', is out as hard copy today at  http://www.createspace.com/4036666 for $14.99 and  will be available in Kindle format and on http://www.amazon.com in 5-7 days. It's $7.99 on Kindle and you can download it as a PDF from my website http://www.houseofknowledge.org.uk for £4.99. The book is 292 pages in hard copy format.


That's it. Keep spreading the word. Remember, if you like what we do, support what we do... because those that don't, won't!

Best Wishes


Ifayomi
http://www.houseofknowledge.org.uk


CONNECT WITH US


CONTACT US


Navig8or Press
58 Sunnydale Road
Bakersfield
- Nottingham, - Nottinghamshire - NG3 7GG
United Kingdom

Add us to your address book


SHARE THIS EMAIL




Copyright © 2012 Navig8or Press, All rights reserved.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp