The Trustbuster

…because if we here at TheTrustbuster.com didn’t, he’d be totally getting screwed even harder. I’m just glad Mr. Claire Quilty got off the damn Hillary wagon. Can we get some democracy in this bitch?

by Joel Woodman

For months Barack Obama has insisted that, “Change is coming to America.” Obama’s opponents have suggested that the use of this term resembles nothing more than a shallow political platitude, and they emphasize the fact that this verbal abstraction has been previously employed by a number of Republican and Democratic candidates alike. There is a bit of truth to these claims, but I do believe Barack Obama has the capability to initiate a shift in this country away from the willful illusions that have plagued this nation for more than 30 years. So much has been made of his call for change, that the discussion of his strongest quality has taken a back seat in the political debate. His visions for change are certainly worth our attention, but in my humble opinion, the United States needs to first change the perception of itself, if it has any chance to change its course. I believe Barack Obama has an innate quality that all the other political candidates running for President do not have. That difference is simply in his image.

It must be noted that Hillary Clinton also represents an obvious shift in the American image, but this I feel is overshadowed by her political legacy as a Clinton. Consider for a moment that if Hillary Clinton is elected President, a member of the Bush or Clinton family will have continually occupied the White House for almost 3 decades. New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof has made note of this, and points out that if Hillary Clinton were to be elected, “about 40 percent of Americans will have lived their entire lives under a president from one of these two families.” In light of this, the United States has certainly had a history of political dynasties (Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys), but as U.S. News columnist Michael Barone has noted, “John Quincy Adams was elected president 24 years after his father had been defeated and as a candidate from a different party”, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected 14 years after the death of his distant cousin Teddy. Hillary Clinton’s image is more than just the latest example of political dynasticism, it appears that she and her husband are operating under the assumption that Hillary has somehow earned the position of Commander in Chief, and that it’s simply the Clinton’s turn back in the White House to finish what they started.

The importance of image in politics is not an original concept, but in the case of Barack Obama, I believe it deserves some added attention. Atlantic Monthly writer Andrew Sullivan points out that what Obama offers, “first and foremost- is his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan.” To understand why image was so “central” to Ronald Reagan, we need to travel back to the late 70’s, and illustrate the story of a country still reeling from the loss of Vietnam, in the midst of a recession, and crippled by an uncertain future. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter, in his now infamous “Crisis of Confidence” speech insisted that,

“What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath, by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.”

He concluded that:

“First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this Nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.”

Carter’s speech highlights the fact that the United States has perpetually suffered from the same afflictions for many years; we are simply very good at prolonging the malady. Carter realized that the foreign policy of United States created a militaristic disaster in Vietnam, a host of geopolitical liabilities around the globe, and in turn those mistakes had spawned substantial domestic instability. He believed that if the country would be able to rebound from this unfortunate reality, it would require a new look at ourselves. This shift would ultimately facilitate a move away from the conventional wisdom and demand an element of personal sacrifice on the domestic front. But to his presidential challenger Ronald Reagan, the United States was simply in the midst of what he called, the “Vietnam Syndrome”, an era defined by extraneous feelings of remorse and uncertainty about the American image. In his book, The New American Militarism, Andrew Bacevich has noted that, “Carter came to view that funk as an expression of a new reality, to which Americans had little choice but to adapt themselves. To others the sour mood enveloping the country suggested opportunity… All that was required was a figure astute enough to recognize that opportunity…Ronald Reagan was such a figure.”

Today it is not uncommon for the image of Ronald Reagan to be viewed as one of national idolatry, and for many conservatives he represents the embodiment of American idealism and a reminder of nobility that defined the post WWII period and the formative years of the “baby boom” generation. It was believed that behind his potent, ebony- colored eyes laid a sanguine vision and a distant wisdom that seemed to pierce through the morose period of the post Vietnam era. Above all, Ronald Reagan was a consummate Cold Warrior and feared that the post Vietnam era might be defined by a lack of interest in the US policing of the world from Communist aggression, thus creating widespread opposition to future US military intervention abroad. With this in mind, Reagan facilitated a reformation of the American War in Vietnam narrative, in hopes of redefining it as not a “tragedy”, but “in truth, a noble cause”. Following Reagan’s victory over President Carter, Reagan proclaimed, “The era of self-doubt is over… Let friend and foe alike be made aware of the spirit that is sweeping across our land, because it means we will meet our responsibility to the free world.”

As a career actor, Reagan played the role of American spokesperson quite well and successfully reestablished the image of the noble superpower back into the national psyche. By reframing the post Vietnam era he disabled future generations from understanding that the United States left Vietnam to find itself politically, morally and economically bankrupt at home. The inability to recall that history allowed the US to continue its global hegemonic desires for the next 30 years, ultimately fueling the kind of thinking that propelled the United States into its most current conflict in Iraq. It has taken over 3 decades for the country to be reacquainted with a moment that exposes this reality, the only question now is: Will this nation choose to embrace the truth, or will it continue in its willful self-delusion?

Flashing forward to January 3rd of this year, Presidential hopeful John McCain, when asked about President Bush’s insistence on the presence of US troops in Iraq for “another 50 years”, McCain responded by saying, “why not make it a hundred?” He went on to remind the crowd that the US has maintained military bases in Korea since WWII. McCain asserted that, “it would be fine with me” to maintain bases in Iraq as long as American troops were not being harmed. McCain represents what journalist Matt Taibbi has called, “the last great illusion the Republican party has left to sell in this country.” McCain’s message of “Onward to Victory” represents an idea born out of the Cold War- that our intentions abroad are still defined by an inherent sense of nobility and righteousness. Taibbi points out that John McCain’s candidacy is a “referendum on America’s fantastic self-image when it comes to our use of force. He is offering voters the chance to re-litigate these failures (both militarily and morally) in Vietnam and Iraq.”

It must be said that I have quite a bit of respect for John McCain. I have personally visited the prison in which he was confined and tortured for over 5 years in Vietnam, and any man that could endure such hell deserves respect from us all. But with all due respect, John McCain represents the wrong image of America. That image only serves as a catalyst for anti-Americanism abroad; it implies that the preservation of our national security state is still warranted; and most importantly, it justifies the notion that American militarism must remain at the core of our national ethos.

Like Reagan, Obama has the potential to “re-brand” the current geo-political situation for the United States and for the rest of the world. Only this time the message will not be uttered from the mouth of a political thespian and its outcome will not be one of military escalation and the continuation of an historical fantasy. His name is Barack Hussein Obama, and he is the son of an African Muslim. Obama’s face is, above all, black; and as Andrew Sullivan has noted, “If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.” If given the opportunity, Barack Obama has the greatest potential of any candidate to change the tide in a sea of anti-Americanism abroad. His face alone makes him accessible to parts of the world that have largely gone uncharted by past American presidents. With this access he could actually influence the moderate voices in the Islamic world; who until this point have remained in opposition to US foreign policy for obvious reasons associated with the current administration. He represents the hope that a generation from now, young Muslims will no longer deem it necessary to sow the seeds of hatred against the “Great Satan” or rally against the destructive influence of American hegemony.

Domestically speaking Barack Obama has the message and sincerity of Jimmy Carter, but possesses the strength of image reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. With this ability, perhaps Obama can inspire a generation of Americans to create what Martin Luther King called a “decent America”: nation that embraces hope instead of fear. A nation that acknowledges the ruinous momentum of its foreign policy. A nation that understands the degree to which our institutions of economics and government have been undermined. A nation that recognizes that the prosperity of its people can also be measured by the strength of its education and the health of its citizens. A nation that embraces its empathetic ethos and not the selfish nature of its character. And lastly, a nation that will one day afford its children an opportunity to view the succession of American Presidential faces with a sense of gratitude, and that they will be able to clearly recognize when the American shift began toward a better future.

Will this country allow Barack Obama the opportunity to change the image of the United States? Is he the kind of person that can unite this country around his image and initiate something different, something that can break through the divisive walls that reinforce our current national self-concept? Are we at a point in our society where we can hear a bit of truth and not respond with willful disdain? Or is it inevitable that all great powers eventually fall from grace while the people continue to delude themselves as to the causes of their national hardships, and scoff at those who insist on amending the course? The answer is of course unknown at this point, but one has to hope. That is after all why people bother to vote, go door to door, and give what little they have in support of someone they will never meet. It is hope that sustains me today in this dismal time in America. A vote for Obama is above all, a vote for hope.

Celebrity Culture is just high-school with money.  I think I’ll just drop out.

Love,

Gunther Carlsbad–your Senior Misanthrope Corespondent

    Who cares about the New England Patriots cheating?  “Cheat to win” is our society’s real credo.  Everybody, or almost everybody at the top tier of our Western culture cheated to get where they are.  Athletes, business men, politicians.  The real question we should be asking ourselves is why do we care what, let’s say, an athlete says or does?  Most of us went to high-school.  Jocks are dicks.   Of course they’re going to cheat and act like assholes.  Why do we take our social and moral cues from people like that?  We shouldn’t look up to the President.  He’s not a man of the people.  He doesn’t care about the toils of regular folk.  The point is, we have no real role models in this society.

Love,

Gunther Carlsbad–your Senior Misanthrope Corespondent

Have you ever had Mexican food? Its delicious. Any group of people who can come up with food like that have to be good people. If you like Mexican food, then you like Mexicans. I’m tired of hearing people complain about Mexicans during their burrito lunches. Shut the fuck up already.

Love,

Gunther Carlsbad—your Senior Misanthrope Corespondent