By Andrew W Taylor
With regard to American Electoral Politics, I hope there is a conceptual difference in approach between McCain and Obama on "national security", but first I'd like to ask about how US foreign policy has always defined "national security", I think the very term emerges from an ideologically distorted imperialist newspeak where powers deemed to be in any way contrary to US global domination are "threats" or "rogue states". As US history post WW 1 shows us, this has involved scores of coups, invasions, nuclear blackmail, military occupations, and economic destabilizations of sovereign states. This is the tableau, the ideologically corrupted background which McCain and Obama both accept merely by virtue of running for the US presidency. I do think Obama sincerely wants to be more "diplomatic" i.e. a "nice boss" to the World. I believe he wants to re-define some cases of terrorism as criminality rather than as a matter for a State of War. I think this is a preferable way of managing the US Empire. But he will still be the Head of the Imperium -- he will be The Boss and bosses are bullies when the power disparity between them and their subordinates is so vast.
Both McCain and Obama seem to support some Post-Gitmo mechanism for US Captives to challenge their (illegal) incarcaration . Both favour some sort of judicial status discernment process. For McCain, the military would oversee hearings; for Obama, federal judges would be the overseers. This seems to me to be a question where Obama's point is marginally better, but I do not see Obama and McCain as ideologically at opposite vantage points.
The problem is not which politician should ascend to the imperial presidency, the problem is the imperial presidency itself.
With regard to American Electoral Politics, I hope there is a conceptual difference in approach between McCain and Obama on "national security", but first I'd like to ask about how US foreign policy has always defined "national security", I think the very term emerges from an ideologically distorted imperialist newspeak where powers deemed to be in any way contrary to US global domination are "threats" or "rogue states". As US history post WW 1 shows us, this has involved scores of coups, invasions, nuclear blackmail, military occupations, and economic destabilizations of sovereign states. This is the tableau, the ideologically corrupted background which McCain and Obama both accept merely by virtue of running for the US presidency. I do think Obama sincerely wants to be more "diplomatic" i.e. a "nice boss" to the World. I believe he wants to re-define some cases of terrorism as criminality rather than as a matter for a State of War. I think this is a preferable way of managing the US Empire. But he will still be the Head of the Imperium -- he will be The Boss and bosses are bullies when the power disparity between them and their subordinates is so vast.
Both McCain and Obama seem to support some Post-Gitmo mechanism for US Captives to challenge their (illegal) incarcaration . Both favour some sort of judicial status discernment process. For McCain, the military would oversee hearings; for Obama, federal judges would be the overseers. This seems to me to be a question where Obama's point is marginally better, but I do not see Obama and McCain as ideologically at opposite vantage points.
The problem is not which politician should ascend to the imperial presidency, the problem is the imperial presidency itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment