On Friday night, Keith Olbermann announced during his MSNBC program, Countdown, that it was his last show. There is much speculation that his departure is related to the approval of the merger of NBC and Comcast, as Olbermann was a highly visible public critic of media consolidation. If the Internet reports that I have seen are accurate, he has also frequently engaged in rather strident criticisms of prominent political figures, which, although often legitimate, tend to trouble employers who rely upon these same people to facilitate regulatory approvals.

Although I didn't watch his show very much, and found his Witchfinder General routine with Sarah Palin tiresome, I've always had a fond spot for Olbermann. Back when I used to watch a lot of professional sports on cable back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I enjoyed Olbermann's cool, ironic demeanor on ESPN. Curiously enough, he was low-key when other announcers were hyperbolic and he consciously punctured the machismo stereotypes associated with professional athletes. On a cable network centered around inflating the social significance of professional sporting events to the point of entertainment absurdity, Olbermann went against the grain, implicitly reminding us that, in the end, it's just a game, and, often, a ridiculous one.

So, I wasn't that surprised when ESPN and Olbermann parted company, although his departure was allegedly prompted more by his substance abuse problems and prima donna antics away from the camera. He was an incongruous presence among a stable of predominately male announcers who generally came across as people channeling their failed childhood desires to become professional athletes themselves into sports broadcasting. Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered that Olbermann had resurfaced on MSNBC, infusing American politics with the same exaggerated hysteria that he had so deliberately rejected while working at ESPN.

His supporters called him an heir to the journalistic tradition of Edward R. Murrow, mistaking style for substance, and, even there, Murrow never launched the sort of strident condemnations for which Olbermann became both notorious and wealthy (it is rumored that he will receive the remaining 30 million dollars on his two year contract with MSNBC). In that, they have done Morrow and Olbermann a disservice. For Olbermann, it appears that he lost any sense of restraint as evidenced in his recent commentaries about Palin and, just before he was taken off the air, the upcoming retirement of Joseph Lieberman. Calling one of the most powerful political figures in the US a delusional liar, one known for using his personal influence to punish his perceived enemies, is not a good career move if you want to remain in the the rarified air of high visibility and lucrative compensation.

But, as someone engaging in a rare instance of media criticism from the left, I have a simpler problem with Olbermann, one that has not elicited much comment. His evaluation of Lieberman was misguided, and, as with Palin, obscured the reality of social conflict in the US. Yet again, Olbermann provided us with another characterization of Lieberman as a political rogue, a mercenary who has cynically manipulated the political system to achieve his grotesque goals. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I have explained on several occasions, such as, for example, here and here. Lieberman is no sociopathic rogue, but, rather, a person who has, with the assistance of others, reshaped the Democratic Party in his own image.

Hence, Lieberman can now safely retire, having achieved his life's ambition. US foreign policy remains rabidly pro-Zionist, and continues to pursue policies of regime change (in Iran, Honduras, and Venezuela), with recourse to military force if necessary (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and, possibly, in the near future Iran). It recognizes no legal or national constraints upon its actions, reserving the right to seize, incarcerate and attack people in response to any real or manufactured threat. Domestically, the US has adopted economic policies designed to concentrate consumption in the top 20% of the population, while the remainder of the populace is subjected to more and more insecurity through the evisceration of social welfare spending and job benefits. All of these policies have been implemented by a Democratic President, and, until January 2011, through a Democratic Congress. Going forward, they will be perpetuated through bipartisanship masked by stage managed confrontation between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Instead of addressing this, Olbermann took the easier path: characterizing the problems faced by the US as a consequence of our inability to confront the deranged personalities that we have elevated into positions of authority and influence. Such an approach made for good ratings, and, by extension, good compensation for Olbermann, but failed to engage the pernicious truth about the American socioeconomic system. Perhaps, Olbermann recognized the limitations of working within the mainstream media, and tried to induce us to think in this way as best he could by implication, and if so, I respect the effort. His sort of urbane populism may have been the limit of what can be expressed through the commercial media. Maybe, this will be liberating for Olbermann, but only if he finds a way to take NBC/Comcast's money and discover a new voice for himself outside the commercial mainstream.

Labels: "War on Terror", American Empire, Joseph Lieberman, Liberals, Mainstream Media, Neoliberalism

How many times does this have to happen before people figure it out?

Labels: Barack Obama, Democrats, Joseph Lieberman, Neoliberalism, Second Reagan Revolution, Sub-Proletarianization of America

Surprise, surprise, the President and Joseph Lieberman are on the same page when it comes to abandoning the public option, and, thus, any prospect of meaningful health care reform. It is therefore a good time to reflect on the fact that, contrary to what many Democrats believe, Joseph Lieberman remains front and center when it comes to setting the policy agenda for the Democratic Party.

Labels: American Empire, Barack Obama, Democrats, Joseph Lieberman, Neoliberalism

Of course, the Kossacks over at Daily Kos, as well as the FDLs over at firedoglake, are, with a few exceptions, enraged that the Joe Lieberman has been permitted to retain his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security committee. Yet again, we are treated to that classic liberal binary opposition, that terrible Joe Lieberman versus those wishy washy Senators who just can't stand up to his bullying, manipulative practices. If only they would spend the 99 cents and buy the body building kit advertised for sale in the back pages of their EC comic.

There's only one problem. There's no truth to it. As I explained when the congressional Democrats approved funding for the Iraq war in late March of 2007 with the assistance of openly antiwar representatives:

. . . . a brief consideration of the career of Joseph Lieberman is instructive. He entered politics as an opponent of the Vietnam War, but, by 1988, he successfully ran to the right of liberal Republican Lowell Weicker to win a seat in the Senate. Weicker personified two evils: he was too dovish on foreign policy, and his style, if allowed to go national, implicitly threatened elites by appealing to people across party lines.

Ned Lamont presented a similar threat last year, and prominent Democratic Senators like Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer answered Lieberman's fire alarm for assistance. Lieberman is frequently reviled for being a turncoat, a hypocrite, but he is, in fact, a visionary, he anticipated the current political landscape of the country, and, indeed, the world, before the Cold War ended and has played an essential role in shaping it. Unlike other liberals, who feign opposition to neoconservative policy, while facilitating the funding of it, Lieberman expresses his support for it unabashedly.

So, there is nothing surprising about Lieberman's retention, because, campaign antics aside, he remains firmly within the flexible center of Democratic politics in support of military neoliberalism at home and abroad. Again, as I explained back in March 2007:

Given the choice between energizing a populist movement for the fulfillment of domestic needs instead of using 9/11 for colonial intervention, liberals, at best, selected the course of ineffectual, theatrical opposition. Even the catastrophe of Katrina did not cause them to question their core belief that populism presents a grave social threat to the preservation of the American system, so much so that the international state violence of the neoconservatives is begrudgingly accepted. If one accepts the controversial premise that military neoliberalism is now the only plausible means of enforcing a US inspired global economic system that prioritizes the privileges of finance capital above all human concerns, they may well be correct.

It is essential to observe that Lieberman and President-elect Obama share a commitment to a post-partisan politics based upon consensus and the need to end the politics of division and distraction. Not surprisingly, Obama communicated his wish to Senate Democrats that Lieberman remain in the Democratic caucus, making it difficult to impose any sanction upon him.

It is also essential to recognize, that, in the current environment, there is only avenue available for such an approach, the one already mapped by Lieberman. But if you want to challenge the privileges of finance capital, reduce the US global military presence by, among other things, deescalating the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and reinvest the proceeds within the American economy, then polarization is the only way forward. So far, the only indication is that Lieberman and Obama are still political soulmates, even if their personal relationship has become problematic.

Labels: American Empire, Barack Obama, Democrats, Joseph Lieberman, Neoliberalism

For a man often described by liberals as a dry drunk, a man born on third base, an insensitive lout, President Bush is actually pretty smart. After 9/11, he realized that he could manipulate the crackpot realism of American liberals to concentrate more and more power within himself.

Nothing has distracted him from doing so to greater and greater effect. Bad poll numbers, adverse election results, public scorn . . Bush knows that none of these things alter the fundamental reality of American politics. Liberals value the symbolic over the substantive, indeed, they fear substantive political dialogue of of any kind. Hence, Bush has acted with the confidence that liberals will choose meaningless gestures to avoid challenging him, no matter how unpopular he becomes.

Last week, House Democrats, more specifically, the liberals in the Out of Iraq caucus, had one last chance to prove Bush wrong by denying him the funds he needs to perpetuate the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. They could have also exposed his intention of attacking Iran. Of course, in the end, they did neither. While retaining the privilege of voting against the bill themselves, they urged others to provide the necessary votes for passage.

Ever fearful of the unknown, of the prospect that the populace would seize control of issues related to war and peace from more hawkish elites, even the liberals of the Out of Iraq caucus did what was required to get the bill passed. Votes of specific House members against the bill were cosmetic, not just because some of them, like Woolsey, Watson, Lee and Waters, actively urged others to vote for it, but also because members were probably released to vote against the bill once Pelosi had the 218 votes needed for approval. Amazingly, representative Barbara Lee actually had a town hall meeting against the Iraq war in Oakland the day after she lobbied other members to vote to continue to fund it!

For those of us resistant to the temptations of self-delusion, the outcome was predictable, but still shocking, shocking because people otherwise known for their relative political integrity immolated themselves. Such an immolation was predestined by the conduct of most liberals since 9/11, and the record is consistent. Any attempt to mobilize the general public against war, against violent assaults upon the peoples and cultures of other countries, against the erosion of our civil liberties must, at all costs, be suppressed.

Given the choice between energizing a populist movement for the fulfillment of domestic needs instead of using 9/11 for colonial intervention, liberals, at best, selected the course of ineffectual, theatrical opposition. Even the catastrophe of Katrina did not cause them to question their core belief that populism presents a grave social threat to the preservation of the American system, so much so that the international state violence of the neoconservatives is begrudgingly accepted. If one accepts the controversial premise that military neoliberalism is now the only plausible means of enforcing a US inspired global economic system that prioritizes the privileges of finance capital above all human concerns, they may well be correct.

Along these lines, a brief consideration of the career of Joseph Lieberman is instructive. He entered politics as an opponent of the Vietnam War, but, by 1988, he successfully ran to the right of liberal Republican Lowell Weicker to win a seat in the Senate. Weicker personified two evils: he was too dovish on foreign policy, and his style, if allowed to go national, implicitly threatened elites by appealing to people across party lines.

Ned Lamont presented a similar threat last year, and prominent Democratic Senators like Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer answered Lieberman's fire alarm for assistance. Lieberman is frequently reviled for being a turncoat, a hypocrite, but he is, in fact, a visionary, he anticipated the current political landscape of the country, and, indeed, the world, before the Cold War ended and has played an essential role in shaping it. Unlike other liberals, who feign opposition to neoconservative policy, while facilitating the funding of it, Lieberman expresses his support for it unabashedly.

MoveON.org has been one of my personal obssessions, but it is important to understand its centrality in preventing the emergence of an empowered antiwar movement. It has done so by calculated appeals to liberal pragmatism in relation to the electoral process. Sensing opportunity, MoveON.org organized against the invasion of Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 on the slender pretext that it hadn't been authorized by the UN, as if to suggest that the colonial enterprise would have otherwise been acceptable. It participated in protest marches as part of a broader strategy to exploit antiwar sentiment to expand membership, while simultaneously limiting criticism of the impending conflict to the methodology of approval instead of the more compelling immorality of it.

The Iraqis? They were rarely, if ever, mentioned. Focusing upon the lack of UN authorization enabled grassroots liberals to subsequently support the occupation as questions related to the launching of the war were now considered irrelevant. It was a crude, but necessary finesse. Post-invasion, the Iraqis remained invisible, as the new mantra was Support the Troops.

Iraqis had died, and continued to die, in large numbers, with those still living lacking food, shelter, electricity and an uncontaminated water supply, but the new emphasis was about the extent to which the occupying force lacked sufficient body armour. Visitors to the MoveON.org website in 2004 and 2005 were subjected to a politically expedient fetishization of the military that, after repeated encounters, induced nausea. Removing the troops and liberating the Iraqis from the predations of the occupation was apparently not congruent with the objective of electing more Democrats.

Support the Troops is therefore one of the most insidiously effective advertising slogans in recent memory. It satisfied the legitimate motivation of people to empathize with the plight of soldiers in Iraq, while, paradoxically, enabling Democratic politicians, including liberals, to perpetuate the occupation. Or, to be more precise, people experienced the emotional release of remorse, while ensuring that there was no change in policy. Meanwhile, plans for the privatization of the Iraqi economy, and transnational control over the Iraqi oil supply, elicited little comment, except among global justice advocates. Support the Troops additionally served the essential purpose of concealing bipartisan support for the planned neoliberal transformation of Iraqi society.

The consequences of this success are dire. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have fled the country and the US military is being destroyed by politicians who refuse to extract it before the command and control structure is shattered. It is a defeat so calamitous, so impossible to acknowledge, that the only solution is to expand the war to Iran and beyond. A more violent confrontation is required to conceal the stain of failure, even if the outcome is likely to be the end of US hegemony. Was it ever possible to peaceably scale back the American Empire? We will never know, but we do know that American liberals are among those responsible for excluding the possibility.

Labels: "Support the Troops", Activism, Bush, Democrats, Joseph Lieberman, Liberals, MoveON.org, Neoliberalism, Occupation of Iraq, War with Iran