Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Is Who Becomes the Next President All That Matters?

By Danny Schechter, AlterNet. Posted May 14, 2008.


In many ways, Mao was right: The occupant of the oval office is a paper tiger.
Advertisement

BERLIN, MAY 13, 2008 -- I know. I know. How this is the most important election in history, and why the next occupant of the White House will not only be answering the red phone at 3 a.m. but possibly be saving these not always United States from the decline that even Time magazine has announced the country is facing.

Yet, as I travel outside the country, I can’t help but feel, or is it fear, that this logic leaves out some rather important considerations.

Like the fact that the United States cannot unilaterally impose its will on the world anymore as our dollar falls and our credibility falls with it. Even a strategy of negotiation as opposed to confrontation is not a recipe for success because in a multipolar world, other countries and power blocs like the Russians, the Chinese, the EU, the Persian Gulf and OPEC have their own interests. They will listen to our proposals but may reject them if they are at variance with their own needs.

We just don’t have the power to impose our will even as we still suffer from “the USA is No. 1” syndrome and think that we can kick ass and take names if anyone stands in our way.

Whoever becomes president may not have the power he or she assumes goes with the office. (In fact, after the fact, in their memoirs, most presidents complain they often felt powerless, besieged by lobbyists, party factions and reticent bureaucrats at every turn. They see themselves constrained by institutional obstacles at every turn.)

In many ways, Mao was right, the occupant of the oval office is a paper tiger.

In this new world, if we want others to do our bidding, we can’t threaten to obliterate them or strut around like Mighty Mouse when so many in the world see us as the Mouse that Roared.

So many of our problems today are global and shared by others. Globalization has assured that. We are all impacted by global threats like climate change, escalating food prices, world hunger, endemic poverty and pandemic disease that the White House can’t wave a magic wand to cure. Sadly, most Americans are not educated about these issues, and the press downplays them.

Even when we cause problems, like the mortgage collapse, markets worldwide feel the pain in an internationally entangled financial system where we are dependent on monies from China. Meanwhile, others invest in the United States to keep their own profits up and compete with our companies on our home ground.

Sure, we are a militarily powerful but apparently not powerful or smart enough to subdue Iraq or Afghanistan after five years. Our warriors on terror have yet to capture Bin Laden or even neutralize the Taliban. The truth is the Democratic candidates don’t think they can tell the military what to do and so have withdrawal plans that will take years. That’s the reality.

The military industrial complex often has a mind of its own

And so does Wall Street, which won’t take marching orders from any president. Both Clinton and Bush turned to Goldman Sachs to run the Treasury, and it’s not clear if their former execs were ambassadors to The Street or from the Street. Financial power trumps political power in a country dominated by a corporate system.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: united states president, election08, obama, clinton, presidential politics

Danny Schechter writes a blog for MediaChannel.org. He is the author of "Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception: How the Media Failed to Cover the War on Iraq" (Prometheus).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The powers gained by the president are as important as the power lost by the nation
Posted by: Rune on May 14, 2008 1:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under Bush's theory of the unitary executive the presidency has taken on an expansive and largely unchecked role. None of the leading presidential candidates has vowed to undo most or all of the over reaching Bush has made routine. That spells a perpetual loss of citizens rights and the protections necessary to use them, no matter which of the three is elected -- if we limit ourselves to choosing from the corporate approved candidates on offer.

Yes, yes, I know I am supposed to be excited about the prospect that a Democrat will pick some better judges than a Republican, but when I consider the point I just made, above, I am not so sure the differences will be so positive in that respect either. Besides, with the judiciary and the Justice Department already packed with corporate fascists and loyal (i.e., corrupt) Bushies, the effect will be one of slow and slight dilution of a mucky cesspool at best.

I just can't help but agree with the author's hunch that we need to be putting our attention and hopes for change on something other than the next presidential election when we can see that the fix is in, one way or another, though. So, what are we gonna do with the lousy hand we are being dealt? Rise up? I don't see it. Play along? For how long? We need change, yes we do, but change is hard. No one really likes making big changes, so what is it that these politicians are really selling when they have everyone buying into the notion they will be bringing loads of change our way?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corrupt Power
Posted by: jim_altman on May 14, 2008 3:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect for Lord Acton's dictum, the present occupants of the White House were absolutely corrupted long before they approached absolute power. It remains to be seen if there was any motive beyond pure greed behind the political engine that has driven the last 7-plus years, but a paper tiger? I think not. Even now, with approval ratings heading for single digits, Mr. Bush and company still hold the world in an iron grip, even though they seem to have no clue how to exercise that power other than for Warren Harding-Style, crass, naked graft. Goldman Sachs has not been running the treasury. If it were, there would be money in it, as when Robert Rubin was in charge. The latest media canard, that Donald Rumsfeld was somehow duped into his Machiavellian fantasies by a room full of over-eager fascist generals is more revisionist history. We have been witnesses to an incredible concentration and maintenance of presidential power in these two terms, but have still to see if there was any method at all to this madness other than grand larceny. Now,whether or not we get to actually have a new President come January 2009 is as good a question for us as it has been in Pakistan, Russia, Burma, or Zimbabwe. The present "paper tiger" may have already taken away that option.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHOME EVER WINS ,THEY WILL ALL STILL DO WHAT THEY
Posted by: mindtrvlr on May 14, 2008 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ARE TOLD TO DO BY THE ACTUAL RULLING CLASS IN THE COUNTRY. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY..
tHE RULING OLIGARCHY CONTROLS ALL PARTYS...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can't expect a broken system to right itself
Posted by: Farasien on May 14, 2008 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many people that honestly believe that a change in the guard in the US government is going to change alot. As the article states, and very well, I might add, it won't. I'll go a step further and say that only way you can fix a system so overladen with corruption and waste, as our government so damn clearly is, is to replace it. There is a time when a disease has gotten so severe that a doctor can't do much but ease the dying patient's pain. We're in that situation. The international bankers bought the government when they replaced its right to issue its own currency. Ever since then, we've only deepened their level of control and lessened our own ability to fight back. At this point, the only thing we can really do, as subjects of the USA is to revolt. Anything short of that won't actually do anything- the puppetmasters have written rules to diffuse the effects of protest and popular voting. Those who work withIN the system are simply playing at a drama, one that has its roots in the illusion that they are free.

...But I suppose the illusion is enough for most people. After all, most people don't yet have reality intruding on the fantasy yet. People are still eating well, living (though on borrowed time) in their over-priced and over-financed homes, working their innane, useless and irrelevant jobs and raising their celebrity-sized and inspired 5+ member families. Questioning anything would bring the role-playing game of american life to an end, so instead of taking care of business, they just keep on playing.

Have fun while it lasts. It'll be game over soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Left's True Agenda
Posted by: ot on May 14, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point of this article that the President of the US has little power to actually implement policies that will address problems - real or imagined - coupled with the quotation from Moa Tsetung is little more than a thinly disguised call for a dictatorship - presumably enlightened, of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Left's True Agenda Posted by: LeeAnnG
» RE: The Left's True Agenda Posted by: perkywa
» RE: The Left's True Agenda Posted by: euthyfro
» let them eat cake Posted by: pfeifer999
What people think
Posted by: LeeAnnG on May 14, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, it does seem that international interests control the economy, which in turn controls much of US politics, foreign policy, and domestic programs.

What's really amazing is that so many people believe that the president has the unilateral right to create and implement laws. Here in West Virginia, I've had an amazing number of people express the fear that Obama will "take away our guns." Most of these are working class people who don't really follow politics. Their beliefs don't even come from the corporate media or rightwing talk shows, and many of the people I've talked to are registered Democrats!

I do a great deal of reading about current events. Much of it is on left-leaning sites like Alternet and CommonDreams and in magazines like The Nation, but some of it is in more mainstream publications like the Washington Post, NY Times, and Reuters. I also watch CNN, the occasional Sunday morning talk show and some of the network news shows. (I can't bring myself to read, watch, or listen to hardcore rightwing rhetoric in any form, except very, very briefly just to prove to myself how absolutely batshit nuts they are.)

In none of the forementioned forums have I ever seen any indication that Obama or any other candidate would "take away our guns." I don't know where this comes from, but it's a pervasive notion among a large number of working Americans. In just the past week, I had a conversation about this topic with a friend who seems to be politically rather uninformed, but tending toward liberal ideas. His concern, however, was the gun issue. I told him that the president, whoever it turns out to be, does not have the power to pass legislation to take anyone's guns away. He seemed surprised.

A lot of people really do believe the president can take office and suddenly fullfill an agenda they may or may not agree with. I believe the truth is much more in keeping with this article. The president may have a great deal of influence, but there are many, many, many Powers That Be who are not in the spotlight who have much more. These are the movers and shakers who work behind the scenes and are not so prominent in the news. I'm not talking about conspiracies or a small cabal of people who "run the world." I'm talking about representatives of large corporations including energy, influential members of congress, lobbyists, organizations like the WTO, and a multitude of individuals and groups who have a great deal of power and money to make things happen to their benefit.

The president of the US is not a very powerful force in comparison. And now that the economic status, influence and reputation of the US is in serious decline, this is probably even more true than ever before. Hope springs eternal, and of course, many of us hope that a new presidency will begin to improve our lives. But that certainly remains to be seen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A "gun" will do no good Posted by: perkywa
Mission Accomplished (for real)
Posted by: Knowmad on May 14, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somewhat off topic, but I wanted this to be in the Altersphere.

CNN--you know, the typical MSM outlet that is promoting the Dem contest as if it's still a race, thus pulling in viewers for their corporate sponsors--has a tool for assigning numbers to each candidate by the remaining primaries and extrapolating the result.

I did it and found that Billary needs to average over 67 percent in the remaining primaries AND the super-delegates to squeak out a win. Oh yeah, that's likely.

Kudos from Canada on doing the right thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paper tiger, huh?
Posted by: willymack on May 14, 2008 11:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mean, like Lincoln, Jackson, T. and F.D. Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, and, sadly and to our everlssting shame, cheney/bush?Those paper tigers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not all that matters, but the single greatest point of leverage
Posted by: weGotCactus on May 14, 2008 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Had Gore taken office:

- no Iraq war
- acknowlegment of and action on global warming instead of denial

That should be enough right there, but there's so much more:

- professionals instead of cronies and ideological hacks in the executive branch agencies. This is where the rubber meets the road (think FEMA, OSHA, Veterans Affairs, HUD, USDA-Forest Service)

- foreign policy largely set by the executive. Who we help (Plan Colombia) who we hinder, and who we ignore has been ceded by Congress to executive preference.

I agree with the author about this: a campaign (and media) that ignore the structural changes impacting our lives is dispiriting, to say the least. But the tone of the article obscures that fact that for many people living on the margins around the globe (Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and traumatized vets in the US) the election of the U.S. president is literally a life-or-death matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is it about "The Matrix's" blue Pill?
Posted by: socrates2 on May 14, 2008 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Farasien and LeeAnnG make their point.
Our corporate state, with corporations as "persons" entitled to human rights, has to a large degree corrupted the political process (campaign contributions to _their_ vetted candidates; we merely (s)"elect" the nicer sounding and looking one; corporations always "win"). It has been handily aided by the military-industrial complex and it's PR machine that is capable of scaring flesh and blood humans into experiencing imaginary enemies as "real" and thus getting them, as voters, to "pressure" their elected officials to pass some wasteful law that leads to war (cold or otherwise), that in turn leads to serious re-arming and taxes to pay for that re-arming. And meanwhile the national infrastructure collapses into a pile of rust.
No tuition-free universities; no new bridges, no new waterworks; no green, renewable energy plants; no green, mass-transit; no bullet-trains; no parks; no re-tooled factories. The proverbial list goes on.
The Congress allowed the Fed (Wall Street) to hijack our national currency and its buying power. So those of us who save this "commodity" are suckers as it loses its value over the years, unless one "invests" with...a Wall Street firm.
But our voters get their cues from television and the rest of the..._corporate_ media.
A few years ago a wonderful allegory about the conditions in this republic hit the screens. It was so clever, if not brilliant. That was the only way to get such a seditious film mass distributed. We watched it and...it went over our heads, "The Matrix." Most people, sadly, have opted to continue on the Blue Pill.
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson spin in their graves...
That's all, folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

INDIFFERENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 14, 2008 2:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It matters very much who's in the oval office. Let's go back to the 2000 election. Is there anyone who doesn't believe that the White House was highjacked. And yes, it certainly made a difference. Eight years later, it still does. The wrong guy ended up in the Oval Office and he is not a 'paper tiger'. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the_big_wedding
Posted by: thebigwedding on May 14, 2008 9:45 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember: no one candidate has stated the he/she will repeal the PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security, NORTHCOM, Military Commission, or even reinvestigate 911.

So, who becomes the next President will determine just what type of dictatorship we will have: a domestic home-grown dictatorship or a dictatorship run from the country of Israel.

As of right now, it would appear that John McCain will be the next President. Based on what we know of McCain's health and mental well-being, he probably will not last as President through his whole term.

If it is "determined" that he will not physically be able to finish our his term, the country would be turned over to Joe Lieberman, the man he had to choose as his Vice-President in order to revive his moribund campaign.

Once Lieberman is President, the infiltration of the DOD, Department of State alluded to by Sibel Edmonds in here classified testimony to congress, will begin wholesale.

If that happens expect full Israeli/neoconservative penetration of Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Executive Branch.

If this happens, this CHEKA-like organization/cabal, reminiscent of the Jewish dominated Trotskyist state police in revolutionary Russia, will systematically begin to disappear, using HR 1955, any who oppose them, whether they are Jewish or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Historians of the Future Will Wonder . . .
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 15, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Historians of the future will wonder why the U.S. public never realized that their government was seized by a military industial complex coup d'etat right after World War Two - that even after a valedictory president warned that it was happening. They will wonder how a county who supposed government was surrounded by 60,000 "lobbyists," and decade after decade, election after election, did nothing of what it promised during supposed political campaigns structured and "spin-doctored" by the MOCKINGBIRD media, didn't catch on. They'll wonder, that is, until they read up on Operation MOCKINGBIRD and the total control of the media - the public's thought processes - has over the nation's reality. Otherwise, anyone who believes that a buffoon like George W. Bush or any of the clown convention we call Congress is trusted by the mega corporations who rule here will flat astonish history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With Barack Obama in the White House...
Posted by: pfeifer999 on May 15, 2008 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....will "the left" (whoever that is) be just as keen to curtail the power of the Executive Branch?

Folks, this trend started with FDR. No President since has left the Presidency with less power.

The place where the fingers should really be pointing is at the Congress --- both houses --- who have traded their authority and responsibility for the ability to be elected indefinitely.

As long as they can point at a Nixon, Carter, Bush or Clinton to shift the blame off themselves, Congress is happy to let the Executive be more powerful. You'd do it too for a job that paid that well, where you only work 90 days out of the entire year.

The country's in the tank? Blame the President, just don't look at my voting record in the House. Don't approve of the wars of empire? Blame the President, he just didn't share all of the intelligence with us in the Senate.

Blame for the rise of Executive power in this country also lies with the citizenry. If you're content to keep on electing the same crew of 535 mostly self-serving hacks to represent you in Washington, rather than change parties and shake things up, you deserve the stagnation that we've seen in Washington for the last 30 years.

It's time to sweep away the two party system and stop voting along party lines. Vote for the candidate who will use the office properly, or is willing to get ousted trying.

If you're registered with a political party, un-register TODAY and declare yourself Independent.....

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

severinagrammatica
Posted by: severinagrammatica on May 16, 2008 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It can't be emphasized enough that no matter who becomes the "most powerful figure in the world," what really matters is decisive support in Congress. And with whom the president surrounds him/herself. I emphasized this to a Brit I conversed with yesterday.
A Democrat is a desideratum, certainly--because he or she will have the opportunity, probably, to even out the unbalanced Supreme Court.
So voters should pay solid attention to congressional races around the country. So far, in the realm of special elections, they are doing well as their opposition begins to worry. More energy should be devoted to these individual races.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you Danny Schechter.
Posted by: kentigereyes@yahoo.com on May 16, 2008 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though your truth hurts, people gotta hear it. To my limited knowledge, no country has ever been #1 forever. The United States of Arrogance fails to acknowledge this fact. And this country is now headed for something it has zero protection against. Another country will become #1. So What!!!!!!! The way I see it, mankind has failed the experiment and Mother Nature is going to kick our butts off of her. She does not need man to survive. Adios my brothers and sisters, Ken

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IIT DOES, ABSOLUTELY !
Posted by: hadashito on May 16, 2008 4:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Cheney/Rove/Byush criminal cabal corrupted the entire apparatus of our government by loading up all the cabinet offices, the deparments, the agencies, the SCOTUS, the IRS, and - - well, just about everthing that runs in DC - - with their fellow criminal cronies, neocons, and flunkies, and it took only about one term of the Cheney admimistration do it, another administration can reverse it all, dammit - - and largely in one term or less.
I might well take a larger majority of Democrats in both Houses of Congress along with a Dem president and a public that will be willing to tell the MSM, which will likely snipe away at reforms, to go soak their heads, but it should work. Just about everyone, outside the now deeply corrupt Republican Party and their most avid supporters, are asking for it. Voters seem quite ready to boot the criminals out of the legislature in November. And if it takes two election cycles, so be it.
But the cynical remarks of my fellow commenters (above) won't make anything happen. Yes, the government has always harbored crooks and miscreants in both parties, but by and large, the system has worked well for most Americans - - MOST, I emphasize because the Afro-American population must still fight for equality (and are achieving it, but very slowly) and the American Indians, many of whom are now getting back at the "white" people by appealing to their worst weaknesses - - gambling and cigarettes - - are forging ahead by their own initiatives despite a corrupt Indian Agency in DC. THE SYSTEM HAS WORKED - - until the Cheney/Rove/Bush neocon crowd, many of them leftovers from the Nixon mob, chopped away at our democracy for their own ends. Now their asses are being booted out the door and some of them will land in jail cells where they belong. I vote for Karl Rove to occupy neat little chamber tortured by boredom and rejection - - along with some of his cohorts who are already in prison.
So you cynical commenters, don't howl that the system doesn't work at all. If you cry that nothing good can happen no matter what, you deserve to have the worst, but the rest won't and will work to support the reforms that must come, or there will be a violent outcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]