The icon of 'Saint Barack' intrigued me, and following up to its source, the American conservative website, and to the article 'Can Barack Obama, who campaigns as an icon of peace, actually be more bellicose than Bush? Yes, he can.', authored by Brendan O’Neill, it gives me the opportunity to bifurcate to new attractors.
I must admit that the author's writing style in this particular article contradicts his writing style in the spiked online publication, for which he is the editor. Which brings me the idea that this was a tailor-made article for the tastes of 'The American Conservative' magazine publishers. However, apart from some emotive overtones sprinkled throughout the article, it does not entirely diminish its value. The claims made are substantiated by valid references, as far as I can tell, and the point made, can not be ignored.
As for the the term conservative, or any term for that matter, I have to say that I hate labels, it is more appropriate, the use of perspective, standpoint, point-of-view. Instead of using hard, rigid descriptions which leave no room for freedom of thought, not to mention that bring along an enormous set of rules which is unwieldy, prone to flaws according to a wider interpretation of Godel's incompleteness theorem, simply godelitis, shutting off its premises, the thoughts and ideas professed, to other individuals which the mere announcement of a label, any label, cringes their innards.
As for the article, I can not deny that the case brought forward by the author is valid. You can say that an overzealous leader is worse than a leader administrator or any kind of leader for that matter. I see that as a serious shortcoming of state structure, its utter reliance upon the will of single individuals. The leader is there to interpret the will of the people and not to assume divine powers, god-send enlightenment, know-all attitudes, infallibility syndromes, messiahs or any other similar flavour descriptions. The elected official suggest and await for approval or undertake action along the lines he/she was elected for, and only acts on behalf of the people, regardless whether they voted for or against.
In the article, among other items, the following paragraphs drew my attention
"There’s a palpable whiff of semi-religious hysteria at Obama rallies."
"They fantasize that he is pure and righteous, a miracle-worker who, in a pique of rage, will overturn the conventions of neocon-ruled America."
"Having never been stirred by the sight of Obama giving an MLK-style speech on the need for change, I can only take the candidates at their words. And Obama’s words are ominous indeed."
"President Obama would be a warmonger. He would be a wide-eyed, zealous interventionist who would not think twice about using America’s “military muscle” (his words) to overthrow “rogue states” and to suppress America’s enemies, real and imagined."
"Yes, Obama described the planned invasion of Iraq as “dumb” and “rash,” but his overriding concern—expressed repetitively throughout the speech—was that the Bush administration was damaging the legitimate case for American-made wars of intervention and potentially making it harder for future administrations (Democratic, for example) to send soldiers around the world to depose unfriendly regimes."
"We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership—military, diplomatic, moral—to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities.”"
Certainly, as a good president, as any other president possible from the existing candidates, or any other american politician for that matter, has to satisfy his employers or employees or even secure employment for the American nation, that is, the war industry as 54% of the American budget is dedicated to war, and need to capitalise on new opportunities.
The crunch to all these comes from these paragraphs
"As Taylor argues, “An adept politician, Obama began emphasizing his ‘anti-war’ stance as the war became increasingly unpopular among Democrats across the country and he began gearing up for the 2008 presidential campaign.”"
"Citing a Pew Survey that found that 42 percent of Americans agree that the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,”"
That is the point which should be kept foremost in mind. Barack Obama directly responds to the will of the American individuals, which more than anything, it worths a lot more than the election of any individual for U.S. President. Certainly, any candidate is bound to flow along the direction of the wind and not against it. In the monstrosity that it is the american politics, an arena for combat of all sorts of diverse interests under the constant scrutiny of powerful media, nobody would expect anything better.
This change in the American people, is which Barack Obama currently expresses.
The only clean alternative is to abandon everything, and let America be leaderless. Thing impossible.
(Presidents or other elected officials in case they abandon the premises on which they were elected, impeached by a measure of public opinion?)
