Obama und der große "Change"-Spin
--- Mit jeder Personalentscheidung des Teams von Barack Obama wird es klarer: Während offiziell und formal weiter der Slogan Change.gov ausgegeben wird, lautet das eigentliche Motto der sich findenden Regierung des Hoffnungsträgers der Demokraten offensichtlich schlicht "more of the same", bloß mit einem anderen Spin als unter Bush. John Horvarth hat mehr dazu in Telepolis:
For some, the Obama cabinet is starting to look a little like the third Clinton administration. Many of those who have been appointed are of the same old guard from 8 years ago. The appointment of Hillary Clinton as Foreign Secretary is merely icing on the cake. The problem for Obama is not only that these appointments run in the face of his campaign for change and his promise to break with "old" Washington. Many of these nominees have a distinct record of support for the corporate-friendly NAFTA trade pact (which Obama had promised during the primaries to renegotiate), gutting public assistance programs under the guise of welfare "reform," and pushing various deregulatory policies in the financial sector. All this is contrary to what most Americans expect to come out of the new president's administration. ...Schon seit Tagen wird auch viel darüber spekuliert, ob Obama einen Kurswechsel bei Fragen wie Überwachung, Abhörprogrammen und Geheimdienstaufrüstung fahren wird. Dass Robert Gates im Pentagon als Verteidigungsminister bleiben soll, spricht auch dort nicht für Wandel. Aber immer noch alles besser als Bush, Cheney und Rumsfeld?
the trick of the Clinton presidency was to sell corporate capitalism to people with a smiling face, that is, under the guise of so-called "liberalism". This was done through a comprehensive program of liberalisation and deregulation. ... Clinton's notion of "humanitarian warfare" (as was used in the Balkans) was more acceptable than the arrogance, brazenness, extremism, and ultra-nationalism of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism". In other words, as with economic policy, there is little difference between the objectives pursued by different administrations; instead, as Clinton clearly understood, there's a more polite way of following the same policy. All this doesn't bode well for the future of the Obama presidency. ...
As the spin would have it, Obama is putting together a team of experts and pragmatists who are essentially "ideology-free". The American media watchdog FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) takes issue with this. In its latest media advisory entitled Media Cheer for "Non-Ideological" Centrists, FAIR maintains that the notion that these appointees are non-ideological is about as ridiculous as saying that the corporate media in the US is itself also non-ideological. Noam Chomsky once pointed out that in America there is no such thing as a left-wing party or a right-wing party, only a business party: the Democrats representing the business left, and the Republicans representing the business right. ... As Chomsky noted before the election, "in the Obama campaign the words are hope, change, and unity - totally vacuous slogans said by a nice person, who looks good and talks nicely - what commentators call "soaring rhetoric" - and you can write anything you like on that blank slate."