Congratulations, President Obama

Alright, I'll try to be brief since I assume we can all use Google.  On the war front, Obama has stated he wants to increase troop presence in Afghanistan, essentially just shifting them over from Iraq:  WaPo and Infowars for starters.  He makes no assertion to end the War on Terror as he assumes, in policy, that it is a legitimate war to be fighting.  It is not.  More people in this country die from lightning strikes than they do from terrrorism and the GWOT is clearly hyped-up propaganda to serve as a pretext for taking away our rights at home and military intervention abroad.  Besides, keeping Gates as Sec of Defense should be signal enough that he has no real Change in mind.

"America's democratic system a front for globalist interests"?  I'm not sure how you got to that interpretation, but in short my answer is yes and no.  No in that our country was founded by true freedom fighters and has been built to be what it is in large part b/c we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Yes in the sense that choosing between a Dem and a Rep is liking choosing btwn Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum; i.e., there is no real choice as they serve the same 'globalist' interests.  But even if we did have some real choices, the electronic voting machines would take care of that!

On the economy, I say Obama is 'pro-poverty' because of his economic team selections.  They all essentially come from institutions (like the World Bank) more interested in blowing out economies than building them--in the fashion of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".  See these articles on his team: one, two.

It is not Obama himself that concerns me (though I use the term "hypnosis" quite literally.  Google 'obama hypnosis' and judge for yourself) as much as a public who has, in my opinion, been duped by slick rhetoric and has not seen that he offers no real change.  Real change would be ending GWOT and the Federal Reserve debt system for starters.  I don't give much weight to what he says, but I do put a lot of emphasis on what he appears he's going to do--and that is a function of his advisors who are all part of the same Establishment that perpetuates war and every other anti-human activity worldwide.

Look, if bureaucrats were bodhisatvas then I'd be all for World Government.  But they are not; that is clear.

If I were a "globalist", then I certainly would not be force sterilizing African and Latin American women (here's a start).  Nor would I be playing off various ethnic groups against one another like pawns on a chessboard. 

I know borders are artificial and that ultimately we are One from start to finish, but when you have hyper-control freak eugenicists pulling the major strings of world markets and militaries and then put faith in a guy who ultimately just serves as a front man of these very interests then we only forestall real Change from occurring.

Thank you Robb for inviting me into your stimulating discussion.  I really enjoyed your initial piece - it’s inspiring. 

I would like to make a distinction between an integral campaign and integral policymaking.  It is easier to run an integral campaign (though no small feat) than enact integral policies even if Obama was an autocrat.  I am confident that Obama ran an integral campaign and is capable of framing the challenges of our nation integrally.  That is cause enough for celebration and optimism.

I think it remains to be seen whether Obama crafts integral legislation during his presidency.  There are reasons to be cautiously optimistic here, but it will depend on a deeper integral skill, for crafting the legislation and passing and implementing it.  Of course this requires more than just having an integral President since he is not an autocrat.  If Congress was filled with integrally minded folks even with information distorted by special-interests around and within the government, it is safe to say that we would have better legislation.  But finding integral policies, in part, will be a growth process.

In my drafts of subsequent parts to Integral Economics, I discuss what I like and dislike of Obama’s economic proposals.  I do not claim that my analysis is 100% integral.  Part 1 of the series laid out what I think is an integral economic framework.  Although the framework is helpful, it can become tricky when applying it to controversial issues.    

Regarding our enormous, and increasing debt during a time of economic collapse, for starters we want to take into account the value of Keynesian stimulus theory, but also the value of explanations of recessions from Real-Business Cycle theory.  I believe we want to stimulate while simultaneously addressing reforms that deal with the structural problems in our economy that, one, created the large deficits, and two, created the financial crisis.  Doing both will make the stimulus affordable to the future America, and instill confidence that we have addressed our structural problems making the stimulus more effective. 

If we only enact a stimulus package, this will be an example of my statement in Integral Economics that “we have a collective aversion to (economic) corrections like the psyche has an aversion to its shadow.”  I hope Obama acts quickly on reforms.  The sequel(s) to Integral Economics will discuss causes of the financial crises and proposed reforms to address the structural deficits and causes of the crisis as I see it.  Ideally, however, integral economic policy would be developed over time by a community of integral policymakers.  Let me point out that one does not have to be familiar with integral models per se, to be an integral economist.  Yet proficiency with integral theory should be a powerful catalyst for developing more sophisticated economic analysis and policy, especially when trying to deal with multiple and simultaneous reforms.     

I agree with Robb that a time of crisis when we have an integrally-minded President with lots of political capital is a good time to have large-scale reform - a grand bargain that address multiple problems.  A grand bargain benefits the whole country while asking for sacrifices from all special interests.  That, I believe, is why Obama emphasized responsibility today in his inaugural address – a hopeful sign.

Best wishes,

Kevin

"I will not, due to a subtle desire to appear to be critically-minded and with my own self-affirming cynicism, undermine a new president who will badly need popular support in order to achieve policy reform."

That's excellent Robb, I'm impressed with your fine awareness and ability to marshall your being to such high ends, however, you appear to have misread my point entirely: Obama needs to be scrutinized and criticized when and where it is warranted precisely to enable him to make good policy. Not, as you construe it, for the " self-affirming cynicism and the subtle desire to be critically-minded" of those observing Obama. (Or would that just be me, you're referring to?)

Greenwald's argument - one that is backed up by considerable expertise, intelligence, and actual evidence - is that Obama shows a worrying, and not infrequent tendency, to go with the very worst of  the Washington status quo. It is only through active public awareness, and  informed support and criticism, that he will gain the ability to face down the enormous pressures he faces to allow poor policy. The FDR quote in my op was meant as an illustration of this very point.

Here's Greenwald again:

"Right this moment, there are enormous pressures being exerted on Obama not to make significant changes in the areas of civil liberties, intelligence policy and foreign affairs.  That pressure is being exerted by the intelligence community, by the permanent Pentagon structures, by status-quo-loving leaders of both political parties, by authority-worshipping Beltway "journalists" and pundits (such as the ones who wrote the wretched though illustrative "What Would Dick Do?" cover story for this week's Newsweek).

If those who want fundamental reform in these areas adopt the view that they will not criticize Barack Obama because to do so is to "help Republicans," or because he deserves more time, or because criticisms are unnecessary because we can trust in him to do the right thing, or because criticizing him is to "tear him down" or "create a circular firing squad" or "be a Naderite purist" or any of those other empty platitudes, then they are ceding the field to the very powerful factions who are going to fight vehemently against any changes.  Do you think that those who want the CIA to retain "robust" interrogation powers and who want the federal surveillance state maintained, or want a hard-line towards Iran and a continuation of our Middle East policies, or who want to maintain corporate-lobbyist-domination of Washington, are sitting back saying:  "it's not right to pressure Obama too much right now; give him some time"?

It's critical that Obama -- and the rest of the political establishment -- hear loud objections, not reverential silence, when he flirts with ideas like the ones he suggested on Sunday.  This dynamic prevails with all political issues.  Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is the side that wins -- period."

And please, no more thinly veiled insults, or arguments from authority, Robb. I'm excited about an Obama Presidency, too. I'd like to think that you and I are both rooting for the same good stuff, even if some of the details might differ between you, me, and, of course, as you say, Obama, himself.  In light of the issues at stake, the sniping you and I might engage in is unworthy. The only smartness that really counts is the one that supports Obama in creating good policy. And that's one that supports and criticizes. Please read Greenwald (and others providing a view of Obama grounded in his actions). He is a fiercely honest, exceptionally intelligent and righteous voice of the 'good' and is a perfect complement to the voice of the 'true' that is Integral.

Namaste,
Damon.