Mumia on Clinton
Brian J. Callahan
Mumia's mind seems to be concentrated wonderfully:
A presidency of betrayal
"Whoever fights monsters must take care not to become a monster himself.
For, as you stand looking deep into the abyss, the abyss is looking deep
into you."
-- Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra
In light of the current, developing controversy over the Presidential sex
scandal, the nation embarks on a trek of forgiveness, even as it enters on
a discourse on the limits of power.
While, for any man, this is an uncomfortable reality, it is doubly so for a
man of his stature, faced with this occurring in the harsh, merciless glare
of klieg lights and in the hungry maw of the majoritarian media.
The President, faced now with a cynical and skeptical public, has begun to
seek wider, public stages for his mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpas
(Latin for "My fault, my fault, my most grievous faults"). It has the air
of ritual in it, the stuff of play-acting on life's twirling stage.
There is an obvious problem with the most recent spate of mea culpas by
President William Jefferson Clinton. It is that it comes after a long,
undeniable history that goes not so much to sexuality, as it goes to power:
This President's history of the treatment of his alleged allies is, in a
word, troubling.
Consider Labor: their millions marched in his support.
Clinton's Response: A genuflection to Wall Street by the passage of NAFTA,
a nefarious agreement that weakened labor on both sides of the Rio Grande,
which strengthened the hand of capital , by giving them a powerful tool
with which to threaten labor (`Sign off on this give-back, or we'll move to
Mexico!').
Consider Blacks: Who voted for him in overwhelming numbers.
Clinton's Response: His skillful use of the `black faces in high places'
strategy, while ostensibly in support of the Black bourgeoisie, masked an
attack on the Black working poor, who were central, subliminal targets of a
"New Democrat" attack, designed to ease white suburban anxiety. In this
context, the so-called Welfare `Reform' Act, the Anti-Habeas Corpus Bill
(so-called Anti-Terrorism Bill), and his administra-tion's opposition to
the Racial Justice Act are utterly understandable. The public dissing of
strong, outspoken Black women like rapper Sista Souljah, Law Prof. Lani
Guinier, and Dr. Joycelyn Elder was also a calculated effort to appeal to
white ethnics, by showing he could put Blacks in their place: subordinate.
His treatment of Haitians was patently immoral.
Consider Gays: From coast-to-coast, his core fans.
Clinton's Response: He supported gays in the military, only to flip when
the right-wing barked.
The purpose of the Democratic Leadership Conference (of which Clinton was
head) was to take the Democratic Party back from the leftist hijackers.
Clinton, with his great smile and homey, Southern charm, was a chief
operative in this plan to broaden (read: whiten) party appeal. This meant
consciously betraying the expendable interests of those who supported him
the most and the longest, to capture the un-Holy Grail of a right-wing that
hated him with total passion.
Early in the Lincoln Administration, journalist and agitator Frederick
Douglass lambasted Lincoln's policy as "simply and solely to reconstruct
the union on the old and corrupting basis of compromise, by which slavery
shall retain all the power that it ever had" [Douglass' Monthly (Aug.
1862), pp. 692-93].
Later, of course, under the pressure of losing the War, Lincoln signed the
Emancipation Proclamation, not to free slaves but to save the Union.
The Clinton administration was built on the sands of betrayal, a betrayal
that didn't begin with a girl named Monica, and didn't end there either.
-- Mumia Abu-Jamal
Senex R. Rupicapra
>
> Later, of course, under the pressure of losing the War,
> Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, not to free
> slaves but to save the Union.
to illustrate that political cynicsm aint just a modern
phenomenon, please take note o the fact that the Emancipation
Proclamation only freed the slaves *in the areas that were in
rebellion*. so much for icons.
old goat.
"i got used
to the way
it used to be
when youse used
to use me."
--Jasper Kane, "Usually Useless Blues"
邢 唷��
N. Cog Neeto
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Senex R. Rupicapra wrote:
> > Later, of course, under the pressure of losing the War,
> > Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, not to free
> > slaves but to save the Union.
>
> to illustrate that political cynicsm aint just a modern
> phenomenon, please take note o the fact that the Emancipation
> Proclamation only freed the slaves *in the areas that were in
> rebellion*. so much for icons.
Well, I con sort of understand this, but really, I'm sort of upset at
mumia for using such a gross oversimplification. Early on in his term
Lincoln did indeed make the statement that "If I could save the Union
without freeing any of the slaves I would do it."
But by the time the Emancipation Proclamation was made there was hardly
any doubt about which way the winds of war were blowing; The western
theater was a disaster for the forces of rebellion, with only Vickburg
keeping the south from being cut completely in two; the northern victory
at Antietam had proven that attrition would win the war--the north just
hadn't found a general who could implement the strategy in the east yet;
and the blockade was strangling the southern economy while Egyptian cotton
helped cause a price collapse in the English markets by flooding the
market--sort of in an odd way, but this was exploited africans helping the
exploited africans.
Nor was there any real danger by October of 1862 that France or England
were going to come into the war on the side of the south, if there ever
was at all. True, the two nations +might+ have recognized the south, but
no one has ever really proven this was a realistic option, and even if
they had this would have had very little overall impact as when Lincoln
declared a "blockade" of the south he granted the south a defacto legal
recognition under international law by granting them "belligerent" status.
French and British bolckade runners or supply ships would have gained no
extra legal protections by the additional step of recognition.
So why did Lincoln issue the EP? ol goat's right, it was cynical
politics. It gave an entirely new political dimension to the war by
coopting moral high-ground from the radical abolitionists. By issuing the
draft of the EP in November of 1862 Lincoln put the south on notice that
slavery was indeed an issue that would be resolved by force, but even more
so, as unconstitutionalas the EP was, it put the matter of post-war
reconciliation in the hands of the executive branch of the U$ federal
gov't instead of the legislative congress. Lincoln in effect said "This
one thing that will happen to you. Come along peacefully and I will
alleviate the other, more miserable, possible outcomes."
If you skip to the postwar era and the administration of Andrew Johnson
you can see what the south had to fear. Lincoln wanted a quick and
painless reunification with the southern states and opposed the
Reconstruction Acts as being too severe. Then Booth offed him and "The
Radical Republicans" held sway and forced the southern states into
reformation.
Okay, so mumia sort of glossed over this; so why get bent? Well, for
one, cycnical politics such as Lincoln's EP deserves to be recognized for
the true level of cynical state achievement that it is.
And for two, I am offended when people expect me to buy a simplistic line
of jingo.
c@rp