Repulsiveness

241

May 1, 2011

Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 27 April 2011
by Elvira Lindo (link to original link to original)

Translated from by Katherine Wootton. Edited by Rica Asuncion-Reed.

A new president inherits acts carried out by the previous president. In particular, he has to battle with the repulsive and try to improve it. It may be unfair to inherit a mess but a presidency doesn’t begin with a blank slate. Obama inherited big messes — huge messes, actually. Bush’s huge messes formed the basis of the Democratic political campaign. It was inspiring to create a hopeful speech for a people in crisis, with a high poverty rate, a middle class more impoverished than the generation before, an army caught up in a war precipitated by false evidence, a public education system stripped of resources and their international prestige in ruins. The light projected by Obama’s words reached beyond the borders of the United States; many believed a radical change was possible in the way politics is conducted. It cannot be said that no fundamental changes have taken place — the essential one being that George W. Bush has left the White House, which in itself is a huge step forward, even if anti-Americanism invariably concludes that all American politicians are cut from the same cloth. Today, it’s those same American Democrats who seem the most discouraged with the man who caused tears of emotion on the day of his victory. The Guantánamo papers, which bear testimony to what happened in that prison up until 2009, illustrate how repulsive issues are the responsibility of the one governing, even if created by the previous leader.

Guantánamo is not the main concern for Americans, but it represents a shameful, illegal, unacceptable stain. It’s true that its closure isn’t solely dependent on the president’s will, but its survival shows a great lack of character. And you can’t govern without character, no matter how good your intentions or how big your promises.

Lo putrefacto

Un nuevo presidente hereda lo que perpetró el anterior. Sobre todo ha de brear con lo putrefacto, tratar de enmendarlo. Puede que no sea justo heredar un marrón pero una presidencia no se comienza con la pizarra en blanco. Obama heredó grandes marrones. Marronazos, para ser precisa. Los marronazos de Bush fueron la base de la campaña política de los demócratas. Era inspirador construir un discurso esperanzado para un pueblo en crisis, con un alto porcentaje de indigencia, una clase media más empobrecida que su generación anterior, un ejército envuelto en una guerra desatada por falsas evidencias, una educación pública desposeída de medios y un prestigio internacional por los suelos. La luz que proyectaban las palabras de Obama alcanzó más allá de las fronteras de los Estados Unidos, mucha gente creyó que un cambio de rumbo drástico en la manera de hacer política era posible. No se puede afirmar que no hayan tenido lugar cambios fundamentales, el esencial, que George W. Bush dejara la Casa Blanca, lo cual supone en sí un gran avance, aunque el antiamericanismo concluya por sistema que cualquier político estadounidense está cortado por el mismo patrón. Hoy son los mismos demócratas americanos los que se muestran más desinflados con quien provocó lágrimas de emoción el día de su victoria. Los papeles de Guantánamo, que dan fe de lo que en esa prisión ocurrió hasta 2009, son una muestra de que lo putrefacto es responsabilidad de quien gobierna aunque fuera un invento del anterior.

Guantánamo no es la preocupación prioritaria para los americanos pero constituye una mancha vergonzosa, ilegal, inaceptable. Cierto es que su cierre no depende solo de la voluntad del presidente, pero su pervivencia denota una gran falta de carácter. Y no se puede gobernar sin carácter, por buenas que sean las intenciones o grandes las promesas.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Tags:
Spain

Hot this week

Block title

Austria: Jeff Bezos Is Not Solely To Blame for The Washington Post’s Decline

February 14, 2026. Published in Der Standard

[E]ven a new owner ... would be unable to avoid making cuts to the editorial staff, and even that wouldn’t guarantee the Post’s survival.

Saudi Arabia: Great Unraveling: 2026 Super Bowl Sounds Death Knell for US Unity

February 17, 2026. Published in Arab News

We are entering a state of regime cleavage.

Mexico: The United States: Arms Supplier to Drug Traffickers

February 17, 2026. Published in La Jornada

[T]he U.S. government itself is a major supplier to the cartels that the White House claims to be pursuing with all its might.

France: Europe: Toward a Painful But Necessary Break with the US

February 16, 2026. Published in Libération

Our independence is at stake. And possibly our freedom.

Germany: Trump and Ukraine: Thinly Veiled Blackmail

February 14, 2026. Published in Die Tageszeitung

Trump is threatening to cut Kyiv's U.S. security guarantees ... What is this man talking about? There are no ... commitments from Washington regarding ... security.

Topics

Iraq: From Noriega to Maduro: The Logic of Force in US Policy

February 19, 2026. Published in alsabaah

When political legitimacy becomes contingent on recognition by a superpower, populations lose their right to self-determination and democracy becomes a selective tool.

Mexico: The United States: Arms Supplier to Drug Traffickers

February 17, 2026. Published in La Jornada

[T]he U.S. government itself is a major supplier to the cartels that the White House claims to be pursuing with all its might.

India: What’s behind the Layoffs at The Washington Post?

February 17, 2026. Published in Amar Ujala

The Washington Post Guild, the staff union, questioned Bezos' commitment, saying that if he is no longer willing to invest in its mission, the institution needs a steward who understands it.