Obama’s Tougher Days Ahead!

As a start, the various – to the extent of contradiction – accusations directed to American president Barack Obama during the past period of his presidency, which is referred by Americans as the first 100 days – the period where his administration is measured.

Presently, the attitudes of the American Right, symbolized mostly by writers as well as politicians, and marked by recklessness and audacity, have never adopted any self-censorship and always attack the Left. During Obama’s first 100 days, the Right hastily called him a socialist who is waiting for the right moment to nationalize the important American banks, insurance firms and capitalist institutions stricken by the economic crisis.

Indeed, the word “socialist” is nothing more than an economic and political description. But it is not the same when said by Right-wingers, when it indicates accusations. That is because the American Right believes, or rather likes to believe, that Americans are easily scared by socialism and any procedure or decision related to it.

However, Obama’s first 100 days went by without his declaring the rise of the Socialist Republic of the United States! He never even mentioned anything about nationalization in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans are now talking about it, convinced that it can save them instead of losing trillions in bailing out the major capitalist institutions that have already or are about to collapse. That is why Obama was regarded at least as hesitant, and at most an ally of the business sector who is still sincere towards Wall Street and its savage capitalism.

On the other hand, Obama fulfilled one of his promises: that is to approach Islamic-American relationships from the conflicts started by Bush’s administration differently. And in Ankara (the Turkish capital), he announced that he wants his country’s relationships with Islam and Muslims to [again] enjoy mutual respect. Yet in so short a time, Obama was sarcastically asked by one of the writers at the “Wall Street Journal,” Daniel Henninger: “Will Islam Return Obama’s Respect?”

And amidst the misgivings of each and every political party and media organization in America, Europe and Israel had an expected clash between Obama and the new Israeli leadership, the extremist Rightist Benjamin Netanyahu and his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, the irreproachable leader of the far Right in Israel, Obama did decide to boycott the UN’s World Conference Against Racism (Durban 2). And it was natural when Obama was fundamentally slammed by black Americans, those who supported him and cheered his election. They said that the decision implied contempt of blacks because the UN conference is mainly related to them because the Arab reaction is already known.

Another of Obama’s decision was to reduce the Pentagon’s budget due to the hard financial crisis the U.S. is currently witnessing. But this did not satisfy the Right who wants no limit to the budget increases in order to garner American military hegemony. Nor did this please the Left who wanted Obama to help civil authority have the upper hand on military power in America and to validate social welfare programs again even if this happened at the expense of military budget that is still never paralleled by any other country in the world. Only then, Obama was said openly to be tracing Bush’s steps.

Then Obama declared that he will publish the savage abuse and torture memos approved by senior officials in the Bush administration and committed by CIA’s agents because he deemed it proper to protect those agents from any accusations due to decisions made by the former administration. This angered the Right, who deemed that America’s secrets have been sold out. Whereas the Left considered this exemption surrender on Obama’s part before the Bush administration’s crimes and the failure to show the courage he always harped on during the presidential electoral campaign.

These were all the decisions Obama made in this short time.

However, there still remains the most severe “charge” imputed to the American president, the one that described him as a “Nero, encircled by a network of the serpents of psychological war” which should be swiftly cleared up or he will be doomed to the same known fate even before the end of his first term.

This description came in a reportage by John Hotel and was published by the weekly “Executive Intelligence Review”, owned by the allies of persistent presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche. Hoefle accused Obama of being another Nero due to his narcissism and self-esteem, something clearly seen in his wishes to satisfy both friends and enemies and always changing his mind even in the most momentous issues, like that of nonproliferation of defensive missiles, in which he expressed an opinion to Russian leaders then said the opposite to Europeans during the G20 summit, held in London earlier in April.

As with the psychological war’s serpents’ network, it refers the Obama administration’s economic team led by Larry summers, the head of the National Economic Council and the president’s senior economic adviser. Those officials are adopting an old British radical policy that used to be followed by John Locke, Jerry Bentham, Adam Smith and many others. Their program, to the exclusion of anything else and according to the reportage’s writer, is a mere “brainwashing” that tends to persuade Americans that bubbles of capitalism were their best choice and that leaders of market policy knew what they were doing. However, as those officials say, this policy became worse because it went too far. In order to fix things, there have to be changes and sacrifices, including a low standard of living. Even LaRouche himself adds, in a separate lecture, that getting rid of this network can be Obama’s first steps if he wants to be surrounded only by legitimate secretaries and advisers who would guide him to rightly think about many things, including the economy.

However, and in spite of the fact that these accusations by LaRouche in his weekly reportage can seem to be vengeance on many of Obama’s aids, a change in American economic policies is raised also by experts not personally interested in the matter. For example, William Black, a professor of Economics and law at the University Missouri, reiterates the necessity of a change in the main staff of Obama’s economic team, including Tim Geithner, the secretary of the Treasury, or “a scandal shall ruin Obama so soon!”

So what conclusions can be made from all these accusations and counter-accusations Which tendency shall Obama take until the end of his term, in other words, until November 2010 when American voters are ready to deprive him of a Democratic Congress when the congressional elections of all House members and one-third of the Senate in the middle of his term?

That is why Obama’s tougher days are the next 600, not the past 100!