Home | About | Donate

'We Are Writing the Rules,' says Obama. Who's 'We'?


#1

'We Are Writing the Rules,' says Obama. Who's 'We'?

Jim Hightower

The negotiations and the sales push behind Washington's latest (and biggest) "free trade" agreement amounts to Kabuki theater.


#2

Gee, Obama is thinking more about his "legacy" than the citizenry. Who'd of thunk it?


#3

Thank you Jim for this important article. We need more voices like yours which call it like they see it. It seems to me that the mainstream media likes nothing more than to scare the people and loves to see us divided and attack each other. That could be why these agreements are basically getting a pass in the U.S. among the populace. They want to believe things will get better. If they are dems they trust the president; most R's are in favor of it in Congress, so the repubs trust that leadership. I try to figure out how we have become so soft-bellied as a people.

I'm a 30 year teacher, researching ed-reform opens up another can of worms. The elites seem to think that education is one more pot-o-$ to get their hands on. Hey, how about creating a cohort of fearful children to boot... they won't feel empowered to complain as the economy worsens. Ding-ding-ding. It's truly a sickening beast we are looking at.

My husband and I spent 10 months researching and writing this book...on ed-reform... much of it online for free here- http://weaponsofmassdeception.org/


#4

Those $200,000 luncheon speeches?


#5

Unimaginative black suited "insiders wear the costumes of global corporate power."


#6

Hightower is right. Obama sure went astray on this.
Trump is right (pains me to say so).


#7

To those who challenge ME when I point out just how the word WE is continuously used: Hint: The ultimate form of propaganda is that which is unrecognized as such...

It's GREAT to see other thinkers catching on. Thank you, Mr. Hightower for exposing what I think I will now term the "We Syndrome":

"Gosh, Americans don't need enemies like China when we've got "protectors" like Obama. Aside from the fact that we and our allies would never agree to such biased rules, even if the Chinese were stupid enough to propose them, Obama's deceitful assertion contains two self-destructive bombshells, both tucked inside the word "we.""

Indeed.

"Secondly, Obama's entire TPP theater is blown to bits by his assertion that "we ... are writing the rules." Who's "we"? Were you consulted? Did you even know that a tiny group of unelected people have been meeting in secret for seven years to write "rules" for you, me and 330 million other Americans? In fact, only about 600 corporate executives and lobbyists were allowed to be at the table, writing rules to benefit themselves at our expense."

OTHER insidious inversions of the term WE:

  1. "WE bombed __________ (number) of ____________ (fill in the blank: Iraqi, Yemeni, Afghani, etc.) people today." As if the WE--connoting military actions as increasingly directed by equally shadow elitist organizations--seamlessly melds into the full population--as in civilians--pool.

  2. "WE love guns," as if what is true for lots of angry white males necessarily suits what's preferred by peaceful persons and/or women.

  3. "WE voted for ________________ ," even though whatever individual assumed office was voted in by less than one-third of the actual populace

There is no greater uniformity meme than the promiscuous use of the word WE. When it takes what is done by powerful white men and attributes those acts to all others, the canard allows for a continuation of top-down patriarchal power hierarchies in the place of an open, diverse & Democratic society.

WE can only mean WE when all voices are heard, factor into ultimate decision-making, and are respected. This is hardly the same thing as the usual suspects (rich white males) writing the scripts and then consigning them to everyone else.


#9

I think Obama and his 'legacy' both need to be flushed like the crap they are!


#10

How can we make a judgement when we haven't seen the TPP deal?


#11

Obama made it clear he was a corporatist when he first stepped on the stage as President. He announced that he was not interested in "Change We Can Believe In" that put his lying ass in office. The way he put it was that he wanted to work with Republicans in a bipartisan manner.


#12

NoKidding:

Obama hasn't "strayed." He sought fast-track authority to pass the TPP, and he's never deviated from the TPP path.


#13

"We" is synonymous with "the American people", albeit perhaps just a bit more likely to be overlooked. Probably why Obama has scrupulously avoided the term ...


#14

I fervently hope that Obama will prove no more effective in getting this signing away of our national sovereignty than he has in most of his other endeavors as president. I still can't believe that he turned out to be a Republican't.


#15

If a whole bunch of Republicans (who know what's in it -- secret room viewing)
are in favor of it (yeah, trickle down economics on steroids)
that's good enough for me to be against it.


#16

Are you suggesting that all the pact's critics are basing their arguments on fantasy, conjecture, prejudice, what? What, indeed, would it take for you people who sit on a fence and shake your heads at the thought that someone might ask you to get off your perch and do something more constructive than raise an eyebrow?


#18

OBum, the great protector that will give up our sovereignty and disarm us. If he actually protected us and our borders were secure...........


#20

does anyone else find their looks to be of unmitigated power and scary?


#21

yeah, his legacy with the 1%.


#22

i hadn't seen this when i wrote of a similar feeling. it's the first thing that struck me on the page.


#23

wikileaks and others have exposed horrible things in it. Elizabeth Warren, for one, about how the corporations can sue us for "lost profits" when we try to protect our health, our environment, and the "court" is run by, with lawyers from, the corpses themselves.

It is a treasonous pact.