It's hate. Period.

[JDPriestly]

189. Obama has not had the strength to stand up to the national security

bureaucracy. Neither did Bill Clinton. Neither did any other president including FDR.

The generals and their civilian clones work their way up. They aren't elected by the people. They promote each other, and it's a pyramid. The people at the top grappled and flattered and sniveled to get there, and the ambitious at the bottom are grappling, flattering and sniveling to do the same.

To them, democracy is not the point. Status and success within the hierarchy in which they make their living is. Since they don't have to answer to democracy but rather answer to their superiors, they could, most of them and most of the time, care less about "the people." Since their subordinates grapple and flatter and snivel up to them to get ahead, they think we should do the same, or if we can't grapple and flatter and snivel up, should at least obey submissively.

Obama is not one of them. He did not grapple, flatter and snivel his way to the top. He got where he is by respecting and helping and working cooperatively with others.

And that is what is getting him into trouble now that he is the president, now that he is working with authoritarian pyramids like the military, the corporations that do defense contracts and the Republican Party which is also organized in a far more authoritarian, hierarchical fashion than are Democrats.

DUers should not lose sight of the goal which is to form an ever more inclusive, democratic society that is not based on hierarchy and authority but on equality and cooperation.

It is actually to Obama's credit that the conflict between the hierarchical segments of our society and the weaknesses in governing with a pyramid in which those who grapple, flatter and snivel the next one up get to lead are becoming apparent. Because it is the fact that Obama as one who listens and cooperates and respects others and really exemplifies leadership in a democracy that so many of us are so critical of the institutions in our government and society in which those at the top grappled, flattered and sniveled their ways up. We are rejecting the idea that everyone beneath the grapplers and flatterers and snivelers should do as they have done and are demanding real, lasting change in our national security institutions and that the Tea Parties, misguided as they are, are demanding change within their Republican Party.

The surveillance issue is the best example of our struggle at the moment. Obama did not institute the surveillance state. The administrations before him did, and I do not think it started just with George W. Bush. I think it started long ago, maybe during or shortly after WWII if not before that. So Obama is not the target of the criticism of those who are rejecting the surveillance of the national security state.

Don't misunderstand what is going on. Obama has not achieved the change that many of us hoped. But he is showing the way.

Change is painful for most people. And it is going to be very painful for our national security bureaucracy. What is more, the worst is yet to come for that crew because they are fighting the change tooth and nail. But that change is inevitable.

And, once that change has occurred, when people look back and think about the wars and surveillance and disruption that did not happen and the peace and problem solving that we did and recognize that we are realizing as true our dream of becoming a democracy, Obama will be remembered as the first to start us on that way.

And, by the way, I just realized as I wrote this that we have to change the way corporations are organized if we want to have a democratic society and that we have to begin that change by firing the government contractors who are doing jobs that, in the interest of sovereignty and democracy, civil servants should be doing. The corporate hierarchies are even worse than the national security and military ones.