Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United States could add more troops, or the United States could add a lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.
In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in. www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html
One of the reasons we went from 50 large media companies to 6 or 7 media giants was the telecommunications act of 1996, signed by Bill Clinton.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first significant overhaul of telecommunications law in more than sixty years, amending the Communications Act of 1934. The Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, represented a major change in American telecommunication law, since it was the first time that the Internet was included in broadcasting and spectrum allotment. One of the most controversial titles was Title 3 (“Cable Services”), which allowed for media cross-ownership. According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the goal of the law was to “let anyone enter any communications business — to let any communications business compete in any market against any other.” The legislation’s primary goal was deregulation of the converging broadcasting and telecommunications markets.
They claimed the act was to “foster competition,” but the real goal was to diminish competition, allowing companies to buy each other up. There used to be a lot of different voices in newspaper, television, magazines, radio…
Republicans support the same bullshit. There is a conservative media group called “Sinclair Broadcast Group” that was airing commercials without telling the audience it was paid content. They made it seem like it was real news produced by Sinclair. The FCC only fined them 13 million dollars, which is a tiny drop in the bucket of their profits.
The Federal Communications Commission fined the Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4 million on Thursday for failing to disclose to viewers that a series of advertisements designed to look like news were not paid content.
“This isn’t the first time Sinclair has been caught playing fast and loose with the FCC rules, nor has it been the first time the FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai has treated the broadcast news giant with kid gloves,” Karl Frisch, executive director of the left-leaning group Allied Progress told Salon.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is superficial mostly, but this excludes a select few who aren’t playing this game. Barack Obama continued Bush’s war policies, Trump is largely doing the same. The Obama Administration treated the big banks with kid gloves, claiming they wouldn’t prosecute the banks for the ’08 financial crisis because it would hurt the economy.
What about deportations?
“Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President” abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
Democrats pretend to be against Republicans, voting against them knowing certain things will get passed, just to maintain the illusion of there being two parties. We get a republican president for 8 years and the media blames all of the problems on that administration, then we a Democrat president and Fox news blames all of the problems on that administration, then we get Trump and the media blames everything on his administration, but the machine just keeps on rolling while we sit here arguing over dumb manufactured bullshit that doesn’t really matter.
Is it just a coincidence that the Military Industrial complex, the Intelligence agencies, and the corporate world just keeps on rolling no matter who the president is? Of course not.
CIA agent whistle blower Kevin Shipp on the Shadow Government and the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.