See Part I
Concerning the issue of NAFTA and other US Government policies for sending American jobs to cheaper foreign countries so as to increase the profits to America’s international corporations and thus raise the wealth of the US aristocracy who own and control those corporations and who are also the major benefactors to all top US politicians, here is one of Obama’s 2008 campaign-flyers.
By the time of 2015, even the Democratic Party’s loyal website the Daily Kos started to issue articles such as «The Liberal Apologies for Obama’s Ugly Reign». Unlike in the few prior instances where someone at that site had criticized Obama, the reader-comments to this critical commentary about Obama’s performance were no longer to blackball the writer for having pointed out the ugly truth: the readers were by now finally starting to recognize that they had previously been fooled, and that they had been fools for having refused, for such a long time, to acknowledge the by-now-obvious truth.
The same was the case across-the-board. For example, Obama’s policies on k-12 education were simply extensions of George W Bush’s No-Child-Left-Behind school-privatization-and-high-stakes-testing, that were focused on punishing teachers and administrators who served people in the lowest-income school districts, and that did nothing to raise the quality of education for America’s children, to competitive international standards. Only teachers and administrators in low-income districts were fired. Punishing low-performing schools when it’s what the children bring to class from their impoverished backgrounds, not what the teachers and administrators are bringing to their students in their classrooms, that’s actually causing the low performance, may please billionaires (whose children can be educated just as they were before), but the poorest Americans suffer greatly from it, especially because that new system provides an even higher incentive for any new teacher to avoid even applying to get a job in a low-income district. Higher-income districts then receive yet more teacher-applicants than before. Most teachers prefer an easier job at a higher pay. However, the rich also benefit, by not needing to pay their teachers as a high salary as might otherwise be necessary to attract applicants. In other words: it’s perverse – yet it’s Republican policy in two successive Presidencies, one of which is nominally ‘Democratic’.
Furthermore, President Obama’s foreign policies have been outright catastrophic for the people in Honduras, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, and harmful elsewhere (including Europe). They will be catastrophic for the entire world if his international-trade treaties, TPP, TTIP, and TISA, become passed into law. That’s the highest-priority item in his entire Presidency (higher even than Obamacare was); and, if he succeeds in it, then democracy itself will shrivel, if not completely die, throughout the world. If all three of those proposed treaties become approved, then Barack Obama will certainly have been the worst President in all of American history, and maybe even the worst head-of-state in all of human history. The world was able to recover and get over Hitler and Stalin, even if many millions of their victims weren’t. But if Obama gets even just two of his trade-treaties passed, then the world itself will probably be doomed.
Now, for the good about Obama: This side of the issue was covered well by Michael Grunwald at Politico on 6 January 2016, under the banner «The Nation He Built: A POLITICO review of Barack Obama’s domestic policy legacy – and the changes he made while nobody was paying attention».
However, that article said nothing about foreign policy. Obama did have two positive achievements in foreign policy: the nuclear sanctions deal with Iran, and his acceptance of the 2015 global agreement to place restraints against future production of carbon gases. If Obama gets his ‘trade’ deals passed into law – especially if two or all three of them are – then the global-warming promises will almost certainly turn to dust. TPP and TTIP especially would make practically impossible any increase in economic regulation by governments, and this includes any increase in environmental regulations.
Obama was vastly less progressive than he pretended, but never as far-right as the Republican Party moved in order to be able to stay to his right. Without the votes of Republicans in Republican primaries, no Republican candidate has even a chance of contesting in, much less winning, a general election. Thus, no matter how rightwing Obama actually performed, the Republican Party moved even farther to the right, and so America’s political center moved to the right even though the American public really did not. The public became politically almost inconsequential during the Obama years, continuing a long-term trend in that direction: «oligarchy,» otherwise called «aristocracy».
What all of this – both the cons and the pros – exhibits consistently is that Obama brilliantly protected and carried out the basic agenda of America’s billionaire-class, while still doing enough on the ‘left’ so as to retain also the requisite loyalty of Democratic Party voters. This way, by serving the «oligarchy», even while pretending to be ‘a man of the people’, he will end his Presidency with at least as rich a future for himself and his progeny as Bill Clinton left his. (After all, Clinton not only passed NAFTA but he ended the Democratic Party’s FDR bank-reforms and restored essentially the pre-FDR regulatory system, which Wall Street loved.) In other words: Obama’s Presidential operation was a skillful business-plan, which will serve him and his family well, regardless of what it has done and might ultimately result in doing to the nation, and to the entire world.
Don’t believe what Democrats say about him, or what Republicans say about him. Believe his actual record, which has been presented here. That’s what a real historian will believe. The only substantial question that remains is how to explain his record, how to explain the man. The serious attempts to do that started only in 2010.
As the great independent investigative journalist Wayne Madsen has reported, in depth, in his many articles, such as (and these are re-postings of originals from Madsen’s subscription-only website) «Obama’s CIA Pedigree» and «Details revealed about Obama's former CIA employer» and «The Story of Obama: All in The Company», and in his 2012 book The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA's Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House, Obama’s parents and grandparents were in the pay alternately of the US-aristocracy-controlled CIA and of the US-aristocracy-controlled Ford Foundation; and the boss of Obama’s mother at the Ford Foundation was none other than Peter Geithner, who was the father of Timothy Geithner, the Wall Street operative who ran the US Treasury Department in Obama’s first term and who bailed out the investors in the megabanks while he refused to bail out the uneducated and poor mortgagees they had suckered with excessive loans, and the pension funds and other outside investors in the fraudulent resulting ‘AAA’-rated Mortgage Backed Securities (MBSs, which the Federal Reserve until recently was buying up and transferring onto the backs of future US taxpayers).
So, Obama was deep into service to America’s aristocracy, ever since he was in college; and his parents even raised him with money from the CIA and the Ford Foundation. Furthermore, Obama’s first employment was with the CIA front firm, Business International Corporation, in 1983 and 1984, though he might have been recruited by the CIA as early as around 1980. (Going back even farther than Madsen, some terrific independent investigators, such as Joseph Cannon and the libertarian Robert Wenzel, were already exploring Obama’s CIA connections within mere months of his having won the US Presidency in 2008. And, then, after Madsen, Andrew Krieg, in his 2013 blockbuster Presidential Puppetry, brought all of this together into a much broader, well documented, recent history of the US as being an oligarchic instead of a democratic nation. But nobody was onto Obama’s reality until Obama had already won the White House. Nobody. That’s how skillfully Obama constructed his act.)