1968-2008: OUR TIME FOR CHANGE HAS COME? (Part I)

SPECTACLE '08

ON June 3, 2008 Barack Hussein Obama Jr. made history when he clinched the Democratic nomination to become the first black major-party candidate for President of the United States, and the first person-of-color with an achievable path to the nation's highest office. Holding a campaign rally that night in front of a packed arena in St. Paul, Minnesota--at the site of this summer's Republican National Convention--Obama closed his speech with a rousing rhetorical flourish, declaring: "America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love." Just a few days shy of the fortieth anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination following his victory in the 1968 California primary, Obama took center-stage as not only the new standard-bearer of the Democratic Party, but also the figurehead atop a "movement" energized by African-Americans, young people, and progressive activists in the (Howard Dean-inspired) "netroots" community. The arena was shimmering with the usual Obama paraphernalia, including blue or red "Change We Can Believe In" placards and stylish posters of the candidate created by street artist Frank Shepard Fairey. Building to a crescendo with the momentum generated by the crowd's growing enthusiasm, the candidate proclaimed:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

Such stirring oratory delivered with style and grandeur illustrates why many Obama supporters and "fans" began comparing the Illinois Senator to those slain 1960s icons who inspired a generation of youth during the fight for civil rights and against the Vietnam war. As a multiracial candidate with apparent progressive antiwar credentials, some believed that Obama had inherited the legacy of Robert Kennedy, whose 1968 murder just months after Dr. King's assassination was arguably the moment when the hopefulness of the sixties slid into bitterness, dissension, and ultimately the violence that spelled the end for progressive social movements of that era. Born in 1961 to a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas who came of age in the sixties, it seemed to many that Obama embodies the social change that did nonetheless result from that struggle.


IOWA UPSET

The virtual political upstart who refers to himself as having grown-up a "skinny black kid with a funny name" staged a stunning upset when he beat Senator Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses on January 3, 2008. And as Obama sent shock-waves throughout the Beltway by derailing what was supposed to have been Clinton's swift and decisive march to the nomination, he simultaneously ignited a wave of enthusiasm among a growing mass of frenzied "Obamaniacs" reminiscent of those who swelled the ranks of Kennedy's supporters in 1968. His win was attributed to having built a strategic advantage in the trenches--a superior "ground-game--made possible by his widespread appeal among "netroots" activists and others who contributed modestly-sized donations that grew impressively large in number. To be sure, he had also attracted a number of "big donors" including liberal hedge-fund guru George Soros, as well as individuals on the payroll of large corporations. Thus able to compete financially in the high-stakes political pageantry of U.S. presidential elections, team Obama managed to win the first round of competition by employing charisma and political savvy towards building a campaign "brand" founded on themes of "hope," "progress" and "change." The candidate's Iowa victory speech displayed this technique elegantly, as he began by declaring: "You know, they said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose. But...at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do." Then in explaining how "We are choosing hope over fear," the candidate sent what sounded like a warning to the establishment: "We're choosing unity over division, and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America. You said the time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don't own this government -- we do. And we are here to take it back." In closing, Obama connected the Revolution of 1776 to the black freedom struggle of the 195os/60s, while claiming the will to fight for a better future:

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire. What led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. What led young women and young men to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause. Hope -- hope is what led me here today...The belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

The field of candidates having effectively narrowed from eight to three after the media spectacle surrounding the Iowa voting auditions moved to New Hampshire, Clinton staved-off disaster by winning solidly over the newcomer and deflating the sudden burst of attention surrounding this "change candidate." John Edwards had also finished ahead of Clinton in Iowa running under a populist message similar to Obama's, but the fomer North Carolina Senator dropped from the race following the next primary contest in South Carolina, where Obama (55%) and then Clinton (27%) were again the top two vote-getters. Because of the overwhelming size of his victory in a state with a large black population, many pundits argued that Obama's Iowa triumph had signaled to many uncertain Africa-Americans that he had a legitimate chance of winning white votes--and therefore the White House--which made it safe to support his candidacy as a symbol of racial progress.

Although this logic had some holes in it, the rather fierce Clinton-Obama duel that ensued was indeed marked by debates concerning both race and gender. Some of this discourse was intelligent and productive, yet a great deal of it was guided by those in the mainstream (corporate) media who articulated an uncritical, poll-driven "identity politics" scenario in which Clinton was favored by older women and "white working class" voters, while Obama attracted younger people, college-educated voters, and African-Americans. Many Clinton supporters were therefore cast as being committed to choosing her as the first female nominee, while Obamaniacs were seen as dedicated to making history by selecting the first black candidate. Latinos comprised a critical "swing vote" divided between them yet heavily favoring Clinton, to a large degree because of mistrust between African-Americans and Hispanics. To the extent that these dynamics were an actual factor in the outcome of each primary contest between January and June, this was largely the result of the media's haphazard discussions on race and gender, which distilled complex social forces into simplistic narratives designed to feed dramatic coverage of the "horse-race" rather than engage in a more substantive and penetrating analysis.

Nonetheless, Obama continued drawing support among many progressives, including a number of feminists (even some "older white women") and Latinos who viewed the New York Senator, despite her gender, as an agent of the status-quo running a traditional campaign touting "strength" and "experience" over new ideas. There were also those who had observed that ever since the former First Lady went to work on Capitol Hill in 2000 as her husband left Washington, the Clinton political machinery had set its sights on retaking the White House--to which they felt entitled. Obama, by contrast, seemed to have "outsider" written all over him by virtue of having just arrived in Washington in 2004 after serving in the Illinois Senate since 1997. He in fact had exploded onto the national scene in 2004 when tapped by then presidential nominee John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston. While he had not had the ability to vote on the legislation that authorized Bush and Cheney's March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Obama was on record speaking-out in 2002 against the planned "regime change." Clinton, on the other hand, had voted for the war authorization in a move that many observers saw as a decision of political expediency based on her desire to not be painted as "weak on national security" during her eventual run for the Oval Office. Thus especially after Edwards left the race, the Illinois Senator was catapulted into the limelight as a progressive alternative to the Clintons (both Hillary and Bill), whom many on the Left saw as being moderate (corporate) Democrats concerned above-all-else with their own power. On the other hand, people generally knew very little about Obama's past, but what they did know made him seem like a breath of fresh air: a former community organizer from Chicago who put himself through school, had become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, and was now a U.S. Senator pledging to help "heal the world" as President.

But to others on the critical/progressive Left (whatever this means), serious questions loomed: was this guy for real? Would his policies as president match his soaring rhetoric? Was he really riding a wave of mass enthusiasm for change among the downtrodden and disaffected? Was his incredible fundraising machine actually driven by "netroots" contributors?" How, in fact, did his campaign pull-off such a huge political upset so as to be poised to snatch the Democratic nomination out from under the Clintons' noses? Could it be that he is ultimately nothing more than a skillful politician who has managed to brilliantly market himself as a liberal reformer in order to win support from progressives (in the primaries) whom he would then abandon when the time came? In short: were all those who thought that Obama's candidacy could become part of a genuine social movement simply being deluded--or worse yet, were they deluding themselves?

Answers to some of these questions emerged immediately after the Senator rallied with supporters in Minnesota upon securing his victory over Clinton. On June 4 team Obama began turning swiftly and decisively towards the center, pursuing a general election strategy of "triangulation" in order to win independent and even Republican votes away from their GOP opponent, John McCain (R-Arizona). So, has Obama already abandoned his leftwing base before even formally accepting the nomination? Is he done building good-will among progressives and now focussed primarily on courting conservative voters? Is this the end of "change we can believe in"?

Stay tuned...