http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/29/reggie-love-barack-obama
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
State of "the Left" Today
Just as social movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s emerged from a foundation laid by the radical politics of the 1930s, left-wing activists today continue to grapple with the actions of those would-be revolutionaries whose struggles culminated in the now iconic episodes of global rebellion that flared in 1968. Yet the history of this progression from an Old to a New Left (and now a post-New Left?) is by no means a straightforward or uncomplicated process that can be captured in the plethora of celebratory/nostalgic and generally simplistic accounts of “the sixties.” A critical (if also sympathetic) analysis of Left activism during this era therefore raises a number of questions and concerns of direct relevance to those still involved in “the movement” today. An understanding of the sixties as a period of “blocked cultural revolution” provides grounds for a much-needed discussion of the New Left’s goals and strategies or, as the case may be, its lack thereof.
By this account, the New Left emerged from a terrain shaped by the Marxist-Leninism of the 1930s, even as many of the “red diaper babies” who grew into this movement rejected what they saw as the old model of Communist-inspired organizing. Class analyses therefore gave way to a culturalist mentality whereby the revolutionary agenda entailed a reorganization of society into an egalitarian democratic community. Many on the New Left discarded the need to seize control of the state or liquidate capitalism, arguing instead for the creation of alternative and to some extent anarchist modes of life in which elected leaders and organized political parties had no role except as evils to be avoided. The question of violence intersected this split between those moving towards cultural revolution and those who remained committed to a class-based model of organizing; pacifism and the pre-figurative power of love guided the younger generation of activists, whereas those who still saw revolution as a matter of political-economy argued for the use of vanguardist violence in order to dismantle the global capitalist interstate system. The advent of powerful national liberation movements throughout the Third World bolstered the arguments of Marxist-Leninists against their (counter) culturalist opponents in the United States.
In seeking to understand the sixties historically and draw lessons for the Left today, it seems fair to identify both visions as having major flaws. For while the vanguardist approach modeled after the Bolsheviks was still partially applicable to revolutionary movements in the Third World, it was much less connected to the realities of social and political-economic life in the Unites States in the late 20th century. At the same time, the advocates of countercultural revolution operated in a somewhat sheltered sphere of activism that fostered creativity and individuality while failing to articulate a coherent revolutionary strategy. Thus as the early New Left gave way to a more “radical” approach characterized by the stunted actions of the Weather Underground, forexample, these attempts at violent revolution proved no more successful than the hippies’ efforts to cultivate a peaceful and loving society.
It is crucial that one not overlook the important gains made by the New Left, particularly in the realms of civil rights, feminism, gay rights, and environmentalism. It is equally important to recognize the contributions of those who have maintained a dedication to class struggle throughout the post-1960s era. Whether violent or nonviolent, the spirit of militancy and urgency that persisted throughout the sixties has set the stage, perhaps, for a new (post-Reagan) left-wing upsurge that has been long envisioned yet so far unrealized. The key is to understand how potential Left coalitions turned into opposing, if not warring factions that tended to rehearse old divisions rather than work together to find new solutions. In this sense, the Left might be best served by pursuing something close to the Gramscian model of coalitional praxis that offers a revolutionary strategy combining political-economic and cultural agendas. In the end, however, social movements of the Left will find their most success not by following a certain theoretical model but rather through developing an organic struggle based in a common purpose around which broad coalitions of political and social actors can coalesce.
It is currently being argued by many on the Left that the need to protect the viability of life on earth provides perhaps the most hopeful basis for renewing progressivism in the twenty-first century. If this were to be the case, a pro-environment movement articulated as collective opposition to the global threat of catastrophic climate change would become in essence a “meta movement” uniting various sub struggles in much the same way that opposition to Jim Crow and the Vietnam War gave “the movement” its coherence during the sixties. Of course with the possibility of general antiwar sentiment resurging in opposition to America’s costly “war on terror,” and now a global economic crisis that no doubt will worsen before it can be resolved, a movement connecting these three strains (environment, war, and economy) is actually somewhat foreseeable. That is, if Obama is elected president and takes office in 2009 with a Democratic super-majority in Congress. At this point, social movements on the Left would have an institutional framework in Washington from which to develop grassroots modes of action—a “Green Revolution”—in concert with governmental reforms on the scale of the Neal Deal and Great Society programs (a “Green Deal”?). Progressive ideas might thus gain ascendency and become “common sense” throughout society in much the same manner that conservatism blossomed during the Reagan Revolution.
So while engaging in electoral politics through the Democratic Party does not hold all the answers for the Left, a new regime dedicated rhetorically (and at least somewhat practically) to providing “hope” for the masses and bringing “change” to Washington is at this point the only real place to begin. Should a new era of progressive hegemony dawn in America and perhaps across the globe, it will become manifest decades from now long after Obama has come and gone, when the world will be a very different place. The 2008 presidential election is therefore a test as to whether or not the Left in the US can overcome its fractious divides and begin establishing long-term coalitions designed to gain power and govern effectively while maintaining an ideological commitment to generating reformist and revolutionary strategies from below.
Given the complexities of this task, there is no guarantee that it could be accomplished even if Obama wins. Certainly, such a movement will not coalesce if a newly mobilized Left is not ready to immediately begin allying with or forcefully petitioning/pressuring the Obama administration from within and without. However, should McCain win in November, or should he lose but nonetheless permanently remobilize the reactionary (racist) right-wing fringe that his campaign has now activated, the prospects for Left organizing will be greatly diminished. A McCain-Palin administration would present most of the same obstacles that the Left has faced under the Bush-Cheney regime. Meanwhile, an Obama-Biden administration that lacks a strong base of dedicated progressive support could eventually succumb to the anger and frustration of working-class whites in rural America who will be easily convinced that their problems are the result of the foreigners, socialists, and terrorist sympathizers etc. that have infiltrated the Democratic Party through Obama. In short, conditions at the present crossroads are ripe for a concerted effort to push the country towards something like a European social democracy (partial nationalization of US banks has, for instance, just been announced). At the same time, some variant of a violent reaction—call it fascism or whatever else—is lurking just beneath the surface of an American populace, racked with panic and fear, recently shaped by George W. Bush’s Republicans yet poised to swing decisively leftwards into the arms of Barack Obama’s Democrats.
By this account, the New Left emerged from a terrain shaped by the Marxist-Leninism of the 1930s, even as many of the “red diaper babies” who grew into this movement rejected what they saw as the old model of Communist-inspired organizing. Class analyses therefore gave way to a culturalist mentality whereby the revolutionary agenda entailed a reorganization of society into an egalitarian democratic community. Many on the New Left discarded the need to seize control of the state or liquidate capitalism, arguing instead for the creation of alternative and to some extent anarchist modes of life in which elected leaders and organized political parties had no role except as evils to be avoided. The question of violence intersected this split between those moving towards cultural revolution and those who remained committed to a class-based model of organizing; pacifism and the pre-figurative power of love guided the younger generation of activists, whereas those who still saw revolution as a matter of political-economy argued for the use of vanguardist violence in order to dismantle the global capitalist interstate system. The advent of powerful national liberation movements throughout the Third World bolstered the arguments of Marxist-Leninists against their (counter) culturalist opponents in the United States.
In seeking to understand the sixties historically and draw lessons for the Left today, it seems fair to identify both visions as having major flaws. For while the vanguardist approach modeled after the Bolsheviks was still partially applicable to revolutionary movements in the Third World, it was much less connected to the realities of social and political-economic life in the Unites States in the late 20th century. At the same time, the advocates of countercultural revolution operated in a somewhat sheltered sphere of activism that fostered creativity and individuality while failing to articulate a coherent revolutionary strategy. Thus as the early New Left gave way to a more “radical” approach characterized by the stunted actions of the Weather Underground, forexample, these attempts at violent revolution proved no more successful than the hippies’ efforts to cultivate a peaceful and loving society.
It is crucial that one not overlook the important gains made by the New Left, particularly in the realms of civil rights, feminism, gay rights, and environmentalism. It is equally important to recognize the contributions of those who have maintained a dedication to class struggle throughout the post-1960s era. Whether violent or nonviolent, the spirit of militancy and urgency that persisted throughout the sixties has set the stage, perhaps, for a new (post-Reagan) left-wing upsurge that has been long envisioned yet so far unrealized. The key is to understand how potential Left coalitions turned into opposing, if not warring factions that tended to rehearse old divisions rather than work together to find new solutions. In this sense, the Left might be best served by pursuing something close to the Gramscian model of coalitional praxis that offers a revolutionary strategy combining political-economic and cultural agendas. In the end, however, social movements of the Left will find their most success not by following a certain theoretical model but rather through developing an organic struggle based in a common purpose around which broad coalitions of political and social actors can coalesce.
It is currently being argued by many on the Left that the need to protect the viability of life on earth provides perhaps the most hopeful basis for renewing progressivism in the twenty-first century. If this were to be the case, a pro-environment movement articulated as collective opposition to the global threat of catastrophic climate change would become in essence a “meta movement” uniting various sub struggles in much the same way that opposition to Jim Crow and the Vietnam War gave “the movement” its coherence during the sixties. Of course with the possibility of general antiwar sentiment resurging in opposition to America’s costly “war on terror,” and now a global economic crisis that no doubt will worsen before it can be resolved, a movement connecting these three strains (environment, war, and economy) is actually somewhat foreseeable. That is, if Obama is elected president and takes office in 2009 with a Democratic super-majority in Congress. At this point, social movements on the Left would have an institutional framework in Washington from which to develop grassroots modes of action—a “Green Revolution”—in concert with governmental reforms on the scale of the Neal Deal and Great Society programs (a “Green Deal”?). Progressive ideas might thus gain ascendency and become “common sense” throughout society in much the same manner that conservatism blossomed during the Reagan Revolution.
So while engaging in electoral politics through the Democratic Party does not hold all the answers for the Left, a new regime dedicated rhetorically (and at least somewhat practically) to providing “hope” for the masses and bringing “change” to Washington is at this point the only real place to begin. Should a new era of progressive hegemony dawn in America and perhaps across the globe, it will become manifest decades from now long after Obama has come and gone, when the world will be a very different place. The 2008 presidential election is therefore a test as to whether or not the Left in the US can overcome its fractious divides and begin establishing long-term coalitions designed to gain power and govern effectively while maintaining an ideological commitment to generating reformist and revolutionary strategies from below.
Given the complexities of this task, there is no guarantee that it could be accomplished even if Obama wins. Certainly, such a movement will not coalesce if a newly mobilized Left is not ready to immediately begin allying with or forcefully petitioning/pressuring the Obama administration from within and without. However, should McCain win in November, or should he lose but nonetheless permanently remobilize the reactionary (racist) right-wing fringe that his campaign has now activated, the prospects for Left organizing will be greatly diminished. A McCain-Palin administration would present most of the same obstacles that the Left has faced under the Bush-Cheney regime. Meanwhile, an Obama-Biden administration that lacks a strong base of dedicated progressive support could eventually succumb to the anger and frustration of working-class whites in rural America who will be easily convinced that their problems are the result of the foreigners, socialists, and terrorist sympathizers etc. that have infiltrated the Democratic Party through Obama. In short, conditions at the present crossroads are ripe for a concerted effort to push the country towards something like a European social democracy (partial nationalization of US banks has, for instance, just been announced). At the same time, some variant of a violent reaction—call it fascism or whatever else—is lurking just beneath the surface of an American populace, racked with panic and fear, recently shaped by George W. Bush’s Republicans yet poised to swing decisively leftwards into the arms of Barack Obama’s Democrats.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
DEBATING THE DEBATE: OBAMA, THE NEOCONS, AND AMERICAN EMPIRE (Follow-Up)
SPECTACLE '08/EMPIRE WATCH
BRANDON'S REPLY:
MY THOUGHTS IN RESPONSE:
For the most part, I don't think we disagree about much other than how best to confront and/or negotiate the realities of the Democratic party's hegemony over the American Left. The Democrats of today are a Center-Left party just as the Republicans are fundamentally of the Center-Right. Both of course are rooted in the European liberal-humanistic tradition (à la John Locke), although the contemporary GOP offers a more "conservative" articulation of liberalism symbolized by the thinking of, say, Edmund Burke. Our "two-party system" thus presents a pair of dialectically antagonistic political opponents that are ultimately more similar than not in most philosophical respects. According to Louis Hartz in The Liberal Tradition in America, this ideological cohesion, i.e. lack of Marxian "class struggle," is attributed to the absence of European-style feudalism in US history (antebellum Southern plantations being the closest thing). While Hartz's theory has significant holes, it does make a compelling case for the argument that a lack of mass peasant-to-proletariat conversion in America laid the foundation for what became a lack of class consciousness and, ultimately, the failure of socialism to take root on any significant scale. There being no actual Ancien Régime to rebel against--only an upper-echelon of citizens organized into a putatively benevolent political class--there has been no truly profound social antagonism along the lines of Paris in 1848 or Russia in 1917. Without an essentially feudal/aristocratic order that would beget its revolutionary overthrow, there has permeated the Horatio Alger mythology pointing a patriotic working-class upwards towards the always just out-of-reach "American Dream." Rather than contest the power of the ruling petit-bourgeoisie, people seek to join it.
Progressive liberals are thus often only marginally different (if not indistinguishable) from conservative liberals: Joe Lieberman, anyone? So with regard to either Obama on Afghanistan or JFK on Vietnam, one might generalize that the Democrats are ultimately good capitalist-imperialists just like their Republican colleagues. That said, we don't have the "luxury" (as they do in, say, Sweden or Spain of casting a meaningful vote for a functioning Communist, Socialist, Green, Labor or Social-Democratic, etc. alternative to the major liberal and conservative parties. We have no coalition governments with assemblies comprised of a myriad different factions representing constituencies across the political spectrum. Rather, we have two centrist parties that are in fact today heavily leveraged by corporate power. Furthermore, there is no cohesive anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist political force ready to materialize any time soon. This was all too evident during the recent Wall Street crisis and $700 billion Congressional bailout brouhaha: there is no Marxist-Leninist oriented discourse available to provide a "serious" (that is taken seriously) response to what can plausibly be characterized as the real-time demise of free-market ideology if not capitalism generally. The "critical Left" has been relegated to either stomaching whatever pathetic solution the Democratic leadership offers, or bitterly yet ineffectively denouncing it.
The same can be said for what remains of America's overseas military-economic empire and the ideology of "exceptionalism," i.e. "Manifest Destiny," upon which it is premised. As US global power over-extends itself in Iraq under the watch of a coalition led by the far Right, the moderate Democratic Left proposes only to scale-back and downsize, if not just refocus the nation's "foreign entanglements." While the Cold War provided justification for US interventionism as a means of promoting Lockean ideals throughout the world in response to the spread of communism, the liberal-conservative foreign policy Establishment now wrestles with how to craft a Global War on Terror (GWOT) into another long-term paradigm under which a new "American Century" can be sustained. And clearly, whether it be in the Iraq and Afghanistan quagmires, or the fact of a swiftly "rising" China/ Euro-Asian power bloc that virtually owns whatever remains of the US economy, signs abound that the much anticipated "end of American empire" is upon us. Yet we shouldn't look to the Democrats to begin immediately calling for the dismantling of the military-industrial complex.
So what should we be doing?
Rather than simply bash the Democratic leadership's centrist foreign policy, the critical Left might focus its attention on how to articulate a substantial and coherent strategy that could challenge a potential Obama administration to move in a progressive direction just as Bill Clinton found that he could not govern effectively without sliding to the right so as to please Republicans in Congress. Recent conservative successes can no doubt be attributed to the strength of their coalition in these regards. If there is a new Democratic administration alongside an enhanced Democratic majority in the House and Senate come January 2009, there ought to also be an energized progressive coalition that includes members of Congress as well as movement activists associated with MoveOn, Code Pink, and any grassroots organization interested in solidifying a leftwing hegemony.
Hence, imagine if the Obama-Biden White House (having begun a de-escalation in Iraq) introduced a bill to fund the war in Afghanistan that was rejected by a bloc of antiwar Democrats in Congress who were able to win over some (libertarian) Republican support. The House of Representatives' initial rejection of the Bush-Paulson Wall Street bailout has illuminated a newly fractious political atmosphere seeming to produce a realignment, on one hand, towards economic populism--77 Democrats (many from the Black, Latino, and Progressive Caucuses) voted along with the majority of Republicans against the bill. How this realignment might translate into Congressional action in the realm of foreign policy is unclear, yet one could at least envision a scenario whereby progressives in the House work with allies in the Green Party and elsewhere (read: Dennis Kucinich, Lynn Woolsey, etc. team-up with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney) to push for a massive shift of resources from foreign intervention towards health care, education, infrastructure, and renewable energy. Since a massive reduction in defense spending may be the only way to pay for the social programs that Obama has rhetorically committed himself to, progressives should contemplate how to effectively challenge the nascent GWOT consensus and make isolationism popular once again across the political spectrum. Such a reality could be foreseeable, even if not necessarily likely, with Obama and the Democrats in the White House.
So its ultimately not just a question of Obama being better than McCain, just as Kennedy was better than Nixon in 1960 or "Kang" better than "Kodos" in 1996. The question is whether or not progressives might form a coalition that could have actual influence in the direction of national affairs. Given all the dynamics of Obama's current function in American society, the political terrain would be infinitely more ripe for a major transition should he win and take office with Democrats in control amid a "new" Great Depression demanding another New Deal. At this moment, we should be working for the solidification of a Social Democratic bloc that can operate in a critical alliance (when possible) with the Obama-Biden administration to produce a progressive reformation of American society at the dawn of the "global century."
The stakes are too high for anything but a grand vision of how to work with what we are being given, and cooperate with whomever we can, in order to create the other world that we all know is possible. If we are to succeed in this albeit lofty goal, the critical Left must be willing to abandon a certain sense of ideological purity in the interest of creating the conditions that will be most conducive to radical reform and, perhaps, revolution. While the "change we need" certainly does not end with a new Democratic administration, any hope therein would surely never begin should John McCain become the 44th President of the United States.
Thus it boils down to three simple words: OBAMA, OR BUST!
Sunday, September 28, 2008
DEBATING THE DEBATE: OBAMA, THE NEOCONS, AND AMERICAN EMPIRE
The following exchange took place recently between myself and a close collaborator at the Center for Empire Studies, who on 9/27/08 posted
out-Hawking the Hawks:
Monday, September 22, 2008
1968-2008: OUR TIME FOR CHANGE HAS COME? (Part III)
SPECTACLE '08BY most accounts Obama delivered a stellar performance during his August 28 acceptance speech in front of 85,000 supporters at Mile High Stadium (Invesco Field). While not making reference to Dr. King by name--and in that manner not allowing racial politics to overshadow the wider imperatives of his speech--he nonetheless concluded by channeling the historic nature of the moment, weaving his campaign themes together with an eloquent plea to rekindle the collective aspirations articulated in "I Have a Dream." Obama bellowed from the convention podium:
The Democratic National Convention in Denver came on the heels of Obama's highly successful overseas trip designed to demonstrate his grasp of foreign policy and prove that he could pass the "commander-in-chief" threshold. In Iraq the Senator appeared about as "presidential" as possible while meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who all but endorsed Obama's timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. After capping his stop through the Middle East and Western Europe with a July 24 speech in front of 200,000 people gathered at Victory Column in Berlin's Tiergarten Park, Obama turned his attention towards the selection of a vice presidential running-mate. In what was initially viewed as a generally pragmatic and strategic choice, Team Obama named Joe Biden of Delaware--the sixty-five year-old chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden matches if not surpasses McCain's legislative bona fides (35 years in Congress) and is considered an "expert" on foreign affairs. He therefore helps negate what has been perceived as Obama's most glaring weakness: inexperience.This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.
Instead, it is that American spirit -- that American promise -- that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend...
And it is that promise that 45 years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.
The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.
But what the people heard instead -- people of every creed and color, from every walk of life -- is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.
'We cannot walk alone,' the preacher cried. ' And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."
America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise -- that American promise -- and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.
Biden's foreign policy leaves much to be desired among many progressives, as he voted for the 2002 Iraq war authorization and his general views on the Middle East are conventional, i.e. titled towards the Israeli perspective by default. Yet, his selection has also been more tolerable to Obama's leftwing base than would have been a number of the rumored alternatives, such as Senators Evan Bayh (Indiana) or Hillary Clinton. To be sure, Biden is thoroughly enmeshed in the Beltway establishment and doesn't exactly have a strong record of reform. Still, he is hardly among the worst of the worst in the Democratic (let alone Republican) party when it comes to being a corrupt "Washington insider" in the pocket of "special interests" (perhaps his greatest offense relates to connections with the credit-card companies based in his hometown of Wilmington). For the most part Biden is regarded as an amiable and independent-minded politician who offers his candid opinion on a regular basis, often straying from the party's proscribed "talking points." Furthermore, having a working/middle-class background filled with personal and familial tragedy, Biden's biography tugs at liberal heart strings in a manner similar to Obama's--he is in fact considered one of if not the "poorest" member of the U.S. Senate with a current net worth of around $300,000. Biden has also become a highly vocal critic of Bush-Cheney policies, although he could have used his powerful Senate position to do more by way of holding the White House accountable for its dubious actions in the "war on terror," i.e. torturing detainees, spying on law abiding U.S. citizens, and misleading the nation into an (arguably) illegal war. To his credit, the Delaware Senator recently affirmed Obama's stated commitment to pursue criminal charges against members of the Bush-Cheney administration if and when merited by investigations. Thus, Biden's selection can be seen as an attempt to combine the older senator's realistic grasp of "how Washington works" with the younger senator's desire for reform. And if Obama represents the reemergence of an RFK-like figure appealing to young progressives, it should be noted that Biden shares a birth date (separated by fourteen years) with Robert Kennedy on November 20. Meanwhile much like Obama today, during his primary campaign in 1988 many compared Biden's efforts to Kennedy's 1968 run for the nomination.
BEYOND THE CONVENTIONS
An estimated 38 million people watched Obama's speech in Denver, the largest audience ever for a political convention. "Mainstream" media discourse focused on the willingness (or lack thereof) among Clinton supporters to get on board with Obama-Biden, as well as which part of the ticket was going to most aggressively attack McCain. At the same time, "independent" media including Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! covered both the DNC and RNC (in St. Paul Minnesota) from an "un-embedded" point-of-view that focused as much on people and issues excluded from the conventions as on the choreographed speechifying inside the Pepsi and Xcel Energy Centers. DN's comprehensive coverage, "Breaking with Convention," offered incisive analysis of the insidious confluence of money and politics typified by these televised gatherings produced in partnership with corporate sponsors who also happen to be campaign contributors. Perhaps most egregious (or at least obvious) in these regards, the AT&T logo was emblazoned across an official 2008 DNC tote bag distributed to delegates, which reminded critical observers that while AT&T donates significantly to the coffers of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, the company could have suffered greatly due to pending civil lawsuits alleging that telecommunications companies collaborated with the dubious Bush-Cheney "warrantless wiretapping" program. Thus while these tote bags may seem benign enough, as noted by media critics such as Glenn Greenwald they symbolize the symbiotic relationship that exists between politicians and corporations like AT&T, which in fact threw a lavish private party for Democratic legislators in Denver that has been construed as an expression of gratitude for those who supported the retroactive immunity provision in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
As the Democratic and Republican wings of the nation's political and corporate elite gathered in celebration, dissent was therefore on display both outside and inside the conventions halls. Protesters in Denver and St. Paul were met by a massive and heavily militarized police presence designed to intimidate activists and preemptively destabilize their antiwar/anti-establishment mobilizations. While Democracy Now! provide unfiltered coverage of these demonstrations, Amy Goodman was arrested outside of the RNC as she and two of her producers were swept up by riot police who overreacted violently to sp
oradic vandalism among groups that had broken away from the peaceful gatherings. Meanwhile inside the DNC, Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich delivered a characteristically impassioned speech that appealed directly to the progressive wing of the party. A twice presidential candidate in the 2004 and 2008 Democratic primaries who has within the last year introduced--so far unsuccessfully--articles of impeachment against both Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, Kucinich told the convention (in part): Wake Up America! In 2001, the oil companies, the war contractors and the neocon artists seized the economy and added $4 trillion of unproductive spending to the national debt...Wake up, America! The insurance companies took over healthcare. Wake up, America! The pharmaceutical companies took over drug pricing...We went into Iraq for oil. The oil companies want more. War against Iran will mean $10-a-gallon gasoline. The oil administration, they want to drill more, into your wallet. Wake up, America!...
Now, this administration can tap our phones. They can’t tap our creative spirit. They can open our mail. But they can’t open economic opportunities. They can track our every move. But they lost track of the economy while the cost of food, gasoline and electricity skyrockets. Now, they have skillfully played our post-9/11 fears, and they’ve allowed the few to profit at the expense of the many. Every day, we get the color orange, while the oil companies, the insurance companies, the speculators, the war contractors get the color green. Wake up, America!
Kucinich is dedicated to the "global peace and justice movement" along with those who took to the streets in Denver and St. Paul. Yet, he continues to work within the Democratic Party while many of his allies criticize it from the Left. Thus in June Kucinich told Amy Goodman of his reservations about Obama's apparent abandonment of the progressive ideals that seemed to have helped him win the primary: "This election...is about hope, certainly, but it’s a
At the same time, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is perhaps the Republican equivalent of Rep. Kucinich in terms of electoral politics. A physician and longtime legislator who was the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in 1988, Rep. Paul generated a wealth of enthusiasm among disaffected young conservatives during the 2008 primary season. As part of a grassroots internet following, Paul's "Campaign for Liberty" attracts a diverse group of political affiliates under the banner: "The Revolution Continues." Paul's platform has some ideological agreement with the Left, especially in the realm of foreign policy where he calls for an end to "U.S. imperialism" and the closure of all American military bases across the world. Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, for instance, struck a similar chord at the first Democratic primary debate in South Carolina on April 26 2007. When NBC's Brian Williams asked the assembled candidates about "the three most important enemies to the United States"other
than Iraq, Gravel answered: "We have no important enemies. What we need to do is to begin to deal with the rest of the world as equals...We spend more as a nation on defense than all the rest of the world put together...The military industrial complex not only controls our government, lock, stock and barrel, but they control our culture." Therefore after being quietly excluded from subsequent Democratic debates, not to mention the DNC, Gravel made an unsuccessful bid to become the 2008 Libertarian nominee. Ron Paul, meanwhile, more or less excluded himself from the RNC and instead organized a "counter-convention" across the river at Minneapolis' Target Center where at least 10,000 people shadowed the GOP's nomination of John McCain at a "Rally for the Republic." Staking its claim on a return to the (conservative) principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights regarding small government, controlled spending, and an isolationist foreign policy, the "Ron Paul Revolution" is also fiercely committed to pure "free-market" capitalism, i.e. total financial deregulation (a la Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman) as well as staunch support for the Second Amendment.THE "THIRD PARTY" FACTOR
A true maverick within the Republican Party (unlike McCain) who is generally respected even among opponents, Paul steadfastly refuses to compromise his ideals by endorsing this years' GOP ticket. Instead, Rep. Paul rather surprisingly organized a "Third Party Press Conference" in Washington D.C. on September 10 in which independent candidate Ralph Nader and Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney joined with the (rightwing) Constitution Party's nominee Charles O. “Chuck” Baldwin. At this forum Paul urged his supporters to throw their efforts behind one of these candidates rather than vote for the "lesser of two evils." Libertarian nominee, and former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr decided at the
last minute to skip this event. But according to the the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Barr joined the other candidates in signing a "statement from Paul pledging their support for limited government, personal liberties, bringing U.S. troops stationed abroad home, and for an investigation into the Federal Reserve." Whether they be from the far Left or the far Right, this collection of odd political bedfellows--Paul, Nader, McKinney, and Barr is coherently united around the goal of reforming government in order to expand the political process beyond the "broken" two-party system. In an intriguing twist, Barr--who had helped lead the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton--has asked Paul to join him on the Libertarian ticket. However, the Texas Congressman has apparently declined his former colleague's offer.Excluded from debates and otherwise not covered seriously by the mainstream media, the Green and Libertarian Parties in particular have rather sizable and devoted followings that would conceivably be represented in Congress if the American version of electoral democracy were closer to European-style multiparty (coalitional) parliaments. It is also fairly obvious that Ralph Nader's political fortunes would be quite different if the media landscape were not dominated by the interests of Time Warner (CNN), Disney (ABC), General Electric (NBC), Viacom (CBS), and NewsCorporation (FOX). After his 2000 run as a Green
when he arguably siphoned enough votes from Al Gore to help put Bush over the top, Nader ran again in 2004 as an independent earning less votes and less attention. Nader's 2008 running-mate is Matt Gonzalez, a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who as a Democrat-turned-Green lost a close race for mayor in 2003. But the independent Nader/Gonzalez ticket is floundering in many respects this election cycle, and thus during a June 25 interview with the Rocky Mountain News Nader caused a minor controversy when he made the following remarks: "There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American." Nader added: "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?"Although some pundits unfairly attacked Nader's comments comparing Sen. Obama and Rev. Jackson as racist, a more sober assessment might echo the words of Joan Walsh who asked in her June 25 Salon.com column: "Is Ralph Nader Losing It?". The same day on MSNBC's Hardball Walsh joined host Chris Mathews and others including Bob Herbert of the New York Times in agreeing with Obama, who after rebutting claims that he hasn't addressed certain issues, declared: "Ralph Nader is trying to get attention. He‘s become a perennial political candidate. I think it‘s a shame because if you look at his legacy in terms of consumer protections, it‘s an extraordinary one. But at this point, he‘s somebody who‘s trying to get attention and whose campaign hasn‘t gotten any traction." Nader has indeed not received as much attention in 2008 as he did in 2000 and 2004, in large part because of the historic nature of this year's campaign and the fact that, unlike either Gore or Kerry, Obama has a genuinely progressive base of supporte
rs. Hence the cries of outrage at Obama's perceived abandonment of his core constituency, which was more or less at the heart of Nader's charge that the Illinois Senator is simply another centrist Democrat aligned with Wall Street and the corporate oligarchy. Yet such a critique of Team Obama's strategy of triangulation, or perhaps of the candidate's apparent willingness to compromise his ideals, is rather different from Nader's musings that "he wants to show that he is not a threatening...another politically-threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as a black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically, he‘s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it‘s corporate or whether it‘s simply oligarchic, and they love it. Whites just eat it up.”Granting that he could have phrased himself better, and giving him the benefit of doubt as far as his intentions, it still seems rather clear that Nader is not grasping the complexities of racial politics--nor of race in politics--by decrying the fact that Obama is trying to reassure the ruling elite that he's on their side. The Senator is, after all, effectively attempting to become the ceremonial leader of a global "white power structure." Nader surely knows that it would be foolhardy for any candidate--black or white--to expect to run for and become president by appealing primarily to people in poor communities who don't contribute to campaigns and, quite often, don't vote. Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, or Nader himself might be the president today if the American electoral system were truly democratic in that sense. This is exactly why it is promising that--despite his obligatory entanglement in the murky and dubious realm of power politics--Barack Obama remains connected to a grassroots (progressive) orientation informed by his ethnic heritage and solidified through experiences in Hawaii, Indonesia, and Chicago's South Side. This life story as a multiracial community organizer and constitutional lawyer/law professor separates him from other presidential candidates, as well as from other high-profile black politicians such as Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice. Unlike previous African-American presidential hopefuls on the Left including Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton, who were known as civil rights leaders and never gained sufficient antional support, Obama has developed his image as a political leader who supports causes attached to the legacy of the civil rights movement without being seen as an activist. He can therefore claim to be "post-racial" in the sense of not being a candidate whose constituency is defined by skin color and limited to those who look similar to himself. Nader's blanket dismissal of Obama as simply more of the same therefore ignores reality: it is truly phenomenal for a black man to potentially be a few months away from entering the White House, let alone an African-American with progressive roots who appeals culturally to the largely depoliticized "hip-hop generation" yet has managed to not be vilified as a "black candidate" in large part because of being half white.
While it is appropriate and worthwhile to be skeptical of Obama's policies and campaign strategies, one must question the wisdom of Nader's decision to launch haphazard attacks that seem to have earned him only a brief spurt of negative media attention focused on personality rather than substance. Moreover it is clear from Obama's reaction to Nader's comments that it might have in theory been possible for the longtime consumer advocate to have formed a political coalition with the onetime community organizer now seeking the nation's highest office. Yet Nader's stubborn and awkward combativeness all but assured Obama's subsequent distancing from the man who, despite being a tireless crusader for social justice, may be most remembered for having helped (s)elect George W. Bush in 2000. Admitting that he has no chance of winning the presidency in 2008, Nader could have pursued a more strategic campaign aimed at opening a critical dialog with the Democratic candidate in order to press Obama in a progressive direction. To that end, he and Matt Gonzalez might have been better off working from within the Green Party, but instead their independent campaign overlaps and in some ways duplicates the efforts of former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her Green running-mate Rosa Clemente. Although claiming to be in solidarity with McKinney and Clemente, Nader and Gonzalez are inevitably cutting into their votes and ultimately diminishing the strength of the
Greens as a progressive center-of-gravity. Ousted from the House of Representatives by energized opponents, and essentially banished from the Democratic Party, the firebrand McKinney recently relaunched her political career with the Green Party; Clemente is a journalist and self-described "hip-hop activist"of Puerto Rican descent who was raised in the South Bronx. Like Nader and Gonzalez, McKinney and Clemente are having a difficult time gaining traction with voters during an election that has been so focused on the nation's first would-be black president. Hence, their evident frustration during a July 21 interview with Democracy Now!, when Clemente was prompted to tell Amy Goodman: "There have been some people caught up in Obama-mania, as I call it and other people, that are upset [about the possibility of the Greens taking votes away from Democrats], but they don’t understand, I think, right now the situation that we’re in. They don’t understand that the Democrats and Republicans joined forces to keep the Green Party off the ballot. They don’t understand that we are being whited out of every mainstream and even some progressive media." Therefore striking a defiant if not also hostile chord, she continued: "And my question to them [Obama supporters] is always, or my response: if we are not telling the truth, if we are not about empowering the majority of the American people, why are forces that are worth $200 million, $300 million not only keeping us off the ballots, but not even talking about us."
Clemente's rhetorical stance is indicative of a tendency among ideologues on the Left to masterfully diagnose problems without being able to develop a strategy for overcoming them. Furthermore, such progressives often value idealism more than pragmatism in political leaders who thus find themselves "preaching to the choir" as their radical rhetoric alienates those who haven't already been won over. Many therefore respect what McKinney and Clemente (as well as Nader and Gonzalez) represent, while questioning the long-term effectiveness of their campaigns. From this perspective Amiri Baraka of the Black Arts Collective published an uncompromising critique of those who are voting Green rather than standing with Obama as the only prospect for real and immediate progress from within the electoral system. According to Baraka: "The people who are supporting McKinney must know that that is an empty gesture. But too often such people are so pocked with self congratulatory idealism, that they care little or understand little about politics (i.e. the gaining, maintaining and use of power) but want only to pronounce, to themselves mostly, how progressive or radical or even revolutionary they are."
Sure enough, Baraka tapped into a controversy that has fractured the American Left more or less since 1968 when the assassination of Robert Kennedy amid an escalating war in Vietnam perpetuated chaos at the DNC in Chicago and opened the door for Richard Nixon's ascendancy. What had in fact climaxed that year as the inchoate beginning of a socialist-inspired global revolution lost its cohesion and unraveled sending the movements of the "sixties" in divergent and often competing directions. In a recent reflection among scholars and activists on Pacifica Radio's Against the Grain (KPFA) titled "Appraising '68", Barbara Epstein and John Sanbonmatsu argued that, as an outcome of 1968, a rather large portion of the Left--often informed by some version of anarchism--views either electoral politics in general or the two-party system specifically as a tool of the ruling elite; another camp, inspired by elements of postmodernism, rejects the oppressive nature of "politics" in favor of a liberating "culturalism" devoted to exploring identity formation and related concepts. While productive and perhaps even essential in an intellectual/academic sense, this factionalism has contributed to a steady decline of progressive influence in national electoral politics since the late sixties. Scholars such as Epstein and Sanbonmatsu therefore refer to the insights of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, whose theory of cultural hegemony posits that power is ultimately attained through overlapping economic and ideological struggles in which the dictates of political compromise often necessitate the formation of strategic coalitions. Although debate continues over how to best navigate the current system, one important lesson of 1968 is that progressives can continue ignoring electoral politics only at their own peril. Whether this means going Green with McKinney, standing firm with Nader, or casting a vote for Obama is a somewhat separate question. So to is the issue of how progressives can and should re-unite after the election, especially under an Obama-Biden administration.
THE "OTHER SHOE" DROPS
Yet as the 2008 election enters its final forty days, it appears as though neither McKinney nor Nader will be a serious factor, especially compared to the potentially larger impact that Bob Barr and Ron Paul could have among conservatives. Moreover, whatever momentum may have developed inside the ranks of third party campaigns was surely blunted by the McCain camp's shocking vice-presidential nomination of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a deeply religious political neophyte with hard-line conservative views and none of the heretofore requisite qualifications for national office. Thus providing an emergency shot of adrenaline to a campaign that desperately needed to shift the nation's focus, Palin's RNC speech in fact drew slightly more viewers than Obama's historic moment in Denver, as did McCain's remarks the following evening. Many Left pundits gravitated to the notion that Palin's selection as the GOP's first female VP candidate was a cynical ploy designed to peel "white working-class" women voters--especially disaffected Hillay Clinton supporters--away from the Democrats. Yet with her performance in St. Paul, it became clear that her primary function on the campaign trail would be to provide red meat for the conservative base by using a combination of attacks and one-liners to reignite the "culture wars," i.e. debates over abortion, gun-control, gay marriage, etc. She thus went immediately for the jugular against Obama while defending her record as Mayor of Wasila, Alaska, telling the convention: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco."
For a while it looked like the GOPs' quite risky decision to select Palin might just pay-off, as she began drawing large crowds and became a fresh face who could deliver a great speech; some even began calling her the "Republican Obama." With the help of Palin's self-styled image as "an average hockey mom"-turned reformist politician who successfully challenged the corrupt Alaska lawmakers in her own party, McCain managed to recapture his branding as a Senate "maverick" willing to buck the Establishment. No doubt informed by a lack of enthusiasm for McCain, the GOP campaign that had been built on touting experience as an antidote to the risk involved in electing Obama suddenly felt compelled to begin promising its own version of change. While keeping Palin far away from the press, and in fact pursuing a reinvigorated "attack the media" strategy of defense against mounting scrutiny of her record (as well as McCain's apparently hasty decision), for a few days the election reached the peak of inanity as political commentators parsed the meaning of "lipstick on a pig" in order to detect a hint of sexism in Obama's stump-speech. Meanwhile conservative women took to wearing Palin paraphernalia and chanting, with reference to the Governor's energy policy: "drill baby, drill!" But just as Republicans could claim to have recaptured momentum and changed the election narrative to their advantage, the "Palin bubble" began to burst. This occurred first as serious questions arose regarding the Governor's honesty, as she for instance claimed to have resisted Alaska's infamous pork-barrel "bridge to nowhere" project when in fact she had initially supported it. Meanwhile the Alaska Senate is currently investigating the possibility that Palin wrongfully fired the state's public safety commissioner for personal reasons and is now covering-up her actions; thus, "Troopergate" threatens to be a major political headache for the McCain campaign as an official bipartisan report will be completed on October 10.As all this was brewing, a sudden Wall Street nosedive on September 15 in what appears to be the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression permanently changed the conversation. Both candidates have now been forced to react to an unfolding financial meltdown of unkown proportions. Combined with an increasingly tense geopolitical situation in the Middle East, and now also between Russia and the West, it is beginning to seem more than a little bit like the 1930s all over again. What will be the effect on the election of collapsing financial markets alongside a proposed $700 government bailout at a time when the Iraq war has already depleted the Federal Reserve? Is Obama promising to be the next FDR as much as the next RFK? Where, for that matter, are Bush and Cheney these days? Is this just the begining of a whole new page in both American and world history?
Stay tuned...
Monday, July 14, 2008
1968-2008: OUR TIME FOR CHANGE HAS COME? (Part II)
SPECTACLE '08LURCHING TOWARDS THE RIGHT?
Obama's strategy of triangulation began in earnest with his June 4, 2008 remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in New York in which he angered many Middle East scholars and activists by going further than any recent presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, in declaring support for an "undivided" Jerusalem. This seemingly unnecessary pander to the "Israel lobby" (read: neoconservative/Likud alliance) infuriated Arabs committed to making East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state, as well as many supporters who had taken Obama at his word regarding his desire to not just bring the troops home from Iraq, but to actually "change the mindset that got us into war in the first place." While he has since attempted to clarify his remarks to indicate a less hard line position on Jerusalem, it appeared to many critical observers that the Senator's promise to break with the "politics of fear" and promote a more multilateral foreign policy stressing international diplomacy was quickly losing steam. Then Obama announced that he was forgoing his right to receive public funding for the general election, which signaled an apparent back-track from his pledge to help eliminate the undue influence of private campaign contributions (i.e. money from PAC's and "special interests"). It is debatable whether or not his funding decision should really raise alarm bells on the Left, as many progressives accept the argument that Obama's online fundraising apparatus functions at least partially as a parallel public campaign-finance system. It is also arguable that it would be strategically unwise to cede his financial advantage in the general election against a GOP eager to destroy his candidacy. Yet Obama's revised position on the issue of campaign finance is certainly not a demonstration of progressive instincts, nor can it be heartening for those paying attention to what the candidate does rather than what he says.
But the floodgates really seemed to burst open when the Senator announced that he was reneging on a previous decision to withhold support for a bill that would retroactively immunize telecommunications companies charged in civil lawsuits with having participated in the Bush-Cheney administration's dubious "warrantless wiretapping" program. This "flip-flop" on renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was viewed by many progressives as a disastrous capitulation on the part of top Democratic officials including Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. To many in his "netroots" base, Obama's decision to essentially condone illegal spying on U.S. citizens crossed a most unfortunate line. Prominent progressives in the media began expressing outrage with the Senator, for instance MSNBC's Keith Olbermann issued a scathing "Special Comment" on the subject during the June 30 edition of Countdown, while that same day Arianna Huffington posted on her website a "Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers." Impassioned debates and appeals to the candidate are now rattling through the leftwing "blogoshpere" and have even extended into the fringes of the Obama camp, as a collection of his supporters organized a group whose message urging him to "Please Vote No on Telecom Immunity" briefly headlined his official website. However, the Senator voted for the bill while around the same time stating positions on gun-control and Bush's "faith-based initiatives" that have further rankled progressive sensibilities. To her credit, Hillary Clinton voted against the FISA bill, but this of course added insult to injury for those Obama supporters who expected their candidate to take principled stands on such issues.
"OBAMANIA" REVISITED
.jpg)
One way or another, much has changed since the early phases of Obama's campaign driven by youthful enthusiasm. In this sense, those who jumped on the bandwagon as it pulled out of Iowa were bound to be disappointed by the candidate at some point; given the extraordinary level of excitement the campaign generated early on, it was only a matter of time before it came back to reality. Although the punditry raised its expectations for Obama rapidly after Iowa, in reality absolutely no one in the media or the Beltway had initially expected him to emerge from the pack or even be a factor in the race whatsoever. Thus his second-place finish in New Hampshire was a reality-check both for team Obama and the media that had recently become infatuated with this political phenomenon. It was indeed shaping-up to be a long and hard-fought primary campaign, and Obamania really took-off at this point, as the candidate delivered another memorable oration, themed "Yes We Can!," meant to re-inspire supporters: "We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember that, no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change." Part of this speech subsequently became the basis for a popular internet music video produced by hip hop artist "will.i.am" of the Black Eyed Peas, in which a cast of celebrities take turns singing over Obama's voice as the candidate bellows:
It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can. It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot, a president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land: Yes, we can, to justice and equality. Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world.
Armed with a renewed sense of purpose as well as a new slogan, team Obama reignited a wave of energetic advocacy by demonstrating to (would-be) followers that the Illinois Senator was a different kind of politician who sought not only to win the White House, but to also build (or lead?) a movement--"powered by change and supporters like you," as advertised by the campaign website. While no doubt inspired by belief in their candidate's eloquently delivered message of hope, many Obamaniacs (especially those on the Left) were clearly becoming swept away in a "cult of personality" emerging around this multiracial "son of the sixties" poised to be the youngest President since John F. Kennedy. And just as JFK's daughter Caroline and her uncle Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) publicly bestowed upon Obama the legacy of their "Camelot" political dynasty, excitement surrounding the youthful and handsome presidential candidate paralleled the elder Kennedy brothers' status as both a political and cultural icon/"sex-symbol." Therefore while the sixties had its "Kennedy Girls," the "Obama Girl"craze began in June 2007--before the primary season started--and spiraled into a YouTu
be sensation as the candidate's fortunes skyrocketed along with his popularity. Some on the Left projected their personal aspirations into their vision of Obama, whose image thus grew into that of a "hip hop generation" rock-star just as much as it came to symbolize the desire among many for a post-Bush/Cheney political savior able to rekindle the promise of the sixties (whatever that was exactly). But not everybody necessarily thinks of Obama as the Bob Marley of presidential candidates--or, if they do, it isn't necessarily meant as a compliment.RIGHTWING REACTION
His position as an essentially "empty vessel" has thus also fueled a substantial amount of ardent anti-Obama sentiment ranging from his far Left critics to hard core Clinton supporters, on the one hand, and on the other hand encompassing a phalanx of rightwing detractors many of whom engage in explicitly racist attacks. Thus beyond dealing with those who present quite rational and thoughtful opposition to what is known of his policies--as well as facing a certain backlash against the sycophantic nature of some Obamaniacs--the candidate has been forced to confront a unique and powerful "smear campaign" designed almost entirely around the three Arabic names he inherited from his father, who was born into a Muslim family; that Obama lived and attended grade school briefly in Indonesia as a child has only added fuel to the fire. FOX News producers, for instance, continuously "miss-spell" the candidate's last name on screen, replacing the "b" with an "s" in order to draw a visceral connection between Obama and Osama bin Laden. Some on-air personalities, meanwhile, relish in mentioning the candidate's middle name hoping to incite those viewers who harbor a patriotic hatred of former Iraqi dictator (and most recent "bogeyman" for U.S. power) Saddam Hussein.
It would be too painful and is unnecessary to recall the litany of sound-bytes and images produced to convey the idea that Obama is at worst a "secret Muslim"/terrorist sympathizer, and at best an anti-American Christian, coming from a church with fiery preachers in dashikis expounding "black liberation theology" while excoriating "whitey" and Uncle Sam. The media fiasco surrounding the Obama family's longtime pastor and friend Rev. Jeremiah Wright was a highly visible manifestation of fears, both genuine and manufactured, over the Senator's skin color combined with rumor-fed uncertainties about his religious background. Recently FOX's E.D. Hill wondered aloud on-camera if the quotidian hand gesture exchanged between Barack and his wife Michelle Obama prior to the candidate's June 3 speech in St. Paul may have been a "terror
ist fist jab." While Hill's comments arguably brought the Right's anti-Obama smear campaign to a new level of inanity, the just-released July 21 edition of the New Yorker magazine features a cover-page cartoon (titled "The politics of fear") satirizing the ridiculousness of such tactics. Unfortunately for Obama and his liberal constituents who form most of the New Yorker's readership, the image lacks just enough context so as to be exploited by the very attack-machine it is obviously lampooning. Rather than demonstrating why such satire is inappropriate during an election, as some have suggested, the outcry surrounding this political commentary demonstrates the volatile combination of differences--under the particular geopolitical and cultural circumstances of the so-called "global war on terror"--that are contained within Obama's multi-ethnic background. Not only is there a sad reality that some voters will simply not vote for a black candidate, even if he is half-white, it is equally true that in the post-9/11 climate of drastically heightened Islamo-phobia, even the perception of being Muslim creates suspicion and fear among what are often described as "low-information voters" like the one out of ten people who wrongly believe (or perhaps are just keen to tell pollsters) that Obama is Muslim.It still remains to be seen whether his campaign will forcefully tackle the issue of religion in a manner similar to his speech in Philadelphia, "A More Perfect Union," acclaimed by many for thoughtfully and substantively addressing the superficial firestorm generated by media attention to some of his former pastor's remarks. To the extent that Obama spoke publicly about his own background and was able to open space for a more sophisticated national conversation about race, he has yet to take a similar stand with regard to rumors concerning his religious faith. In fact while attempting to disassociate the candidate from false information, team Obama brought itself eerily close to its Islamo-phobic opponents during a June 16 rally in Detroit when campaign volunteers had two women wearing Muslim head-scarves moved so they would not appear behind the candidate--apparently out of concern that such an image might be used as negative PR by those on the Right propagating the "Obama is a secret Muslim" campaign. The Illinois Senator issued a swift apology for the embarrassing incident, and it therefore may be encouraging to some that he has recently gone on-record about the New Yorker cover, saying: "You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things...And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about." Nonetheless, Obama has yet to give this besieged group what it deserves by delivering a ceremonial public address on its behalf, or whatever one imagines he might do to make clear the offensiveness of suggestions that being Muslim is a liability or cause for concern.
All of this points to another powerful dynamic underlying the 2008 presidential election and Obama's role as the candidate of "change." For no matter what he does to reassure the "war party" within the Beltway establishment of his credentials to guide U.S. foreign policy, he will always have skeptics among those neoconservative-influenced "hawks" and other anti-Palestinian forces, in many cases rightwing Jewish-Americans and Christian Zionists, who see Obama's past relations with progressive Arab-Americans as a sign of his true, and now-hidden allegiances. Seen in this light, Obama's rhetorical pandering to the Israel Lobby is part of what has become a standard ritual for mainstream American politicians, but it also has added importance given that he, for instance, was photographed at a Chicago fundraiser breaking bread with the eminent Palestinian intellectual/activist Edward Said. While this would be a badge of honor for many on the Left (and perhaps was at one point for Obama), the neoconservative universe has labeled (slandered) Said as the "terror professor," and the rightwing blogosphere is currently ablaze with such "evidence" of the Illinois Senator's supposed "anti-Israel bias." Said was at Columbia while Obama studied there in the early 1980s, but opponents have drawn a stronger connection between Obama and Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian scholar and activist at the University of Chicago who has apparently had a personal relationship with the Senator in years past, perhaps as part of an intellectual cohort that included former 1960s radical William Ayers.
But it is not so much a concern over the Jewish vote that is driving team Obama towards a strong embrace of Israel. Rather, it is a question of the political and financial rewards that accrue in official Washington to those seen as being a friend of the Jewish state. So just as Obama was forced, in one sense, to permanently dawn a flag-pin after the media consistently questioned his patriotism, the candidate faced overwhelming pressure to jettison--at least for now--whatever perception there may be that he has ever been an advocate of Palestinian rights. This lingering reputation could, ironically, be nothing more than the traces of Obama's early attempts to make his way in Chicago politics by courting that city's relatively large Arab-American population. Now that he faces an election in which he needs the support of the Israel Lobby far more than he needs that of prominent Muslim-Americans, his tune has perhaps changed accordingly. It is also possible that he would, as President, seek to chart a new and better course for solving the Israel-Palestine conflict yet strategically chooses to wait until he's in office before rocking the foreign policy boat.
Either way, Obama's statements concerning the Middle East crisis, like his post-primary rhetoric in general, express a willingness to engage all the traditional games a candidate must play in order to be elected to the Oval Office. At the level of presidential politics, one is undoubtedly faced with pressure to make the right new friends and sell-out the right old friends. If this is indeed what is now occurring with team Obama, it should not really surprise those on the critical (and smartly skeptical) Left, even though it may present a cause for sadness. Yet does this mean that the candidate of "change we can believe" who promises to "turn a new page" and "write and new chapter" is really just a slick snake-oil salesman? Is there perhaps even a sinister conspiracy involving Obama as a front-man for behind-the-scenes political operators (i.e. the Bilderberg Group), or is he in some other way just
a pawn in the hands of the power-elite?If so, does this mean that progressives should rally behind either Ralph Nader (running as an independent) or former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) , who on July 12 secured the Green Party nomination? What, then, should the Left make of groups like Progressives for Obama? For that matter, what should such groups make of Obama these days? When he formally accepts the Democratic nomination on August 28--the fortieth anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech--in front of at least 75,000 people in an open-air stadium in Denver, could the candidate of hope and inspiration reemerge to once again electrify the nation and rekindle excited belief among youth and progressive activists? Will Obama at that moment become the embodiment of King's dream? Or, will the convention be just an elaborate show of pageantry, an expensive spectacle that actually exploits the legacy of the civil rights movement for crass political gain?
And in the meantime, how will worsening economic crisis and festering (perhaps also broadening) wars in the Middle East affect the presidential campaign? Is it the case that the Democrats could almost nominate a stuffed donkey in August and still be virtually guaranteed to reenter the White House on January 20, 2009? Might Bush and Cheney have one final trick up their bloodied sleeves?
Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
As always, I love your optimism and enthusiasm, though i think you may be reading too much into Obama's internationalism and his connection to Brzezinski.
Brzezinski was perhaps the loudest critic of Obama's much touted plan to "surge" US forces in Afghanistan, describing his proposal as falling into the "Afghan trap" he set for the Soviets (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f031f936-56a0-11dd-8686-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1), but then Zbig was one of the loudest voices calling for a confrontation with Russia over Georgia- Zbig has an an acute case of what Roger Morris calls "the Baltic Syndrome" -- east Europeans driven by ethnic and national hatreds of Russia that render them incapable of any truly realistic fp analysis. But I think Zbig is neither here nor there. He says that he supports the campaign, but will not take any formal adviser role because he doesn't want to be forced to subordinate his analysis to the dictates of domestic lobbies (bywhich he means AIPAC). He would like to keep his ethnic and national hatreds pure, in this sense. And Obama for his part wants to have nothing to do with Zbig for fear of alienating his AIPAC base of support.
My sense is that there is no grand strategic thinking here, only election year posturing. The Dems have long believed that they demonstrate their fp and national security credentials by outflanking Republicans on the right in Afghanistan. They have not however, succeeded in explaining how escalating America's involvement in that country will make the situation any better, nor have they explained how exactly we are going to pay for said escalation (Fareed Zakaria had a great discussion with Rory Stewart on the subject a couple weeks ago:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/07/fzgps.01.html).
Afghanistan is indicative of the moral, political and intellectual bankruptcy of the Dems (AKA the "me too" party) as a whole. I understand why the Dems are so eager to appear the Me Too Party on fp issues (see forthcoming post) but I think this kind posturing lacks moral courage and is strategically stupid. For eg, I have no idea why on god's green earth Obama would choose to tell O'Rielly that the surge has succeeded "beyond our wildest dreams," instead of arguing (as Dreyfuss did on DN this morning) that it flew in the face of all expert opinion and has kept us in there spending $10b a month for two more years. He could also compliment the intelligence of the electorate by citing the wealth of expert analysis that attributes the decrease in violence in Iraq (though still incredibly high) to factors intrinsic to Iraqi society and politics- namely the Shi'ite victory over their Sunni rivals in an Iraqi civil war that successfully imposed ethnic and sectarian segregation on a formerly integrated society (isn't it amazing how dramatically violence dropped in Virgina from 1865 to 1866-- the funny thing about civil wars is that once one side wins, violence goes down...).
when it comes to fp, Obama has assured all those that matter that he will not produce any dramatic departures from received practice and wisdom.
Sure, he may be better than McCain, but that is really not saying much. Its a bit like saying JFK was better than Nixon in 1960. Sure, I guess so, but isn't this a rather dubious distinction? Isn't JFK the one that escalated US involvement in Vietnam? Would Nixon have done the same, or would he have continued his predecessor's policy of limiting US involvement? We can never know, but what we can know is that presidents can become prisoners of their own rhetoric-just as JFK was held hostage to the discourse of communist containment - so too is Obama (BHO) trapped in the discourse of the GWOT. I don't suppose that it will be easier to challenge its dominant symbols on Nov 5, than it will be on Nov 3.
My sense is that the Dems will continue to get railroaded on fp issues until they invent a new language for challenging the presuppositions of received wisdom, and we will continue to be saddled with the burdens of Empire (ie low levels of public investment, high levels of public debt, and an anti-intellectual, anti-dissent, quasi-fascist political culture).
As I said in the post, economic circumstances may sweep BHO into the WH, and may force him to reevaluate priorities once there. But even if it turns this way (as I sincerely hope it does), Obama will have contributed nothing to the more fundamental task of refashioning the symbols of American national identity, and articulating a new vision of America's place in history and the world. On the contrary he will have the dubious distinction of having been on the wrong side of that struggle.
One little addition: JFK was a prisoner of the discourse of communist containment that HE HELPED CONSTRUCT (most famously by challenging the republicans from the right for going soft against the Ruskies (the "missile gap." and allowing a detente to to take shape)).
Discursive deconstruction is not just for our friends in the lit dept-- "going with the flow" is best left to dead fish.