I don’t want to overstate the case for Barack Obama, who has been fairly circumspect about his intentions if elected. While saying he is against the Iraq War, he has not acted very forcefully to help bring it to an end. And he certainly has not called for any downsizing of America’s bloated military budget or any end to its imperialist foreign policy — absolutely essential if there is to be any progressive change of consequence in the US.
That said, those who believe that the Democratic Party is firmly in the hands of a malignant and self-serving corporate and political elite have to explain why “their” candidate, Hillary Clinton, seems to be sinking.
Meanwhile, it must be acknowledged that the Obama phenomenon is a real thing. That is to say, whatever his personal politics, his candidacy is genuinely igniting a wave of passionate support across the nation among people — particularly the young, and more recently African Americans — who had for years been ignored by, and consequently disinterested in the political process.
It might be that this is all the result of the magic of
charisma, a winning smile and a good turn of phrase. But even so, it
would be a mistake for the jaded left, myself included, to dismiss this
phenomenon as meaningless, and to ignore it or its potential.
Indeed,
I want to suggest here that Obama may at this point have the proverbial
tiger by the tail, in that his clarion calls for “hope” and for
“change” may be stirring up hopes and expectations for those very
things in a way that will not easily be denied should he succeed. (In
this he does resemble Jack Kennedy, whose own politics tended to be
conservative and Establishment, but whose rhetoric helped stir a
generation to political idealism, and may have contributed to the era
of '60s activism.)
I would also suggest that while Sen. Obama
may well be part of the party Establishment — with a record as a safe
backer of the status quo — if he succeeds in winning the nomination,
and especially if he goes on and wins the White House, it will be
because he has aroused a huge pool of voters in this country who had
until now been cynically staying away from politics. It will be because
he has transcended the racial divide that has stymied real political
change for so long.
And the forces that are propelling him
toward the nomination, and toward the White House, are forces that will
not easily be denied if they succeed.
That is to say, a
President Barack Obama, whatever his own political beliefs (and we
don’t really know much about the man), could well find himself, thanks
to the movement that puts him in power, freed from the shackles of the
Democratic Leadership Council and the army of advisors of stasis and
corporatism that cling to most Democratic political figures like
barnacles to a rotting pier.
For this to happen, Obama will
first have to reach out beyond his current base of support, to
rank-and-rile workers — both unionized and non-union--to Latinos and
other minority groups, and to older Americans. He’ll have to reach out,
that is, to the groups that have thus far still been backing Hillary
Clinton and the party Establishment. He need not win all those groups
over to his side — in fact it would be better if he didn’t. He needs
only to win over the disaffected within those groups — the people who
recognize that they have been betrayed by the two parties and by the
System.
Should this happen — and it probably will have to happen
for this first serious black candidate for the presidency to
successfully beat back the Clintonians and the DLC, who will try to
kill off his candidacy before the convention — Obama will have been,
perhaps in spite of himself, or perhaps because there is in him still
some spark of insurgency, transformed into a real agent of progressive
change.
None of this means that a President Obama would be a new
Franklin Roosevelt. The pressures on any president to “cool it” and
play the game of supporting the big moneyed interests that have been
undermining and hollowing out America for decades are enormous. But
certainly an alternative reality is also possible — namely that an
aroused and newly empowered bloc of voters, in bringing a black
politician to the pinnacle of power in America, could tip the balance
and free that new president from outside of the White Establishment to
follow his better instincts. (Franklin Roosevelt himself, remember, was
no Franklin Roosevelt when he ran for office; the movement that
installed him in office made him into the transformative New Deal
figure he became.)
Progressives cannot be naive about this. Even
if I’m right, for a Barack Obama administration to become the dawn of a
genuine progressive era, it would demand tremendous organizing and
continuous political campaigning after Election Day. There will surely
be a serious effort by the political Establishment — both on Wall
Street and inside the Beltway — to rein in both a new president and the
forces that put him there. And Obama himself — clearly no visceral
radical--will need to be convinced that the path to a second term lies
through heeding his populist base, not through reaching accommodation
with the sclerotic old guard.
That is a call-to-arms, though, not a reason to ignore this possibility.
What
I’m suggesting here is that Barack Obama’s campaign, by its very
rhetoric of change, may be creating something bigger than Barack Obama,
and that Barack Obama may never have intended: a powerful constituency
for real change.
We are so beaten down by the forces of reaction in this country that even sort erstwhile "Marxists" like Lindorf see Obama as "progressive." This is nonsense. First of all, elections do not represent the exercise of power by the people, but are merely PR for legitimizing decisions already made. We get to "choose" between bad choices.
Second, there is absolutely no reason to think Obama's politics will be anything other than he has said they are. He supports bombing Iran (since 2004) and Pakistan, wants a long-term "strike force" in Iraq, and wants 100,000 additional troops in an expanded military. He campaigned for his Senate mentor, Joseph Lieberman, against an antiwar candidate in 2006. His financial support includes all of the usual suspects, including the Wall Street investment houses (Goldman Sachs leading the way), law firms, and the usual corporate interests (Cargill et al).
Third, Lindorf displays his usual ignorance of how power works in America. Do you honestly believe that the only reason we do not have peace, equality and health care for all is because we have voted incorrectly or because our demands have not been adequately articulated? Get real. The handful of people who rule over us will not be swayed by our "electoral power." We have to wrest power from them.
1
February 20, 2008
Lili: I have a Question?
What you try to write was a commentary or what?
2
February 20, 2008
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto: