The election of Barrak Obama to the office of president of the United States has generated tremendous elation and enthusiasm in the U.S. and around the world. The rise of Obama has been accompanied by the rise of hope and anticipation that a new and better world is about to begin. Some Obama enthusiasts have gone further, and argue that Obama’s election has signaled a fundamental change in the U.S., and we are about to see the dawn of a new era in the country. Much to dislike of Obama enthusiasts, I will argue that such hopes and arguments are not only naïve and foolish, but also potentially dangerous. (I do acknowledge that the election of a black man as president of the United States is in itself a monumental accomplishment in itself, but this is beside the point here.)
There are also those who believe that Obama is America’s Gorbachev. This is a wishful assessment. Obama’s mandate is not to “restructure” the system he is presiding over, which was the case with Gorbachev. (Perestroika, Gorbachev’s main motto, literally meant restructuring. He used it to denote “mass initiatives”, “the consistent implementation of the principles of social justice”, and “socialist self-government”, among others.) As I will argue later, Obama is incapable of affecting a fundamental change. Rather, what he is capable of doing, and will actually do, is something more modest, that is to say, something along the line of managing and fixing some of the damage done by the Bush administration at home and abroad.
Under George W. Bush, the credibility and standing of the United States suffered a major blow in the eyes of the people and countries sympathetic to America. Obama is here to restore their faith in the United States. More importantly, Obama is here to tackle, or at least manage, some of the economic problems that three decades of neo-liberal economic policies and unbridled free-market capitalism have delivered to America’s doorsteps. A growing number of people in the country are beginning to lose their confidence in the viability of the system, and something needs to be done about it, and done very quickly.
Moreover, Obama is not a new Franklin D. Roosevelt either. Nor does he find himself in a situation similar to the one encountered by Roosevelt. For one thing, Obama is not facing a country with fifteen percent of its workforce on strike. Furthermore, there are no vivid signs of turmoil and anti-capitalist sentiments or movements brewing in the country, at least not yet. All Obama can, and will, do is to re-introduce or re-implement some weaker forms of some of Roosevelt’s New Deal reforms that neo-liberal restructuring of the economy has undone or undermined in the course of the last three decades. The other point worth mentioning here is that while Roosevelt was a center-left progressive -- or perhaps behaved as one in part because he faced a militant and powerful workers movement in the country -- Obama is a center-right politician who projects himself as a left-leaning progressive.
In some respects, Obama is a carbon copy of Bill Clinton. One indication of the similarity between the two is the composition of the cabinet Obama has put together, and the people he has surrounded himself with. Positions in his administration are filled mostly with conservative Democrats, Republicans, and people from Bill Clinton’s administration. Another sign of the similarity is that just like Clinton, Obama has the political savvy and astute ability to mislead left-leaning and progressive-minded individuals into believing that he espouses their views, and is committed to their values.
The main difference between the two has to do with the circumstances under which they arrive at the White House. When Clinton began his term, the neo-liberal re-organization of the economy which had begun with Ronald Regan, and had continued under the first George Bush, was in need of being consolidated into a comprehensive system of legislations and public/economic policies. Moreover, the project of establishing legal structures needed to advance the interests and aspirations of transnational capitalism (often dubbed as “globalism”) was on the top of the political agenda in Washington. Clinton met both of these challenges. The ratification of NAFTA, dealing the final blow to welfare and other entitlement systems, and the passage and implementation of a whole host of deregulatory and anti-union policies and legislations are the main legacy of the Clinton era.
Another difference between Obama and Clinton is that the former comes to power at the time when some of the disastrous results of the neo-liberal adventures that were formalized into laws under the latter’s administration are beginning to show their ugly and monstrous heads. Obama has the misfortune of facing the monumental task of managing the consequences of Clinton’s “achievements” and Bush’s failures.
Obama is the man! He has come to the rescue! He will fix the problems and make things right again. He is the embodiment of “hope”, and will “change” things in Washington. These exuberant and naïve sentiments about Obama were on the air in the country and abroad around the time of his election -- and have not subsided yet. Obama’s campaign grasped the depth and breadth of citizens’ despondence and dissatisfaction with the American political system very early on during the Democratic primaries, and masterfully crafted the vague message of “hope” and “change” and offered it to the electorate. The message was presented, to quote Noam Chomsky, as “a virtual blank slate on which supporters could write their wishes”. However, as Chomsky is quick to point out, “One could search websites for position papers, but correlation of these to policies is hardly spectacular and, in any event, what enters into voters' choices is what the campaign places front and center, as party managers know well.” (Z Magazine, Feb. 2009).
In conversations with some of my friends in Iran, I find myself bewildered by the extent of their credulity and naiveté about the whole Obama fanfare. Much to my dismay, I find that they are not alone in this. After eight years of suffering at the hand of George Bush’s America, a large majority of the people around the world have psyched themselves into believing that Obama is a qualitatively different president, and that a new era is about to begin in the U.S. under his leadership. It seems to me that a lot of people around the world, especially the younger generation in the developing countries, have become intoxicated -- or to put it bluntly, duped -- by the Obama euphoria. They have bought into his so-called message of “change” which is jazzed up and hyped by the Western media, and fanned by the intellectual and cultural cheerleaders of American corporate interests around the world.
My sense is that the majority of the people in the U.S. do not share the enthusiasm of much of the world. The core enthusiasts of the Obama phenomenon in the U.S. consists mainly of some broad sections of the educated and forward-looking middle-classes in the 20-40 age-group who were horrified by Bush’s presidency and see Obama as a breath of fresh air.
Against this euphoria about Obama, I would argue that the differences between him and Bush, or any other former president, are quantitative rather than qualitative. As was the case with Bush, Obama in his position as the head of the American state will also sit behind the wheels of the American capitalist system, and has to drive it to where it needs to go. Bush was a terrible driver; he caused too many accidents; killed and maimed too many people; damaged the engine; gave a lot of people motion sickness; and angered a great many conscientious people in the U.S. and around the world. Obama, on the other hand, is a smooth operator; and seems to be an excellent driver as well. He will, or at least he will try to, drive the American system to its desired destination in a safe and enjoyable ride.
What has taken place in the U.S. with the election of Obama is not a fundamental or qualitative change of any sort, but merely a cosmetic one. We no longer have the hubris and arrogance of a crass and vulgar emperor who told the world that ‘America makes the rules and the world must go along with them’. What we have now is an educated, intelligent, well-mannered, reasonable-sounding, and well-spoken man. With Obama’s election, all of a sudden, America does not look as ugly as it did just a few months ago.
The point is that this change of face does not alter the structure of the forces, nor does it change the nature of the interests, that make America what it is. The objectives of American capitalism under Obama leadership will remain as they were before him: reaping super profits in the U.S. and around the globe, and dominating the world for strategic interests and supremacy of the global free enterprise system. Obama cannot change these objectives, even if he wanted to.
What he can, and will, do instead is to use his political acumen, intelligence, cool and calm demeanor, and his command of words (in short his “magic”) to make these objectives appear acceptable, “reasonable”, “natural”, and un-threatening -- even “moral” -- to those who do not belong to the tiny class of transnational super-rich elites and their servants. Obama will use his magic to make us believe that the needs and interests of this tiny minority represent those of humanity, something that Bush could not even being to put into words.
There are also those who believe that Obama is America’s Gorbachev. This is a wishful assessment. Obama’s mandate is not to “restructure” the system he is presiding over, which was the case with Gorbachev. (Perestroika, Gorbachev’s main motto, literally meant restructuring. He used it to denote “mass initiatives”, “the consistent implementation of the principles of social justice”, and “socialist self-government”, among others.) As I will argue later, Obama is incapable of affecting a fundamental change. Rather, what he is capable of doing, and will actually do, is something more modest, that is to say, something along the line of managing and fixing some of the damage done by the Bush administration at home and abroad.
Under George W. Bush, the credibility and standing of the United States suffered a major blow in the eyes of the people and countries sympathetic to America. Obama is here to restore their faith in the United States. More importantly, Obama is here to tackle, or at least manage, some of the economic problems that three decades of neo-liberal economic policies and unbridled free-market capitalism have delivered to America’s doorsteps. A growing number of people in the country are beginning to lose their confidence in the viability of the system, and something needs to be done about it, and done very quickly.
Moreover, Obama is not a new Franklin D. Roosevelt either. Nor does he find himself in a situation similar to the one encountered by Roosevelt. For one thing, Obama is not facing a country with fifteen percent of its workforce on strike. Furthermore, there are no vivid signs of turmoil and anti-capitalist sentiments or movements brewing in the country, at least not yet. All Obama can, and will, do is to re-introduce or re-implement some weaker forms of some of Roosevelt’s New Deal reforms that neo-liberal restructuring of the economy has undone or undermined in the course of the last three decades. The other point worth mentioning here is that while Roosevelt was a center-left progressive -- or perhaps behaved as one in part because he faced a militant and powerful workers movement in the country -- Obama is a center-right politician who projects himself as a left-leaning progressive.
In some respects, Obama is a carbon copy of Bill Clinton. One indication of the similarity between the two is the composition of the cabinet Obama has put together, and the people he has surrounded himself with. Positions in his administration are filled mostly with conservative Democrats, Republicans, and people from Bill Clinton’s administration. Another sign of the similarity is that just like Clinton, Obama has the political savvy and astute ability to mislead left-leaning and progressive-minded individuals into believing that he espouses their views, and is committed to their values.
The main difference between the two has to do with the circumstances under which they arrive at the White House. When Clinton began his term, the neo-liberal re-organization of the economy which had begun with Ronald Regan, and had continued under the first George Bush, was in need of being consolidated into a comprehensive system of legislations and public/economic policies. Moreover, the project of establishing legal structures needed to advance the interests and aspirations of transnational capitalism (often dubbed as “globalism”) was on the top of the political agenda in Washington. Clinton met both of these challenges. The ratification of NAFTA, dealing the final blow to welfare and other entitlement systems, and the passage and implementation of a whole host of deregulatory and anti-union policies and legislations are the main legacy of the Clinton era.
Another difference between Obama and Clinton is that the former comes to power at the time when some of the disastrous results of the neo-liberal adventures that were formalized into laws under the latter’s administration are beginning to show their ugly and monstrous heads. Obama has the misfortune of facing the monumental task of managing the consequences of Clinton’s “achievements” and Bush’s failures.
Obama is the man! He has come to the rescue! He will fix the problems and make things right again. He is the embodiment of “hope”, and will “change” things in Washington. These exuberant and naïve sentiments about Obama were on the air in the country and abroad around the time of his election -- and have not subsided yet. Obama’s campaign grasped the depth and breadth of citizens’ despondence and dissatisfaction with the American political system very early on during the Democratic primaries, and masterfully crafted the vague message of “hope” and “change” and offered it to the electorate. The message was presented, to quote Noam Chomsky, as “a virtual blank slate on which supporters could write their wishes”. However, as Chomsky is quick to point out, “One could search websites for position papers, but correlation of these to policies is hardly spectacular and, in any event, what enters into voters' choices is what the campaign places front and center, as party managers know well.” (Z Magazine, Feb. 2009).
In conversations with some of my friends in Iran, I find myself bewildered by the extent of their credulity and naiveté about the whole Obama fanfare. Much to my dismay, I find that they are not alone in this. After eight years of suffering at the hand of George Bush’s America, a large majority of the people around the world have psyched themselves into believing that Obama is a qualitatively different president, and that a new era is about to begin in the U.S. under his leadership. It seems to me that a lot of people around the world, especially the younger generation in the developing countries, have become intoxicated -- or to put it bluntly, duped -- by the Obama euphoria. They have bought into his so-called message of “change” which is jazzed up and hyped by the Western media, and fanned by the intellectual and cultural cheerleaders of American corporate interests around the world.
My sense is that the majority of the people in the U.S. do not share the enthusiasm of much of the world. The core enthusiasts of the Obama phenomenon in the U.S. consists mainly of some broad sections of the educated and forward-looking middle-classes in the 20-40 age-group who were horrified by Bush’s presidency and see Obama as a breath of fresh air.
Against this euphoria about Obama, I would argue that the differences between him and Bush, or any other former president, are quantitative rather than qualitative. As was the case with Bush, Obama in his position as the head of the American state will also sit behind the wheels of the American capitalist system, and has to drive it to where it needs to go. Bush was a terrible driver; he caused too many accidents; killed and maimed too many people; damaged the engine; gave a lot of people motion sickness; and angered a great many conscientious people in the U.S. and around the world. Obama, on the other hand, is a smooth operator; and seems to be an excellent driver as well. He will, or at least he will try to, drive the American system to its desired destination in a safe and enjoyable ride.
What has taken place in the U.S. with the election of Obama is not a fundamental or qualitative change of any sort, but merely a cosmetic one. We no longer have the hubris and arrogance of a crass and vulgar emperor who told the world that ‘America makes the rules and the world must go along with them’. What we have now is an educated, intelligent, well-mannered, reasonable-sounding, and well-spoken man. With Obama’s election, all of a sudden, America does not look as ugly as it did just a few months ago.
The point is that this change of face does not alter the structure of the forces, nor does it change the nature of the interests, that make America what it is. The objectives of American capitalism under Obama leadership will remain as they were before him: reaping super profits in the U.S. and around the globe, and dominating the world for strategic interests and supremacy of the global free enterprise system. Obama cannot change these objectives, even if he wanted to.
What he can, and will, do instead is to use his political acumen, intelligence, cool and calm demeanor, and his command of words (in short his “magic”) to make these objectives appear acceptable, “reasonable”, “natural”, and un-threatening -- even “moral” -- to those who do not belong to the tiny class of transnational super-rich elites and their servants. Obama will use his magic to make us believe that the needs and interests of this tiny minority represent those of humanity, something that Bush could not even being to put into words.
Comment