Great Expectations
For Barack Obama, the easy part was winning the election; the hard part is only now to come
Around the world there were celebrations at the victory of Barack Obama in the US presidential election. For many, America’s first Afro-American president heralds a sign of a new beginning. For others, the defeat of a Republican candidate which merely represented more of the same was a sigh of relief. In any case it was quite clear to everyone both within the US and without that something was changing. This was reflected in the fact that unlike previous contests the 2008 presidential election in the US was not as divisive; in addition to this, the outcome wasn’t dubious. In the words of Leonard Cohen, democracy is coming to the USA.
Yet now that the euphoria behind Obama’s victory has gradually subsided, relief over a regime change in the US should not be substituted by high hopes that suddenly everything will automatically change for the better. It’s not simply the case that the past eight years was a nightmare that the US and the rest of the world have awakened from. If change will come it will be slow and hard in coming – this much is for certain.
In fact, some observers have noted that the US and the rest of the world shouldn’t delude itself into believing that much will substantially change. They argue that although the style and methods may differ with the new White House administration, the ultimate objectives of the US have not. This has been made clear by Obama throughout the election campaign, and will certainly remain so after America’s first Afro-American president assumes office.
A case in point is Middle East foreign policy. It’s already quite apparent that the new American administration will not change much, and what will change will be cosmetic at best. Obama’s promise to reduce troop numbers is not the same as what many Americans – especially Democrats – want, which is a total withdrawal. Obama’s goal is to have Iraqi security forces take over the job of security in Iraq; however, even when this is achieved, the plan is to still keep some 30,000 troops stationed in the country.
In many respects, this is no different to what present US policy in Iraq is, that is, to have the Iraqi government take over the role of security in order to free American troops so they can be sent to Afghanistan where the US and NATO are slowly but surely losing a war that previously they had claimed to have won.
If Obama’s foreign policy would be truly a break from the past then what would be needed is a thorough reconsideration of the entire concept of the “war on terror”. This would entail admitting that the war in Iraq was illegal and unjustified from the US point of view, and that compensation would be paid for the damage done. Not only this, all troops would leave not only Iraq but even Afghanistan. Such a bold move -- which would truly signal a change in US foreign policy -- is highly unlikely.
In conjunction with this, one can only talk of progressive change in US policy with regards to the Middle East only when the US abandons its biased and unwavering support for Israel. This is not to say that Israel should not be supported when the circumstances dictate; however, it also does not mean that the US turns a blind eye to Israeli aggression and human rights abuses in Palestine. Only then can the US claim to be an honest broker in trying to bring peace to the Middle East. Without a doubt, gestures toward Iran are an important first step. It is foremost here where we will see how much of Obama’s rhetoric is actually translated into substance.
The devil lies in the details
In order to be able to speak of real change a fundamental shift is required not only in foreign policy but on the economic front as well, in particular the way in which the US deals with its de-facto colonies in Central and South America. Many Latin Americans hold high hopes for the new US Administration mainly because of Obama’s ethnic background. They feel that because he comes from a visible minority in the US he will be more sympathetic to the plight and concerns of minorities at home and abroad.
This optimism is reinforced by Obama’s apparent concern for the downtrodden. For instance, last year he along with several other Democratic senators introduced the Global Poverty Act of 2007. The bill would require a strategy to meet the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the number of people in the world living in extreme poverty by one half. Although the bill is mainly inspirational it does embraces a noble goal.
But like all such inspirational actions and attitudes, the devil lies in the details. In the case of the Global Poverty Act, the bill finds that "economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom." The key word here is the notion of “economic freedom”. The phrase economic freedom has often been used interchangeably with that of political and personal freedom when, in fact, it has little to do with the latter two. Indeed, in many cases economic freedom actually restricts personal and political freedoms; it all depends on which side of the coin you are on.
In essence, when a politician speaks of economic freedom – whether Democrat or Republican, black or white – they speak about removing controls on corporations to create economic wealth. In other words, “economic freedom” is equated with the ability of individual economic “actors” -- typically corporations, though often individual entrepreneurs are glorified -- to escape public oversight and control. Hence economic freedom is often based on the following 10 factors: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and labour freedom.
The controversy over Obama’s stance during the Democratic primary campaign to renegotiate NAFTA is a further example of how catchy words and phrases may not always translate to concrete results. While his talk of renegotiating NAFTA may have gone down well with voters, reassurances in the background to political leaders in Canada and elsewhere that such talk was merely electioneering shows that Obama is first and foremost a politician. How he will be able to bridge irreconcilable differences therefore remains to be seen.
It is the magnitude of this task which has led many to view Obama’s politics as a reincarnation of John F. Kennedy’s. The problem for Obama, however, is if he tries to take on the American corporate establishment in the same way that Kennedy tried to crackdown on the mafia, he might also find his political career cut short in a similar fashion.
This aside, for many the view of Barack Obama as a second John F. Kennedy was evident in the atmosphere of the campaign and the subsequent results of the election. This year’s contest saw an electoral turnout and enthusiasm among voters not witnessed in American politics for decades. Outside the US, Obama-mania spread throughout the globe.
The election of Obama masks the problems of race and racism
In Central and Eastern Europe, however, it was more subdued than elsewhere (for example Latin America or Africa) for obvious reasons. The region is suffering from its own set of problems made worse by the economic crisis. Moreover, American politics doesn’t have much of a direct influence as in places such as Latin America; instead, it’s more of a spectator sport in Central and Eastern Europe.
Nevertheless, the media throughout the region did its best to join in the fray and make an issue of Obama and the American presidential election. Roma leaders especially took inspiration from the success of Obama to draw attention to their own plight and express their hope that one day countries such as Hungary will be “democratic” enough like the US to one day have a Roma prime minister or even a Roma president.
Unfortunately, the problem for the Roma in countries such as Hungary is not only that such countries harbour an obvious democratic deficit (along with a huge government deficit). A bigger problem is that many Roma leaders prefer to pursue a divisive agenda which seeks to accentuate present problems. In this way, the Roma minority is kept in a feudal-like state, dependent on their leaders as opposed to themselves. Thus, what the Obama victory in the US should show to the likes of the Roma is the triumph of the individual over embedded obstacles as opposed to the illusive notion of a flourishing of American democracy.
Indeed, the election of America’s first Afro-American president simply masks the problems of race and racism which is still very prevalent in the US. In fact, many Afro-Americans and other minorities may find that the discrimination they face will actually increase now that Obama has been elected. The propaganda line that “anyone can make it in America” has been now given a boost with Obama as the prime example. The inability of a person to reach their full potential, therefore, will now more likely be blamed more on the individual and not the system which still contains many barriers to advancement.
This predicament is especially acute for “grassroots” Afro-Americans, that is, persons without a parent or ancestor who isn’t Afro-American. American tolerance to Afro-Americans runs only skin deep; there is an unpronounced feeling in the US that for an Afro-American to be successful they somehow have to be a shade whiter, either through genetics, plastic surgery, or cosmetics. It should come as no surprise that skin whiteners are very popular in the US. In some ways, Berlusconi’s ridiculous comments in Moscow about Obama subconsciously reflect the white liberal guilt predominant in European and North American societies: black people are acceptable as long as they aren’t too black and look as if they are nicely tanned white folk.
Sadly, this same type of behaviour can be witnessed in other parts of the world. Throughout Asia there is a tendency among people to look and act European (or American) to the point of denying one’s own background and changing one’s personal appearance. In China for instance, the need to “look western” has gone so far that many have eyelid surgery in order to make their eyes look more open and thus so-called “European”.
While Obama’s rise to the presidency is being presented by the global corporate media as a sort of rags to riches story, it is anything but that. Both his ethnic and economic background betrays the fact that he had an advantageous start of sorts. Still, this doesn’t take away all that he had to go through to get where he was. It can only be hoped that his own rise to power won’t lead him to fall prey to the illusion that the American Dream is alive and well, and that what he does in office will in fact help turn a small portion of this dream into reality for many people – both in the US and abroad.