From The Editor's Desk
The Road ahead
Obama in 2008
However, it has become increasingly difficult—even for skeptical third party advocates like myself—not to get caught up in the idea that our nation stands at a potentially historic crossroads. Despite the last eight years of Democratic and Republican incompetence, despite the botched and stolen elections, the cowardly Congress, the immovable Senate, and the Bush administration’s record- breaking streak of criminal malfeasance, it still seems possible, and almost inevitable, that we may finally be on the verge of something positive—that the news coming out of Washington may for once be good. In fact it is precisely because of these sad precedents that the idea of something better seems almost inevitable. Perhaps we have finally reached a quintessential nadir of low governance—a position from which everything looks better, more hopeful and optimistic.
From this position, Obama’s message of change seems to have resonated almost messianically with the average American voter, and indeed Barack Obama’s incredible rise to political stardom has been an inspiring story; and his remarkably well fought and rhetorically elegant campaign—consider his Philadelphia speech on race, which, as Tim Krause notes (see page 20) was as rhetorically elegant as Lincoln and King—leaves one with the sense that he may actually be the real deal and more than just another Democratic politician. But at least for now, until he proves otherwise, Obama is a Democrat and a skilled politician, and despite the rhetoric of change, his policy positions, those of which he has been willing to make a case for, have been consistently middle of the road.
His health care policy, for instance, while potentially a first step in the direction of a national health care system is like nearly every health care plan proposed by a major party candidate in the last twelve years, woefully inadequate. It does nothing to tackle the fraud and waste of private insurance companies, while offering little help to businesses, whose health care costs, make it increasingly difficult to compete with their foreign counterparts who operate out of countries with nationalized health care. The reasons for this are so obvious that it almost goes without saying: the health insurance industry is one of the most powerful lobbies in the nation and both candidates have received ample contributions. Likewise Obama’s position on military spending is arguably mainstream conservative and is almost indistinguishable from McCain’s. Like McCain, Obama supports an increasingly large military and military budget. Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, told McClatchy Newspapers that “Temperamentally, Senators Obama and McCain are very different on defense. But when you read the details of their defense positions, they are remarkably similar,” adding “Whether we get Obama or McCain, we will get a bigger military.” None of this is to suggest that there is no difference between McCain and Obama, but only to suggest that their similarities are greater than they may seem, and that like all major party candidates, they are both bound by the corporations and lobbies that have paved the way for their candidacies. As Amiri Baraka passionately points out in this issue of the GC Advocate (see page 14) the differences are important and criticizing Obama is a counterproductive exercise. However, despite the obvious policy differences and the more obvious ideological and even intellectual differences between the two, we must be wary of placing too much hope in a candidate who, like his Democratic and Republican brethren, is so deeply ensconced in the corporate political system. Like other Democratic politicians before him, Obama, should he win on the 4th, will likely find himself so tied to the real Democratic Party platform that the possibility of meaningful change will become quickly lost and/or watered down among the give and take of the political process. Like The Wire’s Mayor Carcetti, whose ideological enthusiasms are devoured by the calculations and compromises of the Baltimore political machine, Obama’s real political potential may just quietly fade once he gets into office. In this sense it will be critically important that, at least for the first hundred days, the Left throw its weight behind Obama and remain vigilant and demanding, but the real impetus for change is not going to come from the Democrats or the Left.
The real potential of an Obama presidency and the real potential for positive change is, ironically, going to depend less on who Obama is and more on the state of the nation come January 20th. It is no secret, after all, that this economic crisis has been a boon for the Obama campaign and it is clear that the longer it goes on, and the more desperate the public becomes, the less they are going to continue to hiss and boo at the concept of redistributing the wealth. The more people who are laid off and find themselves without health care, the fewer people there will be concerned about the socialist threat of labor unions and national health care; and the more banks that go bust, the fewer executives there will be willing or able to lobby against greater regulation. One way or another Obama, should he win on Tuesday, is going to inherit a long list of troublesome and increasingly dire economic, social, and environmental problems. In this sense he may very well find himself positioned, thanks in part to the increased power of the executive carved out by Bush and Rove, in one of the most momentous periods in presidential history. Only then will he have the mandate and the public support to break the chains of both parties and actually potentially live up to the hype he’s been generating for the last four years. Despite the bitter acrimony, the racist mobs, the comic distractions, and the absurd lack of substance that has defined the 2008 presidential campaign, one of the most fascinating and unexpected developments of this election cycle is the recent and surprisingly palpable feeling among so many voters that something meaningful and potentially momentous is on the horizon. Whether this something new is not simply a slick repackaging of something old is a fair and, let’s face it, absolutely necessary question—the cover of this month’s GC Advocate makes a case for this kind of practically pessimistic approach.
However, it has become increasingly difficult—even for skeptical third party advocates like myself—not to get caught up in the idea that our nation stands at a potentially historic crossroads. Despite the last eight years of Democratic and Republican incompetence, despite the botched and stolen elections, the cowardly Congress, the immovable Senate, and the Bush administration’s record- breaking streak of criminal malfeasance, it still seems possible, and almost inevitable, that we may finally be on the verge of something positive—that the news coming out of Washington may for once be good. In fact it is precisely because of these sad precedents that the idea of something better seems almost inevitable. Perhaps we have finally reached a quintessential nadir of low governance—a position from which everything looks better, more hopeful and optimistic.
From this position, Obama’s message of change seems to have resonated almost messianically with the average American voter, and indeed Barack Obama’s incredible rise to political stardom has been an inspiring story; and his remarkably well fought and rhetorically elegant campaign—consider his Philadelphia speech on race, which, as Tim Krause notes (see page 20) was as rhetorically elegant as Lincoln and King—leaves one with the sense that he may actually be the real deal and more than just another Democratic politician. But at least for now, until he proves otherwise, Obama is a Democrat and a skilled politician, and despite the rhetoric of change, his policy positions, those of which he has been willing to make a case for, have been consistently middle of the road.
His health care policy, for instance, while potentially a first step in the direction of a national health care system is like nearly every health care plan proposed by a major party candidate in the last twelve years, woefully inadequate. It does nothing to tackle the fraud and waste of private insurance companies, while offering little help to businesses, whose health care costs, make it increasingly difficult to compete with their foreign counterparts who operate out of countries with nationalized health care. The reasons for this are so obvious that it almost goes without saying: the health insurance industry is one of the most powerful lobbies in the nation and both candidates have received ample contributions. Likewise Obama’s position on military spending is arguably mainstream conservative and is almost indistinguishable from McCain’s. Like McCain, Obama supports an increasingly large military and military budget. Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, told McClatchy Newspapers that “Temperamentally, Senators Obama and McCain are very different on defense. But when you read the details of their defense positions, they are remarkably similar,” adding “Whether we get Obama or McCain, we will get a bigger military.” None of this is to suggest that there is no difference between McCain and Obama, but only to suggest that their similarities are greater than they may seem, and that like all major party candidates, they are both bound by the corporations and lobbies that have paved the way for their candidacies. As Amiri Baraka passionately points out in this issue of the GC Advocate (see page 14) the differences are important and criticizing Obama is a counterproductive exercise. However, despite the obvious policy differences and the more obvious ideological and even intellectual differences between the two, we must be wary of placing too much hope in a candidate who, like his Democratic and Republican brethren, is so deeply ensconced in the corporate political system. Like other Democratic politicians before him, Obama, should he win on the 4th, will likely find himself so tied to the real Democratic Party platform that the possibility of meaningful change will become quickly lost and/or watered down among the give and take of the political process. Like The Wire’s Mayor Carcetti, whose ideological enthusiasms are devoured by the calculations and compromises of the Baltimore political machine, Obama’s real political potential may just quietly fade once he gets into office. In this sense it will be critically important that, at least for the first hundred days, the Left throw its weight behind Obama and remain vigilant and demanding, but the real impetus for change is not going to come from the Democrats or the Left.
The real potential of an Obama presidency and the real potential for positive change is, ironically, going to depend less on who Obama is and more on the state of the nation come January 20th. It is no secret, after all, that this economic crisis has been a boon for the Obama campaign and it is clear that the longer it goes on, and the more desperate the public becomes, the less they are going to continue to hiss and boo at the concept of redistributing the wealth. The more people who are laid off and find themselves without health care, the fewer people there will be concerned about the socialist threat of labor unions and national health care; and the more banks that go bust, the fewer executives there will be willing or able to lobby against greater regulation. One way or another Obama, should he win on Tuesday, is going to inherit a long list of troublesome and increasingly dire economic, social, and environmental problems. In this sense he may very well find himself positioned, thanks in part to the increased power of the executive carved out by Bush and Rove, in one of the most momentous periods in presidential history. Only then will he have the mandate and the public support to break the chains of both parties and actually potentially live up to the hype he’s been generating for the last four years. √
Comments | Leave a comment |
Unfortunately, we have to ask you to enter an image-based security code to stop spam-bots that prey on comment forms. Thanks for your patience.
