The conservatism of Obama

Post Reply New Topic

he is strictly middle of the road, which is about as liberal as things get south of the canadian border. the problem which is what keeps america backwards, is that we are heavily populated by what Nietzsche referred-to as "backworldsmen" who are moral atavists who have to be dragged kicking and screaming into more modern modes of thinking and acting. this is the basis of our reactionary national character. pragmatism [really the realpolitik of politics being the art of the possible, not of the optimal] is about as lefty as we can get down here. each time things get so bad that the bulk of people think it is time for a progressive change, we get strictly pragmatic politicians like FDR and obama wearing the smile of "i feel your pain" who promise to deliver progressive change instead of merely cheerleading for it [lipservice of repubs and bluedogs], but the latter philosophy is really obama's [and the dem's] fatal flaw and i fear that it will cost him and the dems next november. most of american democratic politics is pols cynically playing the game of promising to protect the working classes [for votes] and the upper classes [campaign contributions and gravy] from one another. at least the repubs are baldly whoring themselves for the upper crust for the most part, and being more or less blatant about it instead of pretending too much otherwise. instead of sitting on the fence and cynically playing both sides, a critical mass of dems need to grow a pair and fight for progress with all they've got, the next election be damned. fat chance of that happening. i voted for him as the lesser of 2 evils, and will vote for him again simply because he [and his party] continues to be less evil [to poor folk like myself] than the other side.

I didn't expect Obama to change much, but I did expect a marginally more diplomatic, less tight-fisted stance on international affairs and slightly less civil liberties trampling. Instead, he's been worse than Bush on the civil liberties front.

Ironically enough, my initial opinion and evolving view of Obama has been virtually identical to M_P's. It really seems like his die hard supporters think he's doing all the bad under duress when clearly it's been his plan all along. I mean the man had me fooled; once.

It has become increasingly clear that Barack Obama is no progressive. His vote to approve Bush’s illegal spying, his call for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and his close Wall Street ties make this abundantly clear.

McCain, however, represents a serious danger to the world. Voting for Obama is the right thing to do this November. That said, it is most important that one do so without misconceptions or delusions. Obama will rein in the more extreme tendencies of US imperialism. But we’ll get what the Democratic Party usually offers us: a better managed, more polite form of corporate world domination. And this too has consequences. Under either Party, people throughout the world will continue to suffer in sweatshops for the benefit of a few, the beneficiaries of our amicable “free” trade agreements.

And while we’ll protect a few more forests and abstain from drilling offshore or in ANWR, does Obama really have the vision necessary to move beyond oil, nuclear and highly subsidized agro-industry? Don’t get your hopes up.

The Democratic Party is not and will never be a vehicle for real progressive social change. We need a mass movement—a movement of movements—that can build a third party and an electoral system that will give it space to speak to the American public and compete. This means two rounds and instant run off voting. It seems impossible otherwise.

Unfortunately, neither Nader’s independent candidacy nor Cynthia McKinney’s Green Party candidacy represent such a force in 2008, however much some Lefties would like to believe so. Nader’s candidacy in 2000 was an opening for progressive politics. With the race getting closer between Gore and Bush, however, many Nader supporters switched their votes and we lost that chance by not getting 5% of the vote.

The war in Afghanistan is another important if under-discussed issue. Obama is calling for an escalation there, in a conflict perhaps more “unwinnable” than the one in Iraq, where more civilians are killed by US bombs than by the Taliban. With an Obama presidency hopefully withdrawing (most?) US troops from Iraq, the anti-war movement must focus on an end to the war in Afghanistan. But isn’t Afghanistan the “good” war? Both wars can’t be wrong, can they? Yes, yes they can.

Although Obama positioned himself to the Left during the primaries to show up corporate hack Hillary Clinton, it is very unclear to what extent Obama is committed to supporting a (slightly) more just global model. While he criticized NAFTA on the campaign trail, recent comments and his selection of neoliberal and Wall Mart-loving Jason Furman as his chief economic advisor indicate that his populist rhetoric may be a pyrrhic victory for the Left.

But I still say that there are real difference between Obama and McCain. Under an Obama Administration, progressives will have more space to push for social change. Under a McCain Administration, we will stay on the defensive, defending the few remaining social programs we have and trying block a war with Iran.

Some say that an Obama presidency would lead to the Left demobilizing, focusing all of our efforts into the electoral wastebasket. Perhaps to an extent. But Bush has had the worst effects possible on progressive organizing and movement building.

Our mobilizations against corporate globalization and other issues have been shifted to new, more horrible realities. I remember during the Clinton Administration, when I came of age as an activist, focusing my work on the global justice movement, environmental justice, death penalty abolition, prison issues, and labor activism. What happened to those huge mobilizations in Seattle and Washington, DC? September 11th and the Bush Administration happened.

Bush’s hyper-imperialism has made those issues second-tier priorities for most, as we, on the defensive, scramble to stop ever spreading wars and non-stop attacks against the domestic poor and immigrants. I think the once typical statement on the Left that a Bush presidency would “radicalize” the population has proven to be quite untrue. Instead, Bush’s disaster administration has fueled a messianic, any-one-but-Bush, Democratic Party-loving ideology. People I know, friends of mine, have listed “Democratic Party” as their political view on Facebook! This is not good for the Left.

This may sound perverse, but Obama’s soft imperialism and corporate-rule lite will, I think, offer more spaces for truly progressive organizing—more than Hillary, and certainly McCain, could possibly offer.

Throughout his campaign and once he’s in office progressives have to fight, like we’ve fought every president, for socio-economic justice and a new sustainable economy.

What do you think Obama might do with a second term M_P? I'm kinda nervous here thinking that what we've seen so far is his agenda when he's got reelection to worry about, I'd hate to think what he's got planned for when his hands aren't tied by popularity concerns.

Partially privatize Social Security - something Slick Willie tried to do (but failed thanks to Lewinsky-gate). Obama will probably continue the escalation of sanctions against Iran, with what I'd give as a 45% chance of War against Iran. He'll probably be quite reactive to crises as well, as some of the Iranian oil sanctions - which could jack up the price of oil - (followed by some budget cuts) are just what's needed to send the global economy into a second dip.

So, do you think he's malicious, poorly informed, bought and paid for... I mean he really is for all intents and purposes a neocon, which makes me wonder if he was always a neocon and just really good at hiding it or did something cause him to become one since the inauguration. It just seems so unlikely that he would change so completely from candidacy to presidency...

So, do you think he's malicious, poorly informed, bought and paid for... I mean he really is for all intents and purposes a neocon, which makes me wonder if he was always a neocon and just really good at hiding it or did something cause him to become one since the inauguration. It just seems so unlikely that he would change so completely from candidacy to presidency...

I have the cleanest hands here. I did not vote for president in the 2008 election. I could not be party to what was both a charade and a goon show.

ruveyn

I expected Obama to be a centre-right imperialist, but he seems to be just a bad as Bush imperialist and worse than Bush civil liberties abuser. I still have pretty clean hands, as I was quite deflationary about expectations of Obama in 2008 and couldn't vote for him as a foreign national.

I take it you would have voted for him if you could have voted. Is that right?

ruveyn

Part of it is being bought and paid for, but I also think part of it is being around so many insider advisers giving him so much "expert wisdom" over why certain policy options are "impractical". There's also a lot of advice as to what the "national interest" is and what is "feasible", and a bubble like Washington is pretty all encompassing - where ideologically motivated advisors with privileged access to certain information & more specialist skills than any politician could hope for get to tell him what "crises" afflict certain programs and what "constraints" he faces. Still, he was a sell out prior to inauguration.

I've considered all that, but I don't think I've ever seen quite such an about face before from campaign to office. I mean I could buy some waffling here and there on contentious issues, but this has been like complete bait and switch, even on issues where his original stance would have been the more popular one. The guy gets elected as a rejection of W and his policies, then proceeds to not only continue but escalate those exact policies?

I don't know if I'm more disheartened by the man himself, or the blindness some of his supporters seem to have about him. Self proclaimed progressives defending extrajudicial executions (to take just a most egregious example) because it's "their guy" doing it is sort of alarming for me, I expect that sort of thing from the neo-cons and all... I suppose I like to think of most people as being reliably unreliable, I'll disagree with conservatives on civil liberties and I'll disagree with liberals on economics, it's when they both start so blatantly selling out to partisanship that I really start to worry.

Slick Willie did a lot of selling out on his "investing in people" policies once he got into the Oval Office. The Progressive base also forgave him for a lot of the s*it he pulled when it came to Welfare Reform and his attempt to privatize social security.