Showing posts with label Progressives and Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Progressives and Obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Progressives and Obama (Part 7)

Earlier today Barack Obama gave his last press conference as president.

In less than 40 hours he and his family will vacant the White House . . . and Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States.

This evening I've been looking back over the things I've written and shared about Obama at The Wild Reed.

There's this piece, for example, which contains my friend Mary Lynn's account of the June 2008 night when Obama clinched the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention in downtown St. Paul, not that far from where I was living at the time.

And this piece, in which I share my "thoughts on tomorrow's presidential election." And then this, wherein I document the events of the next night when, in celebrating the election of Barack Obama, the first black president, millions celebrated the belief and hope that "change has come to America." (And of course included in these millions were many young people, including my friend Joey who penned this shortly after the November 2008 election of Obama.)

And then there's The Wild Reed's "Progressives and Obama" series, a series which highlighted critical perspectives on Obama from progressive thinkers such as Norman Solomon, Leslie Cagan and Antonia Juhasz, Timothy Patrick McCarthy, Howard Zinn, Manning Marable, Colleen Kochivar-Baker, and a number of others. (To start at the beginning of this series, click here.)

There was great hope, to be sure, in those days of late 2008 and early 2009. Yet in those first days of what, I guess, will now be referred to as "the Obama era" (2009-2016), there was also disappointment and concern. Patrick Martin, for instance, wrote the following in January 2009.

In advance of his inauguration, President-elect Barack Obama has assembled a cabinet drawn from the upper echelons of American society and the right-wing of the Democratic Party. Despite his invocations of “change,” his appeals to anti-war sentiment and to young people in the course of nearly two years of campaigning, there is not a single figure in the leading personnel of the Obama administration drawn from the more liberal elements of the Democratic Party, let alone anyone representative of the broad masses of working people and youth. The right-wing character of Obama’s nominees is described by the media under the approving labels of “centrist,” “moderate,” and – most of all – “pragmatic.” This terminology signifies that the incoming Obama team consists entirely of individuals who pass muster with the corporate-financial elite. There is not a whiff of genuine oppositional sentiment, let alone political radicalism, among the lot of them.


Like many progressives, I had tremendous hope for an Obama presidency, and in one area in particular, he exceeded beyond everyone's expectations, including his own. Obama would, after all, turn out to be the most pro-LGBTQ president of all time, and as German Lopez documents, he leaves "an incredible legacy on LGBTQ rights."

And yet even as I celebrate this and acknowledge without hesitation that Obama is 100 times preferable to the incoming President Trump, I nevertheless find myself agreeing with the following comment made by a Facebook friend in response to the meme at left.

[Obama's drone warfare] is one of the reasons I can't engage with the "Obama was a great president" discourse. Without doubt he was treated abominably by Republicans in Congress, who so racistly and corruptly blocked many of his initiatives. But he also presided over the massive growth of the surveillance state. And bailed out Wall Street leaving underwater homeowners and people who had saved for retirement with nothing. He represented the 1% far more than the ordinary American. And he is responsible for thousands of innocent deaths.


My friend's mentioning of Republican obstructionism reminds me of the recent remarks of Cornell Belcher (right) in a segment of the January 16 broadcast of The Takeaway. Belcher is the author of A Black Man in the White House, and he had the following to say about Obama and the triggering of America's "racial-aversion crisis."

I'd argue that Barack Obama's presidency and the diverse coalition that put him in that office was a triggering effect that allowed a very racially polarizing figure like Donald Trump to rise to prominence.

Barack Obama didn't do anything from a policy standpoint or a governing standpoint to increase racial tensions. Most people of color would argue that he did everything he could to lessen that tension. What did he do, in fact, that would make white conservatives hate him, other than being black? Let's be real: the day before his election Republicans did something that, quite frankly, they had never done before. They gathered together in a steakhouse in Washington, D.C. and decided that they were going to block every thing he did so as to make him a failed president. The level of disrespect and the level of "outside the norm" stuff that we've seen over the past eight years is because a black man is in the White House. We've had a Congress that has worked through natural disasters, through wars, through whatever you can throw at it. But the moment we have a black man in the White House it becomes a completely dysfunctional body in a way it has never been before.


And so with the Obama era rapidly coming to a close, I thought I'd conclude my "Progressives and Obama" series by sharing not only the above thoughts and insights but also the following perspectives from three progressive thinkers and activists I greatly respect – Medea Benjamin, Gary Younge, and Cornel West. All three have had op-eds published recently in The Guardian, and it's from these three pieces that the following three passages are excerpted respectively.


Medea Benjamin

Most Americans would probably be astounded to realize that the president who has been painted by Washington pundits as a reluctant warrior has actually been a hawk. The Iran nuclear deal, a herculean achievement, and the opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba unfortunately stand alone as President Obama’s successful uses of diplomacy over hostility.

While candidate Obama came to office pledging to end George W Bush’s wars, he leaves office having been at war longer than any president in US history. He is also the only president to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.

President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.

Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation: in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.

While most of these air attacks were in Syria and Iraq, US bombs also rained down on people in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. That’s seven majority-Muslim countries.

One bombing technique that President Obama championed is drone strikes. As drone-warrior-in-chief, he spread the use of drones outside the declared battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly to Pakistan and Yemen. Obama authorized over 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush, and automatically painted all males of military age in these regions as combatants, making them fair game for remote controlled killing.

President Obama has claimed that his overseas military adventures are legal under the 2001 and 2003 authorizations for the use of military force passed by Congress to go after al-Qaida. But today’s wars have little or nothing to do with those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

. . . Pushed to release information about civilian deaths in drone strikes, in July 2016 the US government made the absurd claim it had killed, at most, 116 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya between 2009 and 2015. Journalists and human rights advocates said the numbers were ridiculously low and unverifiable, given that no names, dates, locations or others details were released. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has tracked drone strikes for years, said the true figure was six times higher.

Given that drones account for only a small portion of the munitions dropped in the past eight years, the numbers of civilians killed by Obama’s bombs could be in the thousands. But we can’t know for sure as the administration, and the mainstream media, has been virtually silent about the civilian toll of the administration’s failed interventions.

– Medea Benjamin
Excerpted from "America Dropped 26,171 Bombs in 2016.
What a Bloody End to Obama's Reign
"
The Guardian
January 9, 2016



Gary Younge

For the past eight years American liberals have gorged themselves on symbolism. A significant section of the population, including those most likely to support Barack Obama, have felt better about their country even as they have fared worse in it. The young, good-looking, intact, scandal-free black family in the White House embodied a hopeful future for America and beyond. Photogenic, with an understated chic, here were people of colour who looked even better in black and white. With personal stories of progress without privilege, they provided Camelot without the castle: evoking a sense of possibility in a period of economic stagnation, social immobility and political uncertainty.

As Obama passes the keys and the codes to Donald Trump at the end of this week, so many liberals mourn the passing of what has been, remain in a state of disbelief for what has happened, and express deep anxiety about what is to come. It is a steep cliff – politically, rhetorically and aesthetically – from the mocha-complexioned consensual intellectual to the permatanned, “pussy-grabbing” vulgarian.

But there is a connection between the “new normal” and the old that must be understood if resistance in the Trump era is going to amount to more than Twitter memes driven by impotent rage and fuelled by flawed nostalgia. This transition is not simply a matter of sequence – one bad president following a good one – but consequence: one horrendous agenda made possible by the failure of its predecessor.

It is easy for liberals to despise Trump. He is a thin-skinned charlatan, a self-proclaimed sexual harasser, a blusterer and a bigot. One need not exhaust any moral energy in making the case against his agenda. That is precisely what makes it so difficult to understand his appeal. Similarly, it is easy for liberals to love Obama. He’s measured, thoughtful, smart and eloquent – and did some good things despite strong opposition from Republicans. That is precisely what makes it so difficult for liberals to provide a principled and plausible critique of his presidency.

One cannot blame Obama for Trump. It was the Republicans – craven to the mob within their base, which they have always courted but ultimately could not control – that nominated and, for now, indulges him. And yet it would be disingenuous to claim Trump rose from a vacuum that bore no relationship to the previous eight years.

Some of that relationship is undeniably tied up in who Obama is: a black man, with a lapsed Muslim father from Kenya. That particular constellation of identities was like catnip to an increasingly strident wing of the Republican party in a time of war, migration and racial tumult. Trump did not invent racism. Indeed, race-baiting has been a staple of Republican party strategy for more than 50 years. But as he refused to observe the electoral etiquette of the Nixon strategy (“You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks,” Richard Nixon told his chief-of-staff, HR Haldeman. “The key is to devise a system that recognises that while not appearing to”), his campaign descended into a litany of brazen racist taunts.

Racism’s role should not be underplayed, but its impact can arguably be overstated. While Trump evidently emboldened existing racists, it’s not obvious that he created new ones. He received the same proportion of the white vote as Mitt Romney in 2012 and George W Bush in 2004. It does not follow that because Trump’s racism was central to his meaning for liberals, it was necessarily central to his appeal for Republicans.

There is a deeper connection, however, between Trump’s rise and what Obama did – or rather didn’t do – economically. He entered the White House at a moment of economic crisis, with Democratic majorities in both Houses and bankers on the back foot. Faced with the choice of preserving the financial industry as it was or embracing far-reaching reforms that would have served the interests of those who voted for him, he chose the former.

Just a couple of months into his first term he called a meeting of banking executives. “The president had us at a moment of real vulnerability,” one of them told Ron Suskind in his book Confidence Men. “At that point, he could have ordered us to do just about anything and we would have rolled over. But he didn’t – he mostly wanted to help us out, to quell the mob.” People lost their homes while bankers kept their bonuses and banks kept their profits.

– Gary Younge
Excerpted from "How Barack Obama
Paved the Way for Donald Trump
"
The Guardian
January 16, 2016


Cornel West

The age of Barack Obama may have been our last chance to break from our neoliberal soulcraft. We are rooted in market-driven brands that shun integrity and profit-driven policies that trump public goods. Our “post-integrity” and “post-truth” world is suffocated by entertaining brands and money-making activities that have little or nothing to do with truth, integrity or the long-term survival of the planet. We are witnessing the postmodern version of the full-scale gangsterization of the world.

The reign of Obama did not produce the nightmare of Donald Trump – but it did contribute to it. And those Obama cheerleaders who refused to make him accountable bear some responsibility.

A few of us begged and pleaded with Obama to break with the Wall Street priorities and bail out Main Street. But he followed the advice of his “smart” neoliberal advisers to bail out Wall Street. In March 2009, Obama met with Wall Street leaders. He proclaimed: I stand between you and the pitchforks. I am on your side and I will protect you, he promised them. And not one Wall Street criminal executive went to jail.

We called for the accountability of US torturers of innocent Muslims and the transparency of US drone strikes killing innocent civilians. Obama’s administration told us no civilians had been killed. And then we were told a few had been killed. And then told maybe 65 or so had been killed. Yet when an American civilian, Warren Weinstein, was killed in 2015 there was an immediate press conference with deep apologies and financial compensation. And today we still don’t know how many have had their lives taken away.

We hit the streets again with Black Lives Matter and other groups and went to jail for protesting against police killing black youth. We protested when the Israeli Defense Forces killed more than 2,000 Palestinians (including 550 children) in 50 days. Yet Obama replied with words about the difficult plight of police officers, department investigations (with no police going to jail) and the additional $225m in financial support of the Israeli army. Obama said not a mumbling word about the dead Palestinian children but he did call Baltimore black youth “criminals and thugs.”

In addition, Obama’s education policy unleashed more market forces that closed hundreds of public schools for charter ones. The top 1% got nearly two-thirds of the income growth in eight years even as child poverty, especially black child poverty, remained astronomical. Labor insurgencies in Wisconsin, Seattle and Chicago (vigorously opposed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a close confidant of Obama) were passed over in silence.

In 2009, Obama called New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg an “outstanding mayor.” Yet he overlooked the fact that more than 4 million people were stopped-and-frisked under Bloomberg’s watch. Along with Carl Dix and others, I sat in a jail two years later for protesting these very same policies that Obama ignored when praising Bloomberg.

Yet the mainstream media and academia failed to highlight these painful truths linked to Obama. Instead, most well-paid pundits on TV and radio celebrated the Obama brand. And most black spokespeople shamelessly defended Obama’s silences and crimes in the name of racial symbolism and their own careerism. How hypocritical to see them now speak truth to white power when most went mute in the face of black power. Their moral authority is weak and their newfound militancy is shallow.

. . . The president’s greatest legislative achievement was to provide healthcare for over 25 million citizens, even as another 20 million are still uncovered. But it remained a market-based policy, created by the conservative Heritage Foundation and first pioneered by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

Obama’s lack of courage to confront Wall Street criminals and his lapse of character in ordering drone strikes unintentionally led to rightwing populist revolts at home and ugly Islamic fascist rebellions in the Middle East. And as deporter-in-chief – nearly 2.5 million immigrants were deported under his watch – Obama policies prefigure Trump’s barbaric plans.

Bernie Sanders gallantly tried to generate a leftwing populism but he was crushed by Clinton and Obama in the unfair Democratic party primaries. So now we find ourselves entering a neofascist era: a neoliberal economy on steroids, a reactionary repressive attitude toward domestic “aliens,” a militaristic cabinet eager for war and in denial of global warming. All the while, we are seeing a wholesale eclipse of truth and integrity in the name of the Trump brand, facilitated by the profit-hungry corporate media.

What a sad legacy for our hope and change candidate.

– Cornel West
Excerpted from "Pity the Sad Legacy of Barack Obama"
The Guardian
January 9, 2016


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Progressives and Obama (Part 1)
• Progressives and Obama (Part 2)
• Progressives and Obama (Part 3)
• Progressives and Obama (Part 4)
• Progressives and Obama (Part 5)
• Progressives and Obama (Part 6)
• Historic (and Wild)!
• Reality Check
• One of Those Moments
• Obama, Ayers, the “S” Word, and the “Most Politically Backward Layers in America”
• Obama a Socialist? Hardly
• Thoughts on Tomorrow’s Presidential Election (2008)
• “Change Has Come to America”
• A Night of Celebration
• The Challenge for Progressives with an Obama Presidency
• Vigiling Against Weaponized Drones

Related Off-site Links:
Why Obama Nostalgia Matters – Neal Gabler (BillMoyers.com, January 18, 2017).
Why We Shouldn’t Mourn the Obamas’ Departure from the White House – Zeba Blay (The Huffington Post, January 19, 2017).
How America’s Thinking Changed Under Obama – Reuben Fischer-Baum and Dhrumil Mehta (FiveThirtyEight, January 18, 2017).
“We Were Heard for the First Time”: President Obama Leaves an Incredible Legacy on LGBTQ Rights – German Lopez (Vox, January 17, 2017).
Democrats Can’t Win Until They Recognize How Bad Obama’s Financial Policies Were – Matt Stoller (The Washington Post, January 12, 2017).
How President Obama Solidified the Transition to Perpetual War – The Takeaway (January 18, 2016).
From Torture to Drone Strikes: The Disturbing Legal Legacy Obama is Leaving for Trump – Jennifer Williams (Vox, January 10, 2017).
The Issue is Not Trump, It’s Us – John Pilger (teleSUR, January 16, 2017).

UPDATES: Obama’s Drone Warfare Is Something We Need to Talk About – Azmia Magane (Teen Vogue, June 2, 2017).
Thanks, Obama? – Tim Higginbotham (Jacobin, September 10, 2018).


Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Progressives and Obama (Part 6)

A favourite blog of mine is Colleen Kochivar-Baker’s Enlightened Catholicism. On the eve of Barack Obama’s inauguration, Colleen has posted a beautiful reflection entitled, “Purification, Hope, and Closing Circles of Old Energy.”

Following is a brief excerpt:



. . . I’ve thought quite a bit about the Miracle on the Hudson. The landing of a passenger jet on the Hudson river without a single loss of life is about as antithetical as one can get from the events of 9/11.

The pilot, Captain Chelsey Sullenberger, seemed to have two choices, downtown Manhattan (again) or try a belly landing on the Hudson. He chose the Hudson, acting from his competence, not panicked fear, and thereby spared all his passengers. He also spared any unsuspecting people who may have been in the plane's path had he tried the land approach. His choice is the exact opposite of the choices made by the 9/11 'pilots'. Captain Sullenberger purified some serious energy around Manhattan. He closed a circle of energy, an important circle of energy.

The photo which I chose for this piece, centers the Statue of Liberty in the background, as passengers are being rescued by the numerous commercial vessels which instantly surrounded the downed plane. Not one single person suffered exposure from the waters of the frigid Hudson. Amazing.

Lady Liberty watching over Americans, and those who aspire to be Americans, is also a Marian image.

There are other signs that things will be different in the energy of Obama . . .

To read Colleen’s reflection in its entirety, click here.

__________________________________


Of course, not all progressives are jubilant and hopeful about the incoming Obama administration. Patrick Martin, for instance, writing for the World Socialist Web Site, laments the cabinet assembled by the president-elect. According to Martin, it’s a right-wing cabinet for a government of big business.

Following are excerpts from Martin’s January 19 commentary:


. . . In advance of his inauguration, President-elect Barack Obama has assembled a cabinet drawn from the upper echelons of American society and the right-wing of the Democratic Party. Despite his invocations of “change,” his appeals to antiwar sentiment and to young people in the course of nearly two years of campaigning, there is not a single figure in the leading personnel of the Obama administration drawn from the more liberal elements of the Democratic Party, let alone anyone representative of the broad masses of working people and youth. The right-wing character of Obama’s nominees is described by the media under the approving labels of “centrist,” “moderate,” and — most of all — “pragmatic.” This terminology signifies that the incoming Obama team consists entirely of individuals who pass muster with the corporate-financial elite. There is not a whiff of genuine oppositional sentiment, let alone political radicalism, among the lot of them.

. . . As for Hillary Clinton, once the highest-profile target for demonization by the Republican right, her confirmation hearing was described in all media accounts as a love fest. Senators spent 45 minutes praising her before allowing the nominee to read her prepared statement. Senators who voted to remove her husband from office ten years ago ratified her nomination for secretary of state and sent it to the floor of the Senate where she will be confirmed within minutes of Obama’s official inauguration.

To read Patrick Martin’s commentary in its entirety, click here.



NEXT: Part 7



Recommended Off-site Link:
The Speech President Obama Should Deliver . . . But Won’t
- David Korten (Yes! Magazine, January 19, 2009).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Challenge for Progressives with an Obama Presidency
Obama a Socialist? Hardly
Progressives and Obama (Part 1)
Progressives and Obama (Part 2)
Progressives and Obama (Part 3)
Progressives and Obama (Part 4)
Progressives and Obama (Part 5)
Thoughts on Tomorrow’s Presidential Election
“Change Has Come to America”
A Night of Celebration
Obama, Ayers, the “S” Word, and the “Most Politically Backward Layers in America”
Historic (and Wild!)
One of Those Moments
An American Prayer


Thursday, November 06, 2008

The Challenge for Progressives with an Obama Presidency

Yesterday on Pacific Radio’s Democracy Now! program, Manning Marable shared his thoughts on the election of Barack Obama as president.

Marable (pictured at right) is a professor of public affairs, political science, history, and African American studies at Columbia University in New York City. He is also the author of a number of books, including Living Black History: How Reimagining the African-American Past Can Remake America’s Racial Future.

I appreciate Marable’s candor about president-elect Obama, whom, he insists, “is not a person of the left,” but rather “a pragmatic liberal” who will “govern largely from the center.”

Accordingly, I greatly resonate with the concerns and questions raised by Marable, such as: How do those of us who are democratic socialists relate to someone who, ideologically, is not an enemy?


“The real challenge, says Marable, “is not so much what Obama does, but what do progressives do . . . now [that] we’re in [the] unusual situation, where, for many people left of center, we actually have a friend in the White House.”

Following are excerpts from Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman’s interview with Manning Marable in which he shares his thoughts on the significance of the nation’s first elected African American president, and on who Barack Obama will answer to given the massive amount of money that was poured into his campaign.

___________________________________________


Amy Goodman: How will Barack Obama, being the forty-fourth president of the United States, change race relations in America?

Manning Marable: Well, some of us would say that we’ve been waiting for this victory since 1619. It’s been about 400 years for African Americans to really feel a part of American democracy. It’s been — forty years ago — I mean, I think about this — the majority of black people did not vote in a presidential election. The first time they did was in 1968. That black people, for 250 years, were defined as property in this country. For another hundred years, we were relegated to the margins of democracy because of Jim Crow segregation. Black people were denied access to the ballot across the South until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And for us to move in forty years’ time to the point of having a black chief executive is almost unbelievable for the vast majority of black people.

But now the great challenge occurs, and it occurs in two ways. There are expectations that African Americans have that I believe can’t be realized by one person, by this one man, entering a political structure and an apparatus that is not designed to liberate black people. We have to be soberly cautious about what Obama can achieve, can accomplish, even as the nation’s president. But a second problem that I want to reiterate is, what does the left do as we approach a liberal administration that has won an unprecedented victory in our own lifetimes? This is equivalent to Lyndon Johnson in 1964. But what do we do? How do we put forward an agenda of — that raises issues of class inequality, of gender inequality in this society? The Democratic Party is not a vehicle that’s designed to advocate the issues of poor folk and working people.


Amy Goodman: Did you expect to see what you have seen? Did you expect this to come to pass now?

Manning Marable: Actually, yes, for two reasons. One, that we had demography on our side, that is, that the United States is rapidly being transformed ethnically, that by — within the next thirty years, the majority of the population of the United States is going to consist of people of color, of Latinos, Asian Americans and African Americans, so someone like Obama was inevitable to emerge within the political system. I’m somewhat surprised it occurred so suddenly into the twenty-first century, but someone would have inevitably emerged.

The second thing that is striking to me is that Obama represents, I think, a group of . . . race-neutral African American leadership, that includes Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, New Jersey, who are not race-based politicians, who appeal directly to whites, who try to sidestep issues of race, who are pragmatists, ideologically more centrist than the liberal politicians who emerged out of the civil rights and black freedom struggle of the 1960s and ’70s.


Amy Goodman: You have, on the one hand, the grassroots community organizing [that helped get Obama elected], but something that perhaps works against it in the future and something that grassroots groups have to deal with: the massive amount of money that was poured into this campaign, unleashed by, well, not abiding by campaign finance rules, opting out of the public campaign finance system. And the question now is who Barack Obama will answer to.

Manning Marable: That’s right. The way I think about Obama now is that he represents something of a reverse-Reagan, in the sense that what Reagan represented was a hard-line, right-wing public policy agenda that was framed around clear principles — anti-communism, smaller government, building up the military — but with appeals to the center; Obama is like the reverse of that. You’re going to get, instead of a right-center leadership, you’re going to get a center-left leadership. Obama is going to govern from the center, but he’s going to make strong appeals to the liberal left. And that’s what his government will look like, with core principles: energy independence, alternative energy, an end to the war in Iraq, the economic — addressing America’s economic problems.

. . . I think that the real challenge now is not so much what Obama does, but what do progressives do? Because we have — we’re now in an uncomfortable and unusual situation, where, for many people left of center, we actually have a friend in the White House. You know, I can’t remember, during my lifetime — and I’m fifty-eight years old — where I can actually say that, that someone who understands clearly the positions of the left.

Now, we had a lot of silly talk about Obama being a socialist during the last two weeks of the campaign. He’s not. He’s a progressive liberal. But for those of us who are indeed democratic socialists, those of us who are on the left, how do we relate to the government, where someone who ideologically is not an enemy, someone who understands the agenda and the issues that are of concern of the truly disadvantaged? How do we relate to that government? How do we relate to the politics of that administration? This is a real challenge for progressives.



Indeed.

Actually, this same challenge was discussed during September’s Peace Island Conference, held in St. Paul during the Republican National Convention.

Two speakers at this conference, in particular, addressed the challenge for progressives posed by an Obama presidency.

Here’s what Leslie Cagan, national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, said in September:

We should not assume that electing one man to the White House is going to solve all the problems, but there will be an opening for us as an anti-war movement to push harder, insist harder, to make sure, for instance, that the war in Iraq ends. Left on his own, [Obama] will leave troops there, he will leave tens of thousands of troops there. Left on his own, he will expand the war in Afghanistan. Left on his own, I don’t know what he’ll do with Iran. He may talk first and then bomb, instead of going right to bombing. And we can’t let that happen. That is the challenge to us.

I am concerned that if Obama wins there will be a sense among many people in this country that our work is done. No! If Obama is elected our movement needs to be stronger and smarter and larger and push harder.

And here are author and political activist Antonia Juhasz’s thoughts:

We can still support an Obama presidency and be the peace movement, but we have to articulate this in those places were he fails us. We have to challenge, criticize, stand against, organize, go head-to-head with our elected officials. We cannot expect that one of us is going to fill every single seat of every single office. And even if we did, you and I are all in the peace movement but we don’t agree on every other policy issue. So does that mean that we don’t support each other? Because there are lots of things I bet we disagree on significantly, but we might still want to elect each other into office.

What that means is that political leaders don’t embrace every single issue. They create, hopefully, the environment in which we are activists, and within which we organize and speak truth to power. And that is our job.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
“Change Has Come to America”
A Night of Celebration
Thoughts on Tomorrow’s Presidential Election
Progressives and Obama (Part 1)
Progressives and Obama (Part 2)
Progressives and Obama (Part 3)
Progressives and Obama (Part 4)
Progressives and Obama (Part 5)
Obama a Socialist? Hardly
Reality Check
Historic (and Wild!)
One of Those Moments
An American Prayer


Saturday, October 18, 2008

Progressives and Obama (Part 5)


In the October issue of Mother Jones, a number of writers, thinkers, and historians are asked to weigh in on the question: “Is Barack Obama exaggerating when he compares his campaign to the great progressive moments in US history?”

Following are some of their responses.

• Harold Evans, author of The American Century
The great progressive movements all had specific programs to deal with definable evils and restrictions – to make America more of a functioning democracy, truer to the ideals in the Declaration of Independence, rather than the rule of the elites envisaged by the founding fathers. Obama’s statements are gratifying, even glorious, but they are not well-enough defined to constitute anything comparable to the great progressive movements that gave us our present.


• Patricia Williams, Columbia University
It’s not an exaggeration to say that Barack Obama’s campaign is rooted in and furthers the progressive American story. From the Puritan jeremiads to the Gettysburg Address, from Harriet Tubman to FDR’s fireside chats, from Abigail Adams to “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” our most interesting social transformations have been given life by our most intelligent rhetoricians. Barack Obama could be our Nelson Mandela – not a magician, but the page-turner to a more encompassing future.


• Garry Wills, author of Papal Sin and What the Gospels Meant
It is true that Obama is facing a task of historic scale and difficulty, but he has not sufficiently identified it. The task is to restore a Constitution shredded by secrecy, illegal detention, and torture. The real question is whether he can convince the American people that these atrocities must be wiped out – and he has not began to do that.


• Naomi Klein, author of No Logo and The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
The campaign’s most radical demand is the idea of electing Obama himself. It is Obama – and not his plans for the presidency – that is the ultimate expression of the “movement.” If the process ends there, the Obama campaign will become more like the “lifestyle” brands – the Nikes and Starbucks that captured the transcendent quality of past liberation movements, and our desire for meaning in our lives, to build their own brands.


• Ta-Nehisi Coates, author of The Beautiful Struggle
If Obama really reorients the country away from anti-intellectualism, fake patriotism, and craven power-mongering toward a path of honest debate, muscular patriotism, and simple common sense, then he will be right in claiming the best of the progressive tradition. If not, then it’ll just be rhetoric. It’s up to him.


• Michael Kinsley, columnist
Of course he’s exaggerating. That is not a crime; it’s almost required in a presidential candidate. But as a “world man” who has inspired people around the globe without actually doing anything yet, Obama has the potential to prepare for the “change” they think they want – much of which they won’t like when they see it close-up. The test of a leader is whether he or she can lead people somewhere they don’t want to go. Whether Obama can do that, or wants to, remains unclear.


• Jennifer Baumgardner, co-author of Manifesta
Any viable candidate for president isn’t waging a revolution for peace, truth, and justice when he runs. He is calibrating complicated positions about even more complex issues and balancing messages of change that aren’t, in fact, too changey. I don’t find this realpolitik disturbing, but I find the message of “hope” Obama conveys empty, especially as he proves in the general election to have exactly Hillary Clinton’s positions.


• Clarence Page, columnist
Obama has not spelled out a platform that compares to the earth-moving ideologies of great progressive movements. Nevertheless, he already has changed our national mindset about racial possibilities, revitalized the image and energy of liberal politics, and improved our nation’s image around the world. That’s not small potatoes.



NEXT: Part 6



Recommended Off-site Links:
• Obama’s Three Challenges - James Carroll (The Boston Globe, September 29, 2008).
• Catholic Digest interview with Barack Obama
• Roman Catholics for Obama/Biden ’08
• Catholics for Obama
• Catholic Democrats


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Progressives and Obama (Part 1)
• Progressives and Obama (Part 2)
• Progressives and Obama (Part 3)
• Progressives and Obama (Part 4)
• Obama, Ayers, the “S” Word, and the “Most Politically Backward Layers in America”
• Historic (and Wild!)
• One of Those Moments
• An American Prayer

Image: Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) during the presidential debate with Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, October 15, 2008. (Jim Bourg/Reuters


Monday, October 13, 2008

Progressives and Obama (Part 4)

Social activist and historian Howard Zinn (pictured at left) has an op ed in the latest issue of The Progressive in which he outlines why he’s voting for Barack Obama. Following is an excerpt.

____________________


One might assume . . . that I see no difference between McCain and Obama, that I see them as equivalent. Not so. There is a difference, not a significant enough difference for me to have confidence in Obama as President, but just enough for me to vote for Obama and to hope he defeats McCain.

Whoever is President, the crucial factor for change will be how much agitation there is in the country on behalf of change. I am guessing that Obama may be more sensitive than McCain to such turmoil, since it will come from his supporters, from the enthusiasts who will register their disillusionment by taking to the streets. Franklin D. Roosevelt was not a radical, but he was more sensitive to the economic crisis in the country and more susceptible to pressure from the Left than was Herbert Hoover.

Even for the “purest” of radicals, there must be recognition of differences that may mean life or death for thousands. In France at the time of the Algerian War, the election of DeGaulle — hardly an anti-imperialist but more aware of the inevitable decline of empires — was significant in ending that long and brutal occupation.

I have no doubt that by far the wisest, most reliable, with the most integrity, of all recent Presidential candidates is Ralph Nader. But I think it is a waste of his political strength, a puny act, to expend it in the electoral arena, where the result can show only weakness. His power, his intelligence, lies in the mobilization of people outside the ballot box.

So, yes, I will vote for Obama, because the corrupt political system offers me no choice, but only for the moment I pull down the lever in the voting booth.

Before and after that moment I want to use whatever energy I have to push him toward a recognition that he must defy the traditional thinkers and corporate interests surrounding him, and pay homage to the millions of Americans who want real change.

- Excerpted from “The Obama Difference” by Howard Zinn (The Progressive, October 2008).



NEXT: Part 5



Recommended Off-site Link:
Obama Opens a Double-Digit Lead in New Poll - Newsweek, October 10, 2008.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Progressives and Obama (Part 1)
Progressives and Obama (Part 2)
Progressives and Obama (Part 3)
Obama, Ayers, the “S” Word, and the “Most Politically Backward Layers in America”
Historic (and Wild!)
One of Those Moments
An American Prayer

Image: Michael J. Bayly.


Thursday, September 25, 2008

Progressives and Obama (Part 3)

The latest issue of The Gay and Lesbian Review has a number of articles about the upcoming U.S. presidential election. For instance, in an essay entitled “The Critical Moment”, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank proposes that from the standpoint of GLBT rights, 2008 may well be the year that “the political system caught up with the country.” Frank is adamant that “on the question of protecting people against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the voters have been ahead of the politicians.”

Timothy Patrick McCarthy also has an interesting essay in the “Election 2008 Issue” of The Gay and Lesbian Review, one in which he asks: “Is Barack Obama the Real Deal?” Following are excerpts from this particular essay.

_________________________________


One of the many things I admire about Barack Obama is his willingness to admit his imperfections. “I am not a perfect candidate,” he is fond of saying, striking a chord of humility that makes him seem more human than most of our politicians. Obama wants us to know that he is fallible, yes, but not irreparably flawed.

After eight torturous years of a flawed administration that seems constitutionally incapable of admitting its own fallibility – even as it has presided over so many failures at home and abroad – it is refreshing to have a presidential candidate who can admit that he doesn’t have all the answers. So many of us are hungry to vote for a candidate who seems to understand that strong leadership requires an openness to new and different ideas, a willingness to grow and evolve, a capacity to learn from one’s mistakes. In light of the Bush Administration’s grotesque hubris, such humility seems almost revolutionary.

. . . When it comes to GLBT issues, Barack Obama is not a perfect candidate. His acrobatics on marriage equality suggest that he has a capacity for calculation just like any other politician. But we cannot withhold our support because of one issue, as important as it is to so many of us. Indeed, perhaps the “marriage issue” raises another important question: can we condemn Barack Obama – or any other candidate, for that matter – for failing to embrace all the positions we hold near and dear when we ourselves have not yet achieved a consensus about what we believe? Many of us want the right to marry, but not all of us by any means. And as we witnessed all too clearly in the recent ENDA vote in Congress, our community still has its own internal debates about the politics and priorities of GLBT civil rights. In other words, we too, are still struggling to form a more perfect union.

. . . Jesse Jackson was correct in saying that progressive change occurs whenever there is a combination of “an enlightened president and an energized electorate.” Together, we in the GLBT community, as with American voters in general, are as energized as we’ve been in recent memory. It remains to be seen whether Barack Obama will become the truly enlightened leader he seems to be. But if we continue to engage him in good faith, if we continue to press our demands on him, I am confident that he will become a more perfect candidate insofar as gay rights are concerned – a powerful straight ally who stands with us, rather than against us, in our ongoing struggle for freedom and equality. Together, Barack Obama and his queer supporters may just yet perfect the union.

- Excerpted from “Is Barack Obama the Real Deal?” by Timothy Patrick McCarthy (The Gay and Lesbian Review, September-October 2008).



NEXT: Part 4



See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Progressives and Obama (Part 1)
• Progressives and Obama (Part 2)
• An American Prayer


Thursday, September 04, 2008

Progressives and Obama (Part 2)

On Tuesday night I attended a plenary session of the “solutions-driven conference,” Peace Island: Hope in a Time of Crisis.

This session focused on global peace and non-violence and featured, among others, Leslie Cagan, national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, and Antonia Juhasz, political analyst and author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time and the forthcoming The Tyranny of Oil: The World’s Most Powerful Industry and What We Must Do to Stop It.

At one point the following question was posed by a member of the audience: Why as progressives should we support Barack Obama instead of a third party candidate such as Cynthia McKinney? After all, McKinney is unapologetically anti-war and, unlike both McCain and Obama, is not beholden to what many would consider to be compromising and corrupting corporate interests.

Following are the responses of Juhasz and Cagan.



Leslie Cagan

It’s wrong to say [as some progressives do] that there is no difference between Barack Obama and John McCain. One of the most important lines, for me, of [Obama’s] speech in Denver last Thursday was when he said: “Change doesn’t come from Washington, it comes to Washington.” The fact that someone running for president of the United States could even say that gives us an opening, and that’s what we have to seize upon.

[Of course] we should not assume that electing one man to the White House is going to solve all the problems, but there will be an opening for us as an anti-war movement to push harder, insist harder, to make sure, for instance, that the war in Iraq ends. Left on his own, [Obama] will leave troops there, he will leave tens of thousands of troops there. Left on his own, he will expand the war in Afghanistan. Left on his own, I don’t know what he’ll do with Iran. He may talk first and then bomb, instead of going right to bombing. And we can’t let that happen. That is the challenge to us.

I am concerned that if Obama wins there will be a sense among many people in this country that our work is done. No! If Obama is elected our movement needs to be stronger and smarter and larger and push harder.


Antonia Juhasz

One of the things that an Obama presidency would do is, hopefully, provide a potentially more welcoming environment in which we can continue to do our organizing. And so the bottom line is that we continue to do our organizing. Our message never changes. Iraq Veterans Against the War has three demands. Those don’t change when they’re talking to the Obama campaign or the McCain campaign. And neither should ours. We are the peace movement. That is our demand. That is our commitment. That is what we stand for.

We can still support an Obama presidency and be the peace movement, but we have to articulate this in those places were he fails us. We have to challenge, criticize, stand against, organize, go head-to-head with our elected officials. We cannot expect that one of us is going to fill every single seat of every single office. And even if we did, you and I are all in the peace movement but we don’t agree on every other policy issue. So does that mean that we don’t support each other? Because there are lots of things I bet we disagree on significantly, but we might still want to elect each other into office.

What that means is that political leaders don’t embrace every single issue. They create, hopefully, the environment in which we are activists, and within which we organize and speak truth to power. And that is our job.


Above: With Antonia Juhasz (third from left) and my friends
Sue Ann and Kathleen - Tuesday, September 2, 2008.


NEXT: Part 3



See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Progressives and Obama (Part 1)
Historic (and Wild!)
Reality Check
An American Prayer
One of Those Moments
Catholic Democrats


Recommended Off-site Link:
Peace Island - Susu Jeffrey describes her vision of a “solutions-based” conference that is planned for the same time as the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.


Thursday, August 28, 2008

Progressives and Obama

Following is a snippet from a commentary by media analyst and author Norman Solomon (pictured at right) on Barack Obama and the progressive base. I like what Solomon has to say as he neither fawns over Obama nor, as some on the far left have done, totally dismisses him for not being progressive enough.

I came across Solomon’s commentary in a booklet produced by MyPeaceCity.com. This free booklet can be found in numerous Twin Cities shops and businesses in the lead-up to the Republican National Convention. Along with articles and commentaries by Noam Chomsky, Winona LaDuke, Any Tannenbaum, and others, both the “My Peace City booklet and website contain a detailed listing of events that have been planned in response to the agenda being pushed by the Republican party during its upcoming convention in St. Paul.

I particularly appreciate Solomon’s reminder that we should not expect any one person to be responsible for solving our society’s problems. It is always the work of social movements, i.e., a range of collective actions on the part of all of us, that facilitates positive social change. Yet as Solomon observes, such action is more likely to be present and effective under an Obama presidency than a McCain one.

Not being a U.S. citizen, I won’t be able to vote in the upcoming presidential election. But if I could I would be voting for Barack Obama – and pragmatically for the reasons outlined by Norman Solomon below.


______________________________


As an elected Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention, I’ve been hearing from people who are upset by the recent direction of the campaign. Some were always skeptical of Obama but are becoming more so. Others have been strong supporters from the outset. In the latter category, an attorney sent an e-mail to me a few days ago: “I must confess that my enthusiasm for Senator Obama has waned in recent weeks with a number of his policy announcements (on FISA, gun control, etc.). While I of course will vote for him and help him get elected, I must say that I feel a bit deflated after having put so much hope, effort, and money into his candidacy.”



Obama and his top advisors will have to gauge the importance of such deflation and waning enthusiasm. A key factor in the election will be the extent to which the Obama campaign can pull off a massive mobilization of voters. Deflated constituencies don’t mobilize as well as inspired ones.

Anyone who assumes that Obama will be elected president in November is on ground as solid as the assumption in 2000 that Al Gore would be elected president. On July 9, when releasing new results from nationwide polling, the Democratic research outfit Greenberg Quinlan Rosner reported that Obama has a mere 4-point lead over John McCain. Despite its propensity to spin for Democrats and its eagerness to note that Obama seems “well-positioned,” the firm acknowledged “some diminished enthusiasm for the presumptive Democratic nominee and only small gains among independent voters.”

Some progressives, now disaffected, might consider the prospect of Obama falling short on Election Day to be his problem, not ours. But this isn’t about Obama. It’s about whether the levers of power in the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court along with it, are going to be redelivered into the hands of the right wing for another four years.

We’re facing the historic imperative of keeping McCain out of the White House. If major progressive change is going to be feasible during the next several years, defeating McCain in November is necessary. And insufficient. The insufficiency does not negate the necessity.

Under a McCain presidency, we’d be back to the square one where we’ve found ourselves since January 2001. Putting Obama in the White House would not by any means ensure progressive change, but under his presidency the grassroots would have an opportunity to create it.

Along the way, let’s strive to eliminate disillusionment by dispensing with illusions. No one who is a presidential candidate can proceed to overcome corporate power or the warfare state. The pervasive and huge problems that have proved to be so destructive are deep, structural, and embedded in the political economy. The changes most worth believing in are ones that social movements can make possible.

– Excerpted from “Obama and the Progressive Base” by Norman Solomon.



NEXT: Part 2




Recommended Off-site Links:
Progressives and Obama: The Clash of Narratives - Norman Solomon (CommonDreams.org, August 18, 2008).
Yes You Can: Why Catholics Don’t Have to Vote Republican - Gerald J. Beyer (Commonweal, June 20, 2008).
Catholic Democrats
Catholics for Obama
Roman Catholics for Obama/Biden ’08
Catholics United


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Historic (and Wild!)
Reality Check
Catholic Democrats
An American Prayer


Image 1: Normon Solomon (photographer unknown).
Images 2- 3: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Democratic vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Wednesday, August 27, 2008. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia)