I
thought it was a good idea.
In
the midst of Trump-panic and electoral finger pointing, The
Nation
magazine offered a special issue devoted to assessing the Obama
Presidency. Providing a bit of historic context to the Trump victory
would, I should hope, dampen the hysteria embraced by US liberals in
place of sober analysis.
The
Obama
Years (The
Nation,
January 2/9 2017) does have its moments of insight, but far too many
of the contributing liberal/soft-left writers tried desperately to
polish the dull finish of the Obama stewardship. Most sought to
retroactively apply a glow by comparing the Obama years with a
yet-to-be experienced Trump reign.
Bizarre
comparisons abound: Marilynne Robinson found Lincoln in the Obama
legacy, while Patricia J. Williams detected a bit of Frederick
Douglass in Obama’s character. Eric Alterman announced that “Obama
was the coolest guy in the room.”
Obama
defined a new “progressive patriotism” for John Nichols. Katha
Pollitt opined under the headline--How
Good We Had It--
without a hint of irony. She offers a weak attempt at a clever
epigram with “...too many Americans weren’t ready for a black
president, even if they voted for him.” Didn’t they know he was
Black?
Faint
praise indeed from Laila Lalami: “...I’ve never doubted that
Obama tried to put his country’s interest above his own.”
In
a lengthy appraisal of Obama’s foreign policy, Andrew J. Bacevich
charts Obama’s course from “callow rookie to seasoned veteran.”
He finds the mature Obama in the carefully staged valedictory
interview delivered to trusted journalist Jeffrey Goldberg (The
Obama Doctrine,
The
Atlantic,
4-2016 [my commentary is here]).
Unfortunately, the mature Obama that Balevich sees as rejecting the
“foreign-policy establishment” only found himself after
he had surrendered to conventional thinking for over seven years.
Remember the talk of the real
Obama who would be unleashed in his second, lame-duck term?
Robert
Barosage agrees that the Obama epiphany came belatedly, if at all:
“Although Obama grew skeptical of the Washington “playbook” on
foreign policy, he failed to offer an alternative.” He questions
whether Obama was “transformational,” since transformational
“presidents do more than simply govern well. They challenge and
change the direction of the country.” Barosage continues by
recounting the disappointments and policy shortfalls that kept Obama
from being “transformational.”
Following Harvard professor Theda
Skocpol, Barosage recommends envisioning Obama rather as a “pivotal”
President. That is, on “his watch, the United States began to
recognize its corrosive inequality, the power of big money to rig the
rules, and the way the deck was stacked against the vast majority.”
But surely this is a howling non
sequitur.
Obama didn’t bring about any of these realizations, they simply
happened while he governed.
It
is far better to understand Obama as a “transitional” President.
He was the choice favored by a majority of the ruling class to clean
up the mess left by the Bush administration, a thoroughly discredited
regime both nationally and internationally. With a raging economic
crisis, failed wars, and barely measureable poll numbers, a fresh
face, a face that promised renewed confidence from “hope and
change,” Barack Obama was the prescription.
The Obama story was as
distant from the Bush narrative as the two-party dictatorship would
allow. Race, youth, and eloquence separated him from his predecessor.
Never mind that, excepting race, these traits were of little serious
consequence.
Like
President James Carter, after the Nixon fiasco, Obama was meant as a
transition back to political credibility, a purifier of a political
stench.
As
such, Obama was a trusted cheerleader for the existing order.
Christopher Hayes, in his lead article, unwittingly admits this when
he notes that the “story that Obama kept telling was the story of
meritocracy and social mobility.” Of course, it was a Black man who
could make this story credible at a time when both merit and social
mobility were disappearing.
Hayes relates an interview with Senate
Democratic leader Harry Reid in which Hayes pressed him on the
message of the Democratic Party. Reid obliged: “I want everyone in
America to understand, if Harry Reid can make it in America, anyone
can… That’s what America is all about.”
Obama,
similar to Reid and other political elites, sought to keep this
mythology alive. Is it any wonder that a significant portion of the
devastated US industrial working class abandoned the Democrats after
the Obama era?
The
thoughtful Eric Foner concludes the Nation
chronicle of the Obama years with useful insights:
Obama’s
2008 campaign, which mobilized millions of people new to politics,
served as an illustration of the symbiotic relationship between
popular movements and political action. Unfortunately, even before
Obama assumed office, it became clear that he had little interest in
building upon the popular upsurge that helped to elect him.
Foner
offers a counter-narrative to Obama-worship that simply ignores
Obama, the figure, and focuses upon the forces erupting around him
that he, opportunistically, rode to power. For Foner, the popular
social forces are far more indicative of what is possible and
worthwhile than the personalities that ride those social forces in
and out of the Presidency. Rather than heap unwarranted praise on
Obama, Foner traces the often-tortured path that the popular urge for
change takes through US institutions.
Thus, Foner sees manifestations
of the urge for change that are springing up at the close of the
Obama era as more worthy of discussion:
For
a while after the end of the Cold War, it seemed like we were
condemned to live in a world where the only alternatives to
unregulated capitalism were religious fundamentalism or xenophobia
and racism. Then the financial collapse of 2008 drove a stake through
the heart of neo-liberalism, the dominant ideology of the past
generation (although its ghost still walks the earth, including the
corridors of the Obama administration). The great achievement of the
Sanders campaign was to step into the vacuum and begin to offer a new
vision. The election of Donald Trump, while disastrous in so many
ways, is yet another illustration of the bankruptcy of neoliberalism.
It is also an opportunity for the left to forge a new set of policies
to promote political, social, and economic equality.
While
the current political moment is indeed an opportunity to restore what
Foner calls the “American Radical Tradition,” it is wishful
thinking to imagine that the popular thirst for change will be
satisfied with the final demise of “the dominant ideology of the
past generation.” It is not the “bankruptcy of neoliberalism”
(“unregulated capitalism”) alone that opened the door to Trump,
but the bankruptcy of the two-party system that disallows a social
democratic insurgency or a third-party opening to the left.
Moreover,
it is not the latest incarnation of capitalism (neoliberalism) that
is demonstrating its bankruptcy, but it is capitalism itself that
stands accused.
With
his stress on social movements, Foner knows that the existing
political institutions, including both major parties, have resisted
the “American Radical Tradition” at every juncture. Radicalism
must always be sparked and nurtured independently and outside of the
two-party system. Foner’s academic work attests to the fact that
real social change-- including the New Deal, the Great Society, etc--
never comes when insurgents accept the limitations imposed by
capitalist political organizations.
And where right-wing populism
threatens-- like the Trump candidacy-- it draws its oxygen from the
failure of the left to offer authentic options that address the popular
yearning for change.
Those
who uncritically thought the Obama Presidency would satisfy that
yearning helped pave the way to the Trump victory.
Zoltan
Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
1 comment:
Amen, Zoltan! That's why I gave up on reading the Nation long ago. To a great analysis I would two facets of his character that Obama failed to make use of: his race and his working class roots.
Post a Comment