It has been interesting
to watch and listen to a debate unfold among many progressives regarding
how to assess the initial direction of President-elect Obama. I
have, however, found a particular tendency a bit unsettling. It
is a tendency to make certain assumptions regarding Obama’s actual
intent and then to project his decisions, for instance on appointments,
as shrewd tactics to mask an otherwise progressive objective. With
all due respect, I would offer: not so fast.
It
is worth considering the facts on the ground, so to speak. And these
facts are a bit complicated and somewhat contradictory. Obama’s
initial appointments (and unconfirmed appointments) have tended
to be cut from the Bill Clinton cloth. Thus, on the face of it,
one can accurately, and with no caricature, say that Obama is building
a center-right administration. At best, one could say that it is
socially liberal, but the depth of this liberalism is far from clear.
At
the same time, and contained in different statements and proposals,
there is a hint that Obama wishes to do something a bit different
from Clinton-ian liberalism. He has been speaking about “green jobs”
and a major commitment to infrastructure redevelopment. With his
appointment of Tom Daschle he seems to be indicating that he wishes
to push through some version of healthcare reform, and more than
likely within the next two years. His
views on foreign policy remain very contradictory, however and a
source of real concern. Nevertheless, I would argue that an important
conclusion here is that all is not lost.
Yet,
I think that it is important to step back for a moment. On the one
hand we should be very careful about throwing around words such
as “betrayal.” First, Obama made no significant promises to progressives.
He offered hints of a positive direction and I do not regret my
having been a critical supporter of the Obama candidacy. But Obama
did not run as a progressive. He ran as a rather undefined liberal.
So, yelling about betrayal is both overstating the case as well
as missing who Obama has always been.
Equally
dangerous is the assumption that, because Obama is smart, he is
hiding all of his progressive intent behind a wall of center-right
personnel. An argument, for instance, that I recently read suggested
that just as President Bush used Colin Powell (a center right as
opposed to a maniacal right-winger) to push the Iraq invasion, so
too will President-elect Obama use center right figures to cover
for progressive actions. This argument has significant weaknesses.
The most important is that it is entirely based on assumptions both
about Obama’s real intent as well as his relationship with his proposed
Cabinet and advisors. It also misses the point that the Bush administration
was a hard-lined administration and not solely because of Bush or
Cheney. They surrounded themselves with individuals who reinforced
their own maniacal right-wing views.
Cabinet
Secretaries are not simply advisers. Unless Obama is to serve as
the generalissimo of the USA
rather than President, the Cabinet Secretaries will carry significant
weight. They will be directing their departments and implementing
their INTERPRETATION of the Obama doctrine. This is very different
from a kitchen cabinet of advisors. In that regard, NOT choosing
economists such as Joseph Stiglitz (and outspoken critic of the
Washington economic consensus) or Nobel winner Paul Krugman may
have pleased Wall Street, but it indicates that the economic policies
that will be pursued will be led by individuals who, a matter of
a few short weeks ago, were advancing radically different approaches.
Yes, there is something called “redemption” but one must first confess
one’s sins. I have, however, heard few confessions.
So,
the long and the short of it is that while condemnations of Obama
as a betrayer completely exaggerate what is going on, relying on
good-faith and the hidden intentions of the President-elect is a
recipe for an upset stomach. We can only operate based on the facts
on the ground and an analysis of historic patterns of the people
involved. We must factor in the new situation, and based on that,
one can make general conclusions. That said, the major message that
needs to be conveyed at present is not to rely on
good-faith or good-intentions, or the fact that many people may
happen to like President-elect Obama or that he is using cyberspace
in creative ways. The major message is that it is up to progressive
social movements and activists to shape Obama and the Obama administration
in the way that we believe it needs to be shaped. If we do anything
else, we are engaging in wishful thinking.
In
this regard, I wish there were more discussion - in the various
media including, but not limited to the Internet - about the sort
of organizing and base-building that needs to be done in order to
create the means to shape this new Administration. Instead of either
worrying about a betrayal, or on the other hand excusing away center-right
appointments as a mask to really progressive intent, progressives
should be thinking about what WE need to be doing to change the
overall terms of discussion. In this sense, what we do in Black
America can set the stage for this unfolding drama. If
we rest on our euphoria over this historic victory and simply hope
that the brother will do the right thing, we will find ourselves
completely disarmed in the face of actions and/or policies that
are contrary to our interests, and as a result, more than likely
contrary to the interests of the world’s peoples.
If
ever there was a time to remember the words from a famous 19th century
speech, that time is now: “If there is no struggle there is
no progress…Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did
and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass, 1857
BlackCommentator.com Executive Editor, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a Senior
Scholar with the Institute
for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum
and co-author of, Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path
toward Social Justice (University of California
Press), which examines the crisis of organized labor in the USA.
Click here
to contact Mr. Fletcher.
|