Note:
This is a response to �How do
we respond to Obama?� by Bill Fletcher, Jr.
On
Bill Fletcher's Thoughts on Obama
I
agree with Bill Fletcher�s essay on how to approach Obama
in 2012. I only wish to add these thoughts.
First,
I knew very well that Obama was a centrist, because he declared
himself to be at the midpoint between Senator Henry �Scoop�
Jackson and �Tom Hayden Democrats� such as myself. I knew
where things stood from the get-go. No matter how reasonably
I described my beliefs, Obama would keep moving to the right
of them in order to maintain his role as a centrist. Aside
from the frustrations this would mean for progressives like
myself, it also meant that Obama was defining �center� in
an unfortunate way. He apparently didn�t mean a midpoint
between the 75 percent majorities and 25 percent minorities
on taxing the rich, saving Medicare and Social Security,
and getting out of Afghanistan. He meant staying in the
middle between the poles he chose to consider relevant,
which meant the far right and the middle, leaving the Democratic
Party liberals stranded on many issues.
His
call.
But
now Obama has stranded himself, with a majority of Americans
favoring �another candidate� in 2012, and a fall-off of
about 30 percent among all Democrats and Latinos. His strategy
obviously is to get Democrats and Independents to hold their
noses and vote for him against an obnoxious Republican in
2012.
This,
folks might do. I certainly will. On the other hand, Obama
will have an impossible time mobilizing the same level of
resources, organizers and energy of his grass-roots campaign
of 2008. So he could lose in some of the dozen states where
he won by 1-3 points in that historic year.
I
attended an Obama rally in Culver City the other night.
There were 2,500 people gathered at Sony Studios, in the
district of progressive Congresswoman Karen Bass. The crowd
was loyal, caring, supportive, but not inflamed as they
were in 2008. The speeches, which were supposed to galvanize,
were somewhat flat. People had the president�s back, but
all were well aware that the road ahead would be hard and
uphill.
I
certainly don�t think that the President should throw red
meat to his base if it harms him among the independents.
But I think he should be aware that his careful parsing
of words and positions leaves many people lacking their
previous level of faith. To be specific, does he really
mean that he will let the tax credits for the rich expire
in 2012, no matter the outcome of the election and negotiations
with Republicans? Or is he open to an extension? No one
knows, because Obama loathes absolutes. On Iraq, will he
really withdraw the remaining 50,000 troops, or is he open
to a deal extending the occupation? On Afghanistan, does
he plan a significant withdrawal beginning this July, or
will American combat troops remain through 2014? Again,
no one can be confident that they know. On immigration rights,
does Obama really have a plan to implement a �path to citizenship�,
or does he mean to make this a wedge issue with Republicans?
Did he do all that he could for the Dream Act students?
Or is he just trying to bring back the Latino vote in New
Mexico, Colorado and Nevada? On Wall Street reform, will
Obama really protect us against the return of the vulture
capitalists? On campaign contributions, does he really intend
to reverse the Supreme Court over Citizens United, or will
he focus on raising one billion dollars for his re-election?
On green jobs, does he seriously believe we can accept coal
mining, deep water drilling and more nuclear plants as part
of the bargain?
Serious
questions all. By keeping his base uncertain, Obama lowers
our commitment to a point where we are going through a shared
uncertainty about each other. If he seems to hedge his bets,
so do many of us.
Back
in 2008, we thought there might be a progressive upsurge
that would keep Obama accountable to our agenda. It was
a provisional experiment.
As
things turned out, however, the big constituencies of the
Democratic Party [like labor] have failed to come up with
effective strategies to turn the economy around and end
the wars. Perhaps the most interesting success of progressives,
in my mind, was that of the brainy and well-financed LGBT
network, which maintained the pressure to repeal �Don�t
Ask, Don�t Tell�. It was a remarkable victory, but even
so the legislation contained loopholes actually allowing
the military to stall.
In
2012, like most of us, I will campaign and vote for Obama,
not because he is the Second Coming, but because the alternative
is unimaginable, and his administration is staffed with
all sorts of intelligent and creative people who are open
to progressive pressure and thought. In fact, I will take
pleasure in trying to engage the American public in a debate
about Tom Paine versus Ayn Rand, Keynes versus Milton Friedman.
I think we are at a historic turning point in our culture
when so many white people are incapable of accepting the
election of a black president. For these extremist �birthers�,
Obama is symbolic of the Illegal Aliens undermining traditional
white culture. They pose a serious internal threat; even
the Homeland Security Agency warned in 2009 of the rise
of right-wing violence due to the election of a black president
and an economic recession.
Like
Bill Fletcher, I hope we can return to the grass-roots agenda
of trying to shift public opinion and building state and
local power bases capable of creating blue-state models
of social change and competing with the corporations to
push Obama towards applying his experience of community
organizing to making the presidency a progressive bastion.
Most
on the American Left have internalized the idea that only
social movements can make a president progressive, citing
the examples of abolitionist pressure on Abraham Lincoln
and workers� pressure on Franklin Roosevelt. That�s a huge
step towards understanding how history works from the bottom
up. But the plain fact is that the American Left, unlike
our counterparts in Latin America and Europe, has been unable
to build an infrastructure of parties, unions, media and
artists capable of the daily work of organizing to compete
politically while fostering counter-communities of lasting
meaning. The reason that education, health care and social
services are more affordable, that green politics is more
viable, that labor protections are stronger on other continents
is that there are stronger social-democratic, radical and
green parties with popular support in those parts of the
world. They resisted the impulse to empire and war, and
tried to develop and improve their lives at home.
There
is little Obama can do about that. He plays with the cards
he is dealt. He is both the commander-in-chief of a global
network of power, and a leader elected on promises of deep
reform. He cannot be both. We cannot fight wars over oil
and make the deep commitment to energy conservation that
is necessary. How do you reform empire when we are four
percent of the world�s population consuming 40 percent of
the world�s resources? When becoming more �competitive�
means keeping the rest of the world at bay and at risk?
Obama
is the symbol of the new globalization processes unleashed
in the world, still under excessive influence of those banking
elites who Lula refers to as �white people with blue-eyes�.
Perhaps the American Left needs to study the political experience
of social movements in countries where, when forced to leave
their empires behind, a better quality of life was discovered,
waiting all along. ?
This
commentary originally appeared on tomhayden.com.
Click here to read any commentary in this BC series.
Click here to send a comment to all the participants in this BC series.
BlackCommentator.com Guest Commentator Tom Hayden has spent over fifty years
as a political activist and writer. Mr. Hayden is still
a leading voice for ending the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and Pakistan, for erasing sweatshops, saving the environment,
and reforming politics through a more participatory democracy. His
Website is TomHayden.com - The Peace and
Justice Resource Center. Click here
to contact Mr. Hayden.
|