Obama and Our Hopes and Fears

There are many reasons why Barack Obama's exciting candidacy is important and significant. Most prominently featured in Senator Obama's rise, are the prospect of "hope" and "change", terms almost ridiculed by a segment of Hillary supporters and staunch Clintonites as substance lacking, naïve pipe dreams. However, while much of the Clinton faithful are not ready to believe, the rest of should pay close attention to the subtleties in Obama's words, in which there are very inspiring and substantive messages flowing right below the surface of his stirring rhetoric. For many in the progressive camp, these messages, and the Obama candidacy itself, present both the possibility for an exciting and bright future, and an unfortunate and ultimate disappointment.

What is brilliant and brave about Barack Obama's campaign is his keen sense that many, many Americans have been waiting for "change" and "hope" in Washington, DC. Now, it may sound like this author is simply throwing out Obama talking points - but seriously - Obama realizes that, not only do American's want a literal change of the White House occupant and occupying party, but they also want a change in the tone of American politics, a change in the attitude of America's elected officials who so often capitalize on public apathy and cynicism to ram through partisan ideological legislation, rather than work to create belief in government by the people, and to encourage participation and a sense that what happens in Washington matters, and that the Congress and White House actually care about the hopes and fears of the people they represent.

That being said, it is fitting that the embattled Hillary Clinton and her husband are Obama's opponents. The Clintons represent everything that has been wrong about the Democratic Party, and are an emblem of the kind of cynicism Senator Obama so often alludes to. The Clintons, when they lived at the White House, were under constant assault by right wing ideologues bent on their destruction, maybe more so than any other presidency. There is no doubt that a Hillary Clinton campaign and presidency would be met with some of the same old battles, and the right would mobilize to once again try to convince the world that the Clintons are some sort of secret criminal enterprise. The Clintons take much pride in the fact that they were able to persevere through these attacks for many years now, and take for granted that American politics will always be that way, and that we the people need their willingness to fight dirty in the trenches against right wing smear agents. Well, what Obama offers is not some magical ability to make the unreasonable politicians and lying smear agents of the right play nice, but rather, Obama offers at least the chance to leave all of that behind us, and maybe even create an environment in which the lies and extremist rhetoric that have at times dominated Washington, can be drowned out by the overwhelming reason of people of good will from both sides of the aisle. Who wouldn't want that?

It has often been suggested but Senator Clinton and her husband, that it is somehow naïve and dangerous for Obama to suggest we can work with Republicans, and the initial instinct is to agree with them. Too much bipartisanship can sometimes get us nowhere, especially given the irrational nature of the Republican Party these days - however - here is where we should examine Obama's words more carefully, and in fact contrast them with the way the Clintons used their time in the White House. Obama never says that he will capitulate to Republican causes and ideas, only that he will be willing to try to work with Republicans in an honest way. Does anyone believe, given Obama's clearly brilliant abilities as a politician, that he is naïve to the dirty tricks and almost across the board ideological madness of the Republican Party in Washnington?

Again, what Obama is offering is a clean slate and an olive branch to Republican voters and politicians, and he delivers this olive branch minus the old latent 60's culture war baggage that has crippled us to this point, and created perpetual conflict among the American people. It is like Americans have been trapped in a giant Thanksgiving dinner family political fight between babyboomers with open wounds from the Vietnam era, while the children of the family sit by helplessly in awe as Uncle Jim Conservative and Uncle Joe Liberal shout at each other, and throw superficial clichés about tax and spend liberals and greedy conservatives. Many of us Americans feel as if we are the children sitting at that table watching this freak show, and Barack Obama is like the cool, older teenage cousin who looks at the kids of both Uncle Jim Conservative and Uncle Joe Liberal and says, "hey, these people have lost it - lets go do our own thing". It is hard to shake the feeling that what Hillary offers is the same old fight between Uncle Joe and Uncle Jim.

Perhaps the greatest hint Obama has dropped about his potential, is a statement that was immediately attacked and mischaracterized by the Clinton campaign and even John Edwards. It is his comments about Ronald Reagan during an interview with a Nevada newspaper. Even usually astute analysts like Paul Krugman attacked Obama on this, with Krugman stating that Obama should have pointed out the failure of Reagan policies. Fair enough. However, Obama's comments about Reagan in no way praised Reagan's actual policies. When Obama said that Reagan "tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, 'We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing,' ", he was not praising Reagan's pro-wealthy policies that, as John Edwards put it, were "crippling for millions of Americans". He was simply rightly pointing out that Reagan knew how to appeal to public dissatisfaction over the state of affairs in the late 70's post-Vietnam years by using optimism and hope based language in order to gain support. While Obama said that Reagan changed the "trajectory" of the country, and put us on a "fundamentally different path", he never says that the "trajectory" and new "path" were good ones, or that they benefited the vast majority of Americans. All Obama was trying to get across is that Reagan sensed that people wanted change and he responded to it. Obama, simply by making this observation, seems to be hinting that he is ready to respond to the desire of today's American people for a new "trajectory" in this young millennium, and that the "fundamentally new path" just may be one based upon progressive values that will engender a new era of prosperity for all Americans. Obama's non-confrontational posture toward Republicans, and his "hope" and "change" language, is what is propelling him toward becoming to progressives what Reagan was to the wealthy corporate elites. In this sense, Obama's ability to stir the emotions of even Republicans, could bring about a sea of change toward progressive reform.

This brings us to the fear that many progressives hold about Obama. That Obama - despite his history of working for progressive causes, and representing the interests of the poor, the workers and the oppressed as an organizer and attorney - will prove to be nothing more than another corporate Democrat who just happens to be able to deliver a killer speech. David Sirota points out in his recent article, The Democrats Class War, that Obama receives a ton of campaign money from Wall Street and very wealthy contributors - what Sirota refers to as "hush money" to keep Obama from talking too much about class in America, and prevent him from attacking the Clinton administration of the 90's for their trade policies and deregulation of the financial industry, all of which Sirota rightly points out, have led to many problems we face today, and have intensified todays "boom-bust catastrophies". Sirota further points out that Obama steers clear of talking about economic inequality in America in order to not be marginalized and "stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing race", a quote attributed in the article to Columbia University history professor Manning Marable.

So the question is what will President Obama do? Are his less than favorable proposals about healthcare simply a strategic jumping off point? While he will undoubtedly be an impressive statesman, will he really abandon the aggression, saber rattling and negativity that has typified American foreign policy? Will he spearhead an era pf progressive inspired reform, or will he capitulate to corporate "hush money" and give Americans more of the Clinton style, DLC triangulations, corporate friendly and war friendly dead end policies? Will he return to his progressive roots and heed the wishes of the millions of Americans he's mobilized with his heart rendering speeches and hope intensifying flourishes? Or will he retreat to the same old, re-packaged "practical" politics we so often see from Democratic politicians these days, in which they set aside basic principles in order to side step Republican attacks?

The encouraging thing is that there is something about Obama that seems trustworthy - an almost overwhelming sense that the hopes about Obama the man, will ultimately win over the fears about Obama the politician.