Real change needed for Obama victory

Article written for The Post

After a long drawn out struggle through the primary process for the nomination of the presidential candidate from the Democratic Party, Barack Obama finally ended up with a majority of pledged delegates and super-delegates to overcome his powerful rival Hillary Clinton and thus clinched the nomination. The campaign saw unprecedented mobilisation of newer voters to the primary process, with both the candidates offering something new on their part: the ability to create history. Hillary Clinton enthused millions of women voters to turn up and put their hands together to anoint the first woman presidential candidate in the US, while Barack Obama’s magnetic campaign based on “change” and a charismatic call for rising above partisanship, plus his rich racial and cultural family background, saw a surfeit of young people, African-American voters and liberal graduates flock to vote for him in droves.



The unprecedented show of support by people in the Democratic primaries mirrored the popular dissatisfaction with the current Republican regime led by George W. Bush, whose reign as president over a nation in war has brought about an astonishing fiscal deficit, a financial crisis wrought out of sub-prime loaning schemes, unprecedented war budgets, hundreds of lost American lives, lakhs of Iraqi deaths and a destabilised energy and food environment that has threatened to wreck the world.

It would have been a no-brainer for a change from this apocalypse of a Republican administration to a fresh and energetic Democratic administration led by Barack Obama who has defeated his formidable opponent, Mrs. Clinton. More tellingly, the Republican nominee John McCain has promised to continue in an even more hawkish manner the pigheaded foreign policies of the Bush government, and has offered no substantial change from the completely flawed and pro-rich economic policy of the incumbent government. Anyone who would have watched the political and economic story of the US from outside would have been convinced of a smooth and easy change in government. Surprisingly, neither is Barack Obama’s becoming a president a slam dunk surety nor is the hope of substantial change in the US’ overall foreign and economic policy a guarantee. Why is this so?

The answer to the above question lies in some objective and some subjective issues in the US. Let us look at the latter first. The long drawn out primary battle involving Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has hurt the Democratic Party more than creating any chance of a strong party. Clinton, in particular, was guilty of using underhanded and perverse tactics to try to capture the nomination that was virtually awarded to Obama after his string of victories in state after state in February. In desperation, Clinton started using the woe begotten but effective cards of race and class, as she pitched a theme that “hard working Americans, white Americans” was uncomfortable with Barack Obama’s candidature. Obama’s strength of a composite cultural background was pitched forward to threaten an already paranoid American public with fears being created about his immediate forefathers’ religion in subtle manners.

Then there was the issue of questioning his faith as well as his guide toward Christianity, his pastor. As videos surfaced of his pastor’s remarks about the deep fears and insecurities of the African Americans toward both the US’ foreign as well as domestic policies, Obama was forced to answer for the utterances of his pastor mentor. In a stellar speech, that addressed the race issue in the US frontally, Obama managed to link his message of non-partisanship and inspired leadership with the contents of the fears expressed in his pastor’s speech even as he distanced himself from the beliefs that were expressed in the same. Obama, in the end, came out of the controversy scathed but his honour and message intact. Clinton could not pounce on this predicament of her opponent’s but she sure was able to arrest the landslide that was threatening to pitchfork Obama as not only the sure-fire nominee but also the presumptive President in the forthcoming elections.

With the race dragging on, the latent insecurities of the rural and working class American voters were out in the fore and this decided that Obama could not win decisively once these voters gravitated toward Clinton. But the saving grace for Obama was the fact that the Democratic Party establishment never gave up on him and support trickled down to him slowly, and later in droves as it became more and more clear that he was not going to be surmounted by Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton did not quite give in either as she twisted and turned the mandate to create a spin that she had the popular vote. The result of all this intense politicking is that there has been a significant polarisation of voters among both the Clinton and Obama supporters, who affirm that they would only vote for their preferred candidate or none at all. No wonder, John McCain has benefited out of this subjective fight within the Democratic Party. It remains to be seen how Hillary Clinton would endeavour to unite the Democratic Party and enthuse her supporters to vote for Obama, even after this prolonged slugfest.

This alone does not explain the relevance of John McCain’s candidature as a formidable one. Objective conditions in the US also form important reasons. There exists a deep right wing shift in American polity that was affected by fear-mongering about the world outside and because of the strong wedding of corporate power and politics. Add to this the heady mix, the strength of the corporate media that refuses to look at the issues from the perspective of the under-privileged, be it the coverage of US’ imperialism in West Asia or even domestic economic battles. Accrued to this is the presence of significant hold of the religious, evangelical trend over peoples’ lives, particularly in the predominantly rural and traditionally conservative areas of the south in the US. All this has explained that the coalition that was forged out of religious conservatives, corporate right wingers, neo-conservatives and which has supported the Republican Party has remained formidable even now.

Barack Obama’s answer to this strength of the Republican Party has been to dilute his own inspirational message of change, by papering over the conservatism with small doses of political correctness. Witness his position on West Asia and militarism for example. A just position for the US would be to stop its interventionist policies and eschew its policy of rejecting multilateral bodies, such as the UN, from playing the primary role in world affairs. But Barack Obama does not promise a clean break from unilateralism or militarism. He offers only to privilege dialogue as a necessary means but refuses to rule out the above. On economic policies, he tries to shake hands both with corporate power and labour by being selectively protective. He promises to strive for universal healthcare for example, but refuses a fully mandated insurance programme, ostensibly not wanting to displease corporate medical insurance vendors. No wonder, such dilly-dallying on coming up with a fully progressive agenda to overcome the right wing polity has meant that despite the inspirational message of Barack Obama, candidates such as Ralph Nader are also in the fray for the presidential elections. Nader, with his impeccable record as a consumer rights activist and articulations on public policy, which are staunchly pro-consumer, pro-people and progressive, is bound to cut into Obama’s vote share unless Obama re-invents himself as the original progressive candidate. Subjectively, if Obama could somehow change his domestic agenda to incorporate Clinton’s and John Edwards’ ideas for mandated health care insurance, it would be easier for him to get the former’s undiluted support for his candidacy.

Thus, latest opinion polls suggest that despite the overwhelming freshness in Obama’s campaign and the unprecedented voter turnouts for the Democratic Party, Obama and McCain are neck and neck in popular support. Obama has to not only continue his refrain that McCain offers no substantive change from the Bush years and is cut from the same old conservative mould, but also use his inspirational message of change to formulate a thorough break from the conservatism and forge a new progressive consciousness that would encourage the American voters to vote directly for him.

First among “differentials”

Article written for The Post

First among “differentials”

The presidential primaries in the United States' two major parties, the Republican and the Democratic parties have reached a decisive phase. While senator John McCain has become the presumptive nominee from the Republican side, senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are fighting a close battle to clinch the Democratic nomination; Obama seemingly having his nose in front in the photo-finish race so far.

A few weeks ago, we did a profile of all the candidates on foreign policy, from the eye of a third world watcher and found that none of the candidates from both parties had a vision that could be accepted with glee by the majority of the developing world. Yet this lack of substantive choice based on foreign policy does not mean that the candidates are figures cut from an one-dimensional block. There exists serial differences in approach and vision between not just the parties but also among the candidates in the Democratic party that should interest a political observer enough to make prognostications about what kind of administration would be in offer if these candidates are nominated.

Hillary Clinton, if elected would be the first woman president of the United States. While that is a great and long due prospect, it is another first that worries the observer: the pioneering “first gentleman” in office: Bill Clinton. The Bill Clinton administration during the 1990s was definitely a more appetising government compared to the disastrous George W Bush administration. It presided over a economic boom and left a fiscal surplus but did not offer a substantive difference from the earlier Republican administrations in foreign policy or even on the question of removing poverty through welfare measures in the capitalist American system. This is seen as a legacy of the “third-way” movement led in the Democratic party by a section belonging to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The DLC promotes a mixture of right-wing corporate friendly policies and welfare concepts while retaining hawkish positions on foreign policy.

The Bill Clinton administration, akin to the Labour Party under Tony Blair was the hallmark of the “third way” movement, which pushed the Democratic Party to the centre-right in the political spectrum. Bill Clinton is expected to play a guiding role in a future Clinton administration under Hillary. Hillary Clinton has not disavowed the positions of the DLC or the Clinton administration and does not correspond to the more populist slogans in the party's progressive sections of rejecting corporate lobbying and special interests. At the same time, Hillary Clinton has taken bold measures on domestic economic policies such as a mandated health insurance programme to help get nearly 50 million uninsured Americans insured. On foreign policy, however, the unilaterist streak in the DLC's thinking is reflected in Hillary Clinton's positions on Iraq and Iran (whatever she might say about her withdrawal plans from Iraq). Despite centrism and non-radicalism being the governing principle of the Clinton politics and campaign, there exists a vast area of confrontation between the right wing Republicans and the Clintons owing to the partisan politics in the '90s involving the Clintons' personal life which was attacked with vigour by the Republican opposition.

This reliance on centrist and entrenched interests is exactly that has drawn attack from Barack Obama. Obama, a relatively new political entrant (he has merely two years on his resume as a senator) plays to the large American gallery which is distrustful of the special interest based Washington politics. He promises change, hinting at overturning the cynical and lobbying based politics that has characterised the American federal centre. However, in contrast to John Edwards (the withdrawn Democratic candidate), who stood on a platform of confrontation against special interests and the right wing forces (read Republicans), Obama has a different perspective on how to enact change. He rejects the reductionist approach of straitjacketing politics within the “left-right” divide and wants to engage in drawing in on commonalities while holding on to liberal, progressive values. This, he believes can be achieved through raising the pitch of value based politics through inspiration and non-partisanship. He refrains in confronting even his worst political enemies trying to draw positives out of his rivals and trying to build bridges while enacting progressive policies. Critics and observers would point out that such a formal approach will hardly bring about substantive change as this understanding goes against the ordained system of class differences that characterises society. But Obama's answer is that his reliance on his diverse personal background and on refreshing consistency in policy positions would inspire more participants in the democratic process and bring about “change”. A grain of truth exists in this argument, as the record breaking high turnouts in the primaries have pointed out, as also the support to Obama from Republicans who call themselves, “Obamacans”.

From a virtual underdog, Obama has risen to be a stronger candidate, overcoming Hillary Clinton's established machine in many of the states that have completed their primaries. The contest is still on, even as Clinton has attacked the deliberate “poetic” nature of Obama's appeal of “change” as opposed to her substantive policy positioning based on “experience”. Obama's vision of a non-mandated health insurance programme is criticised as a compromise by the Clinton campaign. More or less though, the battle among the Democrats is one of image and aura and not ideological.

John McCain, on the other hand is an intriguing candidate, who has brought in scorn from the far-right sections of the conservative Republican Party. It is a reflection of the great right-ward shift in American politics that John McCain, who holds a conservative record on foreign policy (bullish is the right term), pro-business record in economics and who is a decorated war veteran is termed not to be conservative enough by his own partymen. Part of this suspicion is the fact that McCain holds on to old conservative values of American patriotism (imperialism for the developing world) that is still based on agreed international norms. In contrast, the neo-conservative Bush administration has used folly and deception to go to war and has recidivist views on torture and internationalism. McCain rejected the nonsensical tax-cuts to the super-rich (one reason for the super-fiscal deficit of the non-performing American government). This has drawn the ire of the influential far-right Republicans who see McCain's moves on a bipartisan approach to illegal immigration and his disavowal of torture as signs of him being “liberal”, a bad word in the conservative lexicon.

Conversely, the dismal failure of far-right conservatism which has resulted in misery for great numbers of Americans who are disillusioned with the state of health care, housing and fiscal misery, not to mention the disastrous invasion of Iraq, has meant the demise of any viable far-right candidate in the primaries. John McCain, despite his “maverick” credentials, therefore becomes the Republican nominee by attracting independent and moderate voters. It remains to be seen how McCain could defeat Obama or Clinton without the entrenched far-right support. It also explains the courting of the far-right by McCain in the recent past (he has now promised to make the tax-cuts for the rich permanent) and has avowed the continuation of a bullish foreign policy in west Asia to defeat “jihadism”, even if means bombing Iran and continuing to stay put in Iraq. For the far-right in the US, any regime in west Asia opposed to American imperialism is jihadist (note the repeated pronouncement of the largely secular Ba'ath regime in Iraq as being close to Al Qaeda). McCain re-affirms this nonsensical understanding of west Asian nations.

For an observer, the American primary process is a reflection of the dominant political discourses in the nation. The American media, though, channelises this discourse through the formal route of image and aura, which destroys the larger substantive idea of representation of all political streams. It is a great weakness of the American system that vox populi lacks adequate representation in ideas, but only in images.