IT’S A NEW DAWN, IT’S A NEW DAY
Don’t underestimate the significance of President Obama assuming office. The landslide election victory was a root and branch rejection of everything that George W Bush and the Republican party symbolises to millions of Americans. Obama was elected amid scenes of enthusiasm, as millions of the poorest, the most disadvantaged and more oppressed in the USA used their democratic power to remove the most powerful man in the world from office, and crushingly reject the warmonger, John McCain, and and the religious conservative, Sarah Palin, with whom the Republicans hoped to continue the neo-con project.
The electors of America put in George W Bush’s place someone promising greater social justice, more compassion, more intelligence and less war. There is great expectation that the corner has been turned. For a generation or more, working Americans (the so-called middle class) have become accustomed to things getting worse. For the first time in decades, the expectation is now that things can get better.
Hope is an infectious thing. Of course there will be those business leaders who will do everything they can to ensure that it is business as usual. Perhaps Barrack Obama himself is less radical than some of his supporters expect. But what Obama has shown is that the impossible can become the possible. Every campaign for social justice, every trade unionist, every community activist can point to the fact that change is possible, and their activity, their struggles and their campaigns can make a difference, and the mood for change is so strong that it has swept a black man, a liberal, and an opponent of the war in Iraq into the White House.
Everyone in America who wants greater social justice should ask themselves whether they are able to use the opportunity of an Obama presidency to make America a fairer, more just country. Yes they can.
I came of age in the 60’s. There was hope then. And change did happen. Then too much of it got smashed. For decades.
Now it’s back.
Watching Pete Seeger, who was blacklisted in the 50’s for his political views, sing ‘This Land Is Your Land” at a presidential inauguration was quite amazing.
Yes, let’s take this moment, use it, and hope there are many more moments like it to come.
Comment by Bob Morris — 20 January, 2009 @ 7:47 am
Andy nailed it. A generation of young Americans worked their guts out to elect a black president and did it. The precedent will echo for the rest of their lives after decades of defeats and lost opportunities. They don’t think they can, they have concrete evidence that they can. So who kows what they might turn to next? So enough already with the grumpy cynicism
Comment by Chorister — 20 January, 2009 @ 8:19 am
It is true that there was a huge rejection of everything Bush “symbolised” by millions of Americans and that “there is great expectation that the corner has been turned” but the reality is that the Obama administration has been put in Bush’s place is certain to let down the hopes of those millions (and already has started to do so).
Look at his appointments - Clinton, Holbrooke, Ralph Emanuel, etc. etc. He is furthermore constantly damping hopes by saying “the road is long, the mountain is steep” and other such lofty rhetoric, knowing full well that he can’t and won’t live up to people’s idea of him as some sort of great reforming social-democrat.
Disappointed hope doesn’t necessarily mean that people who dillusioned with the Democrats will turn to organising something concrete better (although some on the left seem to assume that now the pandora’s box of “change” has been opened up, the working class, African Americans etc can no longer be held back). I can’t say I’m optimistic.
Ernie Haberkern, an old comrade of Hal Draper, wrote a piece for our website - http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/barack-obama-putting-lipstick-on-a-pig/
Comment by David Broder — 20 January, 2009 @ 8:20 am
I wouldn’t get your hopes up too high. Democrats are normal - ie they put the USA first and their ideology second. Thankfully for us in smaller countries where our lefties put ideology first and the country down the toilet. Have a good ‘One’ watching the inauguration tomorrow.
Comment by Kevin — 20 January, 2009 @ 8:22 am
Obama will do whatever the American ruling class decides is in their best interests.
Sowing illusions in capitalist presidents is pitiful, to be perfectly honest.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 20 January, 2009 @ 9:53 am
Ditto Eddie Truman, What the hell’s the matter with you Newman - have you lost all critical faculties and sense of perspective? As for Kevin’s putting country, first and leftist ideology second, words fail me. Presumably this is Mr Williamson, cheerleader for the SNP in that really oppressed nation, Scotland.
Comment by Doug — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Eddie
You seem to owe your understanding more to conspiracy theory than marxism
How do you think the “American Ruling Class” decides what is in their best interests? Do they not have variagated and competing interests, do they not have competing ideologes?
In your book the “American Ruling Class” only has one set of interests? they get together and decide what it is, with much twirling of moustaches and then tell the president what to do?
Is politics not also impacted by the millions of people in campaigns, trade unions, community groups, etc. Is not the ideological rejection of the Bush era an important factor in that mass politics? Is not the impact on mass culture, and even the millions of private conversations between individuals also part of politics?
Obama bears with him the expectaion that things can change, whereas American politics has been dominated for generations by the idea that nothing can change, and the rich know best.
So the far-left miseralbilism that becasue Obama is not a socialist then it will all be a huge disappointment is massivley misguided, and not a little elitist - after all you are implying that the millions who have elected Obama have been somehow duped - whereas in fact most voters are more sophisticated than you think, they don’t expect the promised land with milk and honey.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:18 am
#6
The Kevin who commented here at #4 is from New Zealand not Scotland.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:18 am
An interesting and realistic assessment in an article by Lance Selfa (author of The Democrats: A Critical History) in Socialist Worker USA:
“What’s in store in the Obama era?
U.S. politics is taking a new shape after a long period of conservative dominance.
WITH THE media focused on the pomp and circumstance of Barack Obama’s ascent to the White House, it was easy to lose sight of the deeper significance of his election.
Not only is the inauguration of the first African American president historic in its own right, but Obama’s election signifies the arrival of a new era in American mainstream politics.
Although only two and a half months have passed since Election Night and the jubilant multiracial celebrations in cities across the country, it’s worth restating the breadth and depth of the victory.
The Obama-Biden ticket defeated the Republican McCain-Palin ticket by more than 7 percentage points (52.9 percent to 45.6 percent) and nearly 10 million votes (69.5 million to 59.9). Obama became the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter, and only the second since Franklin Roosevelt to win an outright majority in a presidential election.
The Democrats won states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia that have been solidly Republican for most of the last generation. At the same time, Obama will have the largest Democratic majority in the House of Representatives since 1992 and the largest majority in the Senate since 1977.
This win put a final end to an era of conservative dominance that goes back more than a generation.
The emergence of the Republicans in the late 1960s as the main governing party, at least in the White House, hinged on the “Southern strategy” of coded racist appeals that made the post-civil rights movement South the main base for the GOP.
This political appeal to opponents of the social change associated with the 1960s and 1970s merged with a revived free-market ideology challenging the Keynesian economic consensus to become the reigning orthodoxy of the last four decades.
Perhaps there is no greater repudiation of “Southern strategy” politics than the election of first African American president. Although exit polls showed that McCain still won a majority of white voters, Obama did better than any Democratic presidential candidate since Carter.
As public opinion expert Andrew Kohout explained, “[R]ace was certainly a factor in the vote, but on balance more of a positive than a negative for Obama. Black turnout (13 percent of the electorate) was considerably higher than it was in 2004 (11 percent). That 20 percent increase in Black turnout is attributable to first-time voters.
“Overall, 19 percent of African American voters were first-time voters, compared with 8 percent of white voters who went to the polls for the first time. The increased turnout combined with near-universal support for Obama among Black voters alone was responsible for adding a couple of percentage points to his overall popular vote.”
At the same time, the idea that “big government” is the problem, rather than part of a solution to the current crisis, has also fallen by the wayside. Exit polls showed that 51 percent of voters said they wanted government “to do more” rather than less, and 76 percent of that group voted for Obama.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IT’S IMPORTANT to understand that this “new era” isn’t just based on demographic shifts or short-term tactics pursued by the different parties. The fact that it occurs during the worst economic crisis since Great Depression means that it has the potential to open up politics on a whole range of questions.
For millions who are losing their jobs, their homes, their retirement savings and more, the crisis of the economic system has already undermined the mantra of deregulation, tax cuts, free trade and marketization of everything that accompanied neoliberal dogma of the last generation.
As he takes office, Obama has the advantage of widespread popularity. During the election, the Pew Center recorded its highest-ever reading of the percentage of voters voting “for” a candidate (that is, in contrast to the number voting “against” the other candidate).
And if anything, the sense of anticipation and hope in Obama has only increased since November. On the eve of his inauguration, Obama’s popularity approached 80 percent, far outstripping similar numbers for the last two presidents.
While having the backing of the majority of the public, Obama also has significant support within the U.S. ruling class to enact a program that will stave off the economic crisis. The Wall Street Journal’s Gerald F. Seib observed: “One thing is certain: Traditional thinking about relations between a Democratic administration and the business community needs to be thrown out. This is a new era.”
American business largely supports Obama’s proposed stimulus package, and significant players in the financial industry back Obama’s calls for re-regulation of financial markets. For a good part of 2009, Obama should also have a “honeymoon” with the public.
But Obama won’t remain unchallenged.
At the beginning of his term, the Republicans and the right appear to be flailing, unsure of how to confront the new era and respond to the widespread public repudiation they have suffered. Nevertheless, they will try to put up an opposition to Obama’s plans, characterizing them as “big-government” liberal schemes–though given business’ support for Obama’s stimulus, this conservative objection may not gain much traction.
On the other hand, business and the Republicans have announced full-out opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), legislation that would make it easier for workers to join unions. And they may look to weaken or scuttle Obama’s plans for health care reform.
As this opposition arises, it will put Obama and the Democrats to the test. Will they take advantage of the expectations their election raised to marginalize the GOP? Or, in the service of “bipartisanship”–or a recognition of the overwhelming Democratic advantage in campaign contributions from business in 2008–will Obama make concessions to the conservatives?
Already, Obama’s stimulus plan has been larded with billions in tax cuts for business, and congressional Democrats are moving toward delaying the introduction of EFCA.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OBAMA HAS the biggest opportunity since Ronald Reagan’s presidency to reset American politics and policy for a generation. But as a creature of the U.S. political establishment, he remains deferential to conventional wisdom and its many purveyors in Washington and academia.
Because of the dire economic situation that Obama is inheriting, it is unlikely that his administration will be a rerun of the budget-balancing, small-thinking Clinton administration of the 1990s–despite the presence of Clinton retreads in Obama’s Cabinet and among his chief advisers.
But the tension between new possibilities and old assumptions will mean that there will be many opportunities for the “change” that Obama promised to be derailed–and for his supporters to be disillusioned.
Unlike the Democratic victory in the 2006 congressional elections, when the overwhelming issue was the failing and unpopular war in Iraq, Obama and the Democrats owe their election in 2008 much more to the failing economy.
This doesn’t mean that voters are indifferent to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It means that the public’s chief concern is domestic, and that they expect Obama to address the economy–in other words, to be a “domestic” president.
On foreign policy, Obama is likely to make some changes that will garner him support among antiwar forces and internationally–for example, closing the Guantánamo prison camp and pulling back some troops from Iraq. He is also likely to implement more stylistic changes, such as talking more about diplomacy and human rights, rather than forcing every foreign policy issue through the lens of the “war on terror.”
But these changes will be coupled with a ramping-up of the war in Afghanistan–which has the potential of becoming a disaster that could overwhelm his domestic agenda–and a more aggressive stance towards Pakistan. Despite lip service to the “peace process,” his policy on Palestine will not depart from the standard right-wing approach of 100 percent support for Israel.
Meanwhile, the Democrats and liberals’ compromised position vis-à-vis big business means there will be definite limits to how far they will go to fight for health care or labor law reform. And they are unlikely to challenge the main planks of Obama’s foreign policy.
So it will be up to people who want to see more far-reaching change to organize–to push from below to achieve it.
Struggle is the key. The examples of the recent Republic Windows & Doors factory occupation and the same-sex marriage mobilizations show the potential to organize ordinary people to press for change. But they, and struggles like them, will have to be built on, organized and politicized over a longer term.
That’s the challenge for the opening years of this new era.
http://socialistworker.org/2009/01/20/the-obama-era
Comment by Neil Williams — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:28 am
I would have voted McKinney unless I lived in a swing state (despite some misgivings about her) if I was a US voter.
We don’t need to have any illusions to recognise it really is a big shift in US politics and means a lot to the many Americans horrified by Bush and the Neo Cons.
Comment by Green Socialist — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Andy, back in 1997 Tony Blair came to power in not dissimilar circumstances.
The 18 years of Conservative government had been an unmitigated disaster for the working class in Scotland and indeed whole swathes of England. There was a mood that surely Blair would represent a big change for the better.
At the time I helped to produce the Scottish Socialist Alliance publication ‘Red’.
This was our front cover;
http://www.lumison.co.uk/~walkerslater/ed/rednet/issue2.htm
A picture of Blair with the headline “and you thought the last 18 years were bad”.
I also came up with the poster of Blair morphing into Thatcher;
http://www.scottishsocialistparty.co.uk/pix/thatcherblair.jpg
This poster became extremely well known throughout Scotland and raised the profile of the SSP just as we were in our earliest days.
What we were doing Andy was working to dispel illusions amongst working class people that things were going to be any different under New Labour.
By doing so when people found this to be the case through their own experiences we were building a socialist alternative.
And that, Andy, is something you seem incapable of understanding; the need to build a socialist alternative.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:44 am
I agree with Andy’s analysis. We have to accept that the American ruling class prefered the McCain-Palin ticket, just look at the neo-conservative commentators, the right-wing press, and the right-wing Evangelical stooges, and we can pretty much say to good effect that they prefered McCain over Obama.
Obama represents a real change in the fabric of US politics. We cannot accept that it is a beast that cannot be tamed unless there is a socialist revolution. Obama represents social justice, a foriegn policy based on multilateralism, and of course the reeling in of rogue elements within the United States establishment.
We have to accept that the American people voted overwhelmingly for a man who promised a new direction on a wiser path. We should not take this away from them, or dampen down the affect of such a profound new era this will be.
Comment by Luke — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:51 am
You might want to amend the last sentence of your post.
Comment by paul mills — 20 January, 2009 @ 11:51 am
While the election of the first black president is a huge step foward in and off itself I think that socialists should be cautious not to be overly optimistic. The fact of the matter is that Democrats in power have always been huge disappointments, besides that ecouraging everyone to put all their hopes in Obama is a distraction from what is the main task the world over, building a socialist alternative, and if you think it’s going to be hard to do here in Britain just think what it’s like in the US. So while we should be glad he won the election because after all anythings better than Bush we should never hesitate to remind people hat the Democrats are and always have been, another party of the ruling class. Even if it does make us come across as though we’re pouring cold water over people with hopes and dreams.
Comment by paul c — 20 January, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
#12. “We have to accept that the American ruling class prefered the McCain-Palin ticket, just look at the neo-conservative commentators, the right-wing press, and the right-wing Evangelical stooges, and we can pretty much say to good effect that they prefered McCain over Obama.”
I’m not convinced. The American ruling class traditionally tended towards the Republicans rather than the Democrats but this time I reckon it was fairly evenly split on whether to support McCain or Obama. Warren Buffet who incidently happens to be not just America’s but apparently also the world’s wealthiest imdividual endorsed Obama and his endorsement articulated a wider mood within sections of the US ruling class. Certainly Obama’s campaign was very well funded, more so than McCain’s and he undoubtedly received substantial financial support from big corporations and wealthy individuals.
It’s all very well going on about the “neo-conservative commentators, the right-wing press, and the right-wing Evangelical stooges” but they represent the petty bourgeois social base of “middle America”. More often than not the interests of middle America and the US ruling class coincide but they are not the same thing. If anything the Democrats are now more in tume with the interests of big capital than the Republcans. There was for example far greater Republican than Democrat opposition to the financial bailout of Wall Street which just about saved the bacon of US capitalism, at least for the time being.
Comment by Patrick Scott — 20 January, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
On the eve of Obama’s inauguration
20 January 2009
WSWS
The inauguration of Barack Obama has become the occasion for a tidal wave of media-orchestrated delusions and stupidities designed to overwhelm and chloroform public consciousness. The junior senator from Illinois is being compared, and is comparing himself, to everyone from Abraham Lincoln to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Martin Luther King, Jr. An observer of the wall-to-wall coverage of the events leading up to Obama’s swearing in as president might think he was witnessing nothing less than the second coming.
Such events are always repellent to those who retain their critical faculties. But the hoopla inevitably exhausts itself and what remains after the litter is swept away is reality—in this case the coming to power of the man who will preside over the most reactionary state in the world, under conditions of an unprecedented crisis of American and world capitalism. The policies of the Obama administration will be determined not by media image-making or hollow rhetoric, but by the imperatives of the crisis and the social interests which Obama represents.
Obama has already indicated that his policies will in all essentials be a continuation of those of the outgoing administration, perhaps in a somewhat more skillfully packaged form. He has surrounded himself with individuals associated with imperialist crimes and financial scandals, including Bush’s Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, who presided over the military “surge” in Iraq and opposed any timetable for withdrawing US troops from the devastated country.
Obama has devoted the months since his election—a sweeping popular repudiation of the Bush administration’s policies of war, repression and social reaction—to conciliating and reassuring the Republican right. The New York Times reported Monday that Obama has regularly consulted his defeated opponent, Republican Senator John McCain, allowing the virulently pro-war senator to vet his nominees for top national security posts. The Times notes that, according to South Carolina senator and McCain associate Lindsey Graham, McCain has told colleagues “that many of these appointments he would have made himself.” McCain was Obama’s guest of honor at his pre-inaugural dinner Monday night.
To the extent that there is any basis for the self-congratulatory tone of the media hype, it is the fact that Obama is the first African-American president. This is undoubtedly a milestone. But its significance is vastly eroded by the fact that in the current historical circumstances it is impossible to associate his ascendancy with a revival of policies that promote social equality.
It is many decades since the American ruling class took the civil rights movement in hand and, on the basis of identity politics and affirmative action, integrated the black upper-middle-class into the political establishment. Obama represents the apotheosis of the politics of race, gender, etc. that were used to evade and bury the more fundamental social and class issues in American society, while the conditions of the working class, including the vast majority of African-Americans, steadily deteriorated.
It should not be forgotten, amidst the officially sanctioned celebration, that the last two secretaries of state, who presided over the crimes of Iraq and Afghanistan, were African-Americans.
It is also necessary to recall that Martin Luther King, Jr., whose memory is being cynically exploited, was the representative of a great struggle for social equality and a vehement opponent of American imperialism. In the months before his assassination, King publicly denounced the War in Vietnam and increasingly insisted that the central issue in America was not race, but class, a conviction which he sought to act upon by initiating the “poor people’s march.” During that period he began to raise the need for a labor party and a break with the Democratic Party.
It is impossible to attribute any such principles to Obama, who has never been associated with a popular struggle and who spent much of his adult life working his way up within the Illinois Democratic Party machine, where early on he was groomed for high political office. From the outset, his presidential effort was organized and financed by powerful factions within the US political and corporate establishment, which saw in him an instrument to refurbish the image of the United States after the disastrous blows to the prestige and position of American imperialism during the Bush years.
It is not necessary to refute in detail the absurd comparisons of Obama to Lincoln or to the far lesser figure of Roosevelt. However, it should be noted that in the utterly superficial and ahistorical analogies that are being conjured up, there is no consideration of the explosive manner in which the crises they confronted developed. Notwithstanding Lincoln’s oratorical brilliance (to which Obama’s canned speeches bear no resemblance) the contradictions he faced erupted within five weeks of his inauguration into civil war.
Within a year of Roosevelt’s inauguration, he faced massive social struggles by the working class, including general strikes in Toledo, Minneapolis and San Francisco, followed shortly by the formation of the CIO and sit-down strikes that assumed a quasi-insurrectional character.
The most pathetic and despicable role in the glorification of Obama is being played by liberals and “lefts” associated with the Nation and similar publications. Through their campaign for his election and their portrayal of him as the leader of an insurgent movement for “American renewal” they are facilitating the implementation of right-wing policies that would otherwise be politically unfeasible, including the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, trillions more in handouts to the banks and cuts in bedrock social programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
It would, however, be a mistake to believe that the combination of deception and self-inebriation of this opportunist milieu is shared by the working class. It lives in the real world of surging unemployment, poverty and homelessness. Even to the extent that workers have expectations that Obama will realize their aspirations for genuine change, this will not stop them from entering into struggle. And events will, sooner rather than later, shatter their illusions and clarify that the new government is no less their enemy than the old one.
For our part, we have not forgotten that four years ago the accepted wisdom was that George W. Bush bestrode the world like a colossus. Many of the “lefts” who today praise Obama as the new messiah were the most deeply convinced that Bush was omnipotent.
The real issue that dominates the inauguration of Obama is the fact that he assumes the presidency in the midst of a historic crisis of American capitalism that is compounded by the aggressive global agenda of US imperialism. After January 20 comes January 21. The mounting contradictions of American capitalism abroad and the sharpening social divisions at home will produce something for which none of the power brokers or their “left” appendages are prepared—the reemergence of the American working class.
The inauguration of Barack Obama ushers in a period of unprecedented social and political upheavals.
Barry Grey
Comment by Anonymous — 20 January, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
#14 “Democrats in power have always been huge disappointments”
Is that true?
Was the New Deal a huge disappointment?
Was Huey p Long’s administration in Louisiana a huge disapointment?
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
The Republicans might not be sorry to be in opposition during a deep economic crisis.
Decades ago, an American comedian explained the US political system to a British person in this way:
“In America, we have the Republican Party, which is like your Conservative Party, and we have the Democratic Party, which is also like your Conservative Party.”
I tend to see US presidents as front men, with the real power in the hands of their advisers and the military-industrial complex behind the advisers. Unlike many, I wasn’t hung up on Dubya being a moron, because he was just a puppet anyway. And so is this guy.
Comment by Faust — 20 January, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Eddie #11
“Andy, back in 1997 Tony Blair came to power in not dissimilar circumstances.”
Well firstly, let us make no mistake - Labour winning the election was and is better than the Tory alternative.
But you underestimate the difference. the key selling point of Blairism was that it was a discontiniuty with traditional Labour, and he went out of his way to exaggerate the contunity with Tory policies. Indeed if you go back and look at what Balir as writing at the time, you will see that he was mainly criticising the Tories for not being pragmatic enough (i.e. he promised an “end to dogma”)
Obama has on the contrary throughout the election campaign stressed the degree of discontinuity with Bush, and a discontinuity of moral values.
And there is little similarity in the circumstances of Blair coming to power in 1997, and Obama today. Neo-liberal economic orthodoxy is discredited in 2009, but in 1997 it was not only unchallenged in thr political mainstream, but enthusiastically adopted by Brown and Blair.
The aggression and unilateralism of Bush’s foreign policy has created an entirely different context, and one to which Obama simply does represent (at least partially) a discontinuity.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
“Was the New Deal a huge disappointment?”
yes, the New Deal was only partially effective and by the end of the 30’s all the indicators pointed to another huge crash. It took ww2 to save capitalism on that occassion. I confess I don’t really know about Huey P Long so i’ll have to do a bit of reading.
But lets just look at other democrats Kennedy, yes enacted the civil rights but nothing about the enonomic woes of african americans, Johnson-escalation of Vietnam war, Carter did nothing to combat inflation and falling livimg standards of much of the US working class, Clinton just about everything he did was disappointing but I’d say that the worst was his ruthless continuation of the previous Republican administrations welfare cuts effecting some the hardest off americans. You can try and give left cover to the Democrats and New Labour(as some previous threads on this blog show) but I’m a socialist myself so I’m gonna do my best to argue from a working class perspective. And all I’m trying say is don’t pin all your hopes in Obama you’ll only end up disappointed.
Comment by paul c — 20 January, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
“Well firstly, let us make no mistake - Labour winning the election was and is better than the Tory alternative.”
Your seriously kidding yourself here. New Labour has actually made more privatizations and cuts in 11 years than the Tories did in 18, They have followed America into 2 imperialist wars, they complteley disregard the TU’s, they bail rich greedy bankers for being basically crap at their jobs, the new welfare reforms will basically make slave labourers out some of the worst of people in Britain, foudation hospitals, academy schools, tuition fees, the list is endless. I’m not saying that the Tories are any better, no they’re exactly the same. If Labour are so much better then tell me one thing they have done to help working class people through this recession. It might be a slogan but it’s true that the bosses have 3 parties the workers need 1.
Comment by paul c — 20 January, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
#15 I believe those Republicans opposed the bailout because they saw it as a step towards ’socialism’, those who opposed the bailout were the most ideological libertarians of the Republican Party. Those Democrats which opposed the bailout constituted the most left-wing of the Democrats, they opposed it because it did not go far enough.
Obama certainly had a well funded campaign, and it is difficult to say what money he got from where exactly. He certainly had more media endorsements from the press, but this does not mean that his campaign was supported by the ruling class. Obama’s campaign had many dimentions to it, he even had a successful campaign in terms of reaching out to Evangelical voters who felt disenfranchised by the Republicans lack of action on climate change and social justice issues.
I believe that to say that Obama was supported by the ruling class verges on to conspiracy. Many were sceptical of his liberal tendencies, and what kind of liberalism that represented. He still has big questions over his ideology, for instance, does his liberalism support a single payer health-care system? Does his liberalism support part-nationalisation of certain industries? Does his liberalism support a reversal in the ‘war on terror’? Plus many more questions regarding what kind of liberal he is, but the big difference is he is a LIBERAL, which to all those on the left should mean COMMON SENSE. That is the marked difference between Obama and the rump of the Democrats, as opposed to McCain, Palin, and the majority of the Republican Party, all of whom are more ideaological than Obama. Obama will be a pragmatist, but that’s what America needs, a pragmatist with common sense.
Comment by Luke — 20 January, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
“I believe that to say that Obama was supported by the ruling class verges on to conspiracy.”
You do not become President of the USA without being supported by the ruling class, or at least a significant section of it.
I think he will turn out to be a kind of Clinton with a darker skin colour.
In a way, we have been here before, with JFK, the first Catholic US President in a country where WASPs have been the ruling elite. But JFK’s family was extremely wealthy.
Comment by Faust — 20 January, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
#19 Andy, “the key selling point of Blairism was that it was a discontiniuty with traditional Labour, and he went out of his way to exaggerate the contunity with Tory policies.”
That is true Andy but that was a detail that the political and ruling classes were acutely aware of, hence their support for him but for the working class and the broad mass of the population 1997 was a huge swing to the left in terms of a rejection of the Tories and everything they stood for.
Even on the left there were those who made the mistake of thinking that Blair would bring at least a touch of something Old Labour to the UK.
In that situation it was vital for the left to move strongly in warning that Blair was no different to the Tories.
Hopefully in the US there are socialists cautioning against regarding Obama as being in any way different to any US president in that they will rule on behalf of the capitalist class exclusively, putting their interests above everybody else.
It may well be that the US ruling class believes that it’s interests may best be served by a switch to reforms and state intervention.
It may well be, for instance, that large manufacturers would look upon a state health service as taking away the pressure to pay medical insurance to unionised workers.
But what Obama does or does not do will be determined by the needs of the US ruling class and right now they are staring into financial armageddon.
It will have to be Obama to the rescue.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 20 January, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
it has swept a black man, a liberal, and an opponent of the war in Iraq into the White House.
—
Well, one out of three is true.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 20 January, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
I am sorry, but this is a dreadful piece. If you check the biographies of the people Obama has appointed to his cabinet and as advisors on his advisory panels you will obtain a very different impression from its being a new dawn or a new day. The same applies if you check the speeches he has been making
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama.
And just recently he has been on excellent terms & seeking the advice of the rejected ‘warmonger’ -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=kirkpatrick&st=cse
We may be thankful to see the back of Bush but your hopes are not audacious, they are pious wishes.
Comment by Mike Tucker — 20 January, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Eddie,
You seem to have misunderstood the processes at work with New Labour. Blairism argued that to win an election it was necessary to create a coalition between the core working class labour vote, and the middle classes and skilled workers voting Tories, but who could be won to voting labour.
So far, so good, though unfortunataly the hard left in the Labour Party at the time seemed indifferent to whether or not they should actually try to win an election - and therefore didi not effectivley compete to win the support of the middle ground in the party and the unions. away from the Blairites
But he also argued that the mechanism for winning those middle class and skilled workes voters was to become more like the Tories.
That was the historic mission of Blairism, and the process leading up to the election of 1997 was a series of calculated defeats for the left, most significantly over Clause IV, in order to demonstrate the defeat of historical labourism.
this of course also took place in the context of a bewildered labour movement, defeated in the miners strike, and with the left not putting forward any alternative electorally credible model. This was at the high tide of neo-liberalism, when social alternatives to the fee market and rampant individualism had been squeezed out of mainstream politics.
Obama signally did not campaign in the election by apeing the Republicans, rather he fought the election by seeking to widen and deepen the traditional voting base of the democrats. this was a significnatly different model to that adopted by Peter mandelson as the strategy for the swing seats in 1997.
Now, having been elected he is seeking to broaden the consensus around his government by reassuring conservatives within the Democrats. Whether or not that is a good thing or not, it doesn’t directly mean either that Obama’s government will be as conservative as Bush’s - and certainly on the economy we see broadly a move towards Keynesianism, and away from neo-liberalism. Nor does it mean that the popular thirst for social change will simply go away. As the analysis above from Socialist Worker (US) explains, there remains a lot to play for.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
His silence on Gaza, and his appointment of Rahm Emmanuel, doesn’t tell me he will do anything about the Palestinian issue, for example. He may even manage to be a little more supportive of the Israelis than Dubya has been.
He could turn out better than I expect, but he can’t disappoint me since I already have very low expectations.
Comment by Faust — 20 January, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Historically, Democrats have always been more pro-Israel than Republicans - not because the Republicans are better but more because they always had some anti-semitic overtones to their policies. Examples - Nixon tapes from 1971; quotas for Jewish students in higher education (limiting their number) under Eisenhower.
Comment by PW — 20 January, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Nixon’s tapes were embarrassing for him but often at odds with his public policies and appointments (he did, after all, appoint Henry Kissinger). Wikipedia is interesting on the subject in its article on him.
Comment by Faust — 20 January, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Nixon was an anti semite, but he saw the tactical use of supporting Israel.
Lots of anti semites support Israel tactically - Nick Griffin for example.
Comment by Green Socialist — 20 January, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Obama was the candidate of the US ruling class in this election. Do a little research and look at the sources for his campaign funding. Also, consider how enthusiastically the US corporate media supported his candidacy. Broad layers of the US ruling class saw the Bush years as a disaster, and wanted to move as far away from him as possible while remaining within the American political mainstream. Hence Obama.
But that’s not the end of the story. Obama also captured a desire for change among union members, youth, African Americans, Latinos, and GLBT people. His victory partially, in a limited way, reflects and strengthens an ongoing politicization and radicalization in these groups. It’s not a coincidence that Obama’s slogan was “Yes We Can”–a reference to the “Si se puede” chants of the massive immigrant rights protests of 2006.
Yes, Obama has stocked his cabinet with Clintonites and moderates, not progressives and certainly not radicals. But given the scale of the economic crisis, he can’t govern as Clinton did: i.e. as a neoliberal. The US ruling class has been totally disorganized by the economic crisis and is looking to liberalism (state intervention in the economy)for solutions. My guess is Obama will be quite liberal in domestic policy and quite hawkish abroad.
Obama will enjoy a significant honeymoon. His popularity is through the roof at the moment, even among Republicans. He can do some things (repeal bans on gay marriage, close Guantanamo, etc) that will be very popular with his base and have virtually no cost for US imperialism. So don’t expect ‘betrayals’ and ‘disillusionment’ too soon. But that doesn’t exclude popular mobilization: where I live, on the US west coast, there have been protests over gay marriage, Gaza, and police brutalist almost every day since the election, it seems. We see enormous opportunities to rebuild the Left even during Obama’s honeymoon.
Got to see the nuances, comrades.
Comment by James — 20 January, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
“….Watching Pete Seeger, who was blacklisted in the 50’s for his political views, sing ‘This Land Is Your Land” at a presidential inauguration was quite amazing.”
It might have been amazing if it had been Kennedy’s inauguration, but not yesterday! More a testimony to the ald CP folkie’s longevity.
#11 “What we (the SSP) were doing..was working to dispel illusions amongst working class people that things were going to be any different under New Labour.
The SSP then grew into a mass organisation, replacing the Scottish Labour party
and SNP and organising a Socialist Republic.
Oh no, sorry it didn’t….
Comment by prianikoff — 20 January, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
“The electors of America put in George W Bush’s place someone promising greater social justice, more compassion, more intelligence and less war.”
—
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that Nader or McKinney had been elected.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 20 January, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Is this a dawn of a new beginning? No…. that’s for sure!!
The Democrats are a pro-capitalist party and there may be tensions and contradictions involved in that but at the end of the day they serve the interests of the ruling class. You can’t have illusions in them.
And to reiterate what other comrades have said….just look at who Obama has selected for his administration. There are no people, politically, from the centre left let alone the centre. All right-wingers. What does that say?
Oh, and I will be very interested in how he deals with Iraq and Palestine…..
Comment by Louise — 20 January, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
“millions of the poorest, the most disadvantaged and more oppressed in the USA used their democratic power to remove the most powerful man in the world from office”
You would have us believe that President Bush was voted out of office?
I’m not sure which is worse: the stupidity of that statement or that some readers might believe it.
Comment by PRCS — 20 January, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
32. Not living in the USA, I am more interested in his foreign policy than his domestic policy. I agree he could well be quite liberal domestically and “quite hawkish abroad”. The latter characteristic, though, would mean he has considerable continuity with Dubya.
Comment by Faust — 20 January, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
#36, well you only quoted the first half of the sentance, i concluded it so as to deliberatly remove the misconstruction you have put on it, thus:
“and crushingly reject the warmonger, John McCain, and and the religious conservative, Sarah Palin, with whom the Republicans hoped to continue the neo-con project.”
it simply is a fact that the American democratic system removes presidents from office after two terms.
It is caled democracy, I am sorry you think it is a stupid idea.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
They are removed after two terms, whether the electorate rejects them or not. Since FDR (1933-45), no US President has been allowed more than two terms.
Comment by Faust — 20 January, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
“it simply is a fact that the American democratic system removes presidents from office after two terms.
It is called democracy, I am sorry you think it is a stupid idea.”
What a silly thing to say. A republican congress deciding to make it so a president can only do 2 terms to make sure a democrat wasn’t there too long is not democracy. Surely it would be more democratic to let the people decide if they want a president to do more democratic to let the people decide if they want the president t stay on for more than 2 terms.
Comment by paul c — 20 January, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
Oh for goodness sake. Are you always so literal minded!!!
it is a democratic system, and therefore inherent in the system is the idea that the electorate removes presidents.
I said no different in the original article, i was just stressing the democratic aspect rather than the legalistic. george Bush was removed due to their being an election, and the electorate rejected the man seeking to follow in his path, JOhn Mccain.
And the convention started with george washington, FDR was an anomoly.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
In Obama’s speech, Louis Proyect notices that he mentioned Khe Sanh as one of the stirring American battlefields.
A large number of US troops (Marines, I think) were in a kind of siege ring there, in the extreme north of then South Vietnam. There were fears of another Dien Bien Phu, where the French had been surrounded and forced to surrender to the Viet Minh in 1954. Khe Sanh held out, though it seems there was no serious attempt by the VC to overrun the base as they were fully committed elsewhere with the Tet Offensive. But right-wing Americans have a thing for Khe Sanh, and Obama threw them a bone.
Comment by Faust — 20 January, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
#40
now we have paul c claiming that the restriction on presidents serving more than two terms is tilted against Democrats, but in fact it has prevented more republicans than Democrats standing for a third terM:
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ronald Reagan George w BUSH
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Well it was introduced by a Republican congress to get rid of a Democratic president. Yes it’s back fired for them but that was it’s original purpose and it’s an undemocratic piece of legislation,it should be up to the people to decide whether they want a president to stay on for a third term.
Comment by paul c — 20 January, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
#44
but this was a presidential election fought under the current constitution, as amended to restrict presidents to two terms.
It is simply a fact that Gerge Bush has been removed from office by there being an election at the end of his term of second term of office and a sccessor being chosen by the electorate.
the big story is the election of Barrack Obama, not your quibbles about the constitution.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
I know it’s only a quibble but in comment 38 you implied that the 2 term limit was democratic, which it obviously isn’t. Though it stopped Bush running again so swings and round abouts I suppose.
Comment by paul c — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
IMHO, if you can remain unaffected by the clear & present amazing grassroots support & enthusiasm for Obama, the millions out on the street representing & symbolising the democratic mobilisation of vast swathes of American people, then you are an asshole.
Meanwhile, this seems a totally obvious comment, but no-one’s made it, so here it is. The first acid test of Obama will be Gaza/Israel/Palestine. Let’s see what he does.
Comment by Strategist — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
the intersting thing is that Israel stopped the war on the eve of the new president taking office.
I don’t have huge hopes about Obama and palestine, but presumably the Israeli giovernment did not want to allow their war to oveershaddow day one of obam’s presidency, thus pushing palestine to the top of the USA’s domestic political agenda.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
#48 I don’t have huge hopes about Obama and palestine
It’s definitely not the first big test he would have chosen, for a lot of reasons, but there it is unavoidable and we’ll see how he lives up to his rhetoric.
A good start would be to stop blocking the UN pursuing war crimes charges for phosphorus-shelling its schools. Lenin has pics of the shells coming in over the wall here http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/. Craig Murray has the text of the Weapons Convention Israel signed banning the use of such weapons on civilians, here http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/lies_damn_lies.html#comments.
It’s an open & shut case. Will Obama allow it to be brought?
Comment by Strategist — 20 January, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
Oh, c’mon Andy.
The first part of that sentence was quite poorly thought out. President Bush was NOT removed from office, and the second segment of that sentence does NOT change or modify what the first part claims.
You blew it.
Fess up.
Comment by PRCS — 20 January, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Don’t be stupid, do you think that i hadn’t realsied George w Bush had not stood for re-election?
And when you say: “President Bush was NOT removed from office”
Sorry but he simply has been removed from office. He is no longer the President. That is part of the USA’s democratc system. the fact that he couldn’t constitionally have stood for re-election doesn’t alter that fact.
The politics of the situation was completely clear: the electral race between Obama and Mccain was fought in the context not just about getting a new president, but also about the political legacy of George w Bush - would he be succeeded by more of the same (McCain) or a root and branch change (Obama).
Obama’s election was very much about rejecting George W Bush, the man and the legacy.
democacy allowed the millions of American voters to reject Bush, even though he was not standing for re-election, by rejecting his successor John Mccain.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
#51 Don’t feed the trolls, Andy!
I’m glad you posted on this and struck a positive note. It’s today’s main event. It’s really massive in London’s black community, I can say that for sure.
The absence of it on other left blogs just reinforces the detachment of some of the left from the real sentiment on the street.
Comment by Strategist — 20 January, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
Thanks Strategist, and good advice.
Check out this good article about Obama by Phil BC, over at a very Public Sociologist: http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/01/and-its-hello-to-him.html
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 January, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
#53 Thanks for the tip, I think Phil BC’s article nails it in terms of how the speech struck me.
In particular “Barack Obama’s inauguration speech wasn’t bad was it? Pushing beyond the surface rhetoric, it seems Obama is determined to meet the massive expectations placed in him.” From what I saw, that was what struck me the most - he wasn’t pressing a load of downplay expectations buttons, he was in an impressive way saying that he intends to use his mandate to have a real go at some pretty big changes. I’d say he really doesn’t seem to be a pure bullshitter in the style of Clinton or Blair, he’s definitely better than they were on Day 1. So I say there’s hope he won’t be Clinton or Blair Mark 2.
Comment by Strategist — 21 January, 2009 @ 12:07 am
I thought it was all a bit of a farce really.
That speech of ‘Obama’s’ was actually written by a Jon Favreau, 27. Obama didn’t have the conviction of his ‘beliefs’ (whatever they may be) to even write his own inauguration speech.
The inaugartion oath was flaffed and possibly even rendered useless as a result.
And Obama refuses to release his birth certificate to prove he is even constitutionally eligible to be president, preferring instead to spend hundreds of thousands of $s blocking America’s right to know in petty legal arguments.
Yes he can.
Comment by Ryan — 21 January, 2009 @ 2:40 am
#43 Nixon certainly flirted with the possibility of repealing the 22nd Amendment but he was ultimately prevented from running for a third term by his impending impeachment in his second and his resignation to avoid it. However it is true that he was elected for a second term like Eisenhower, Reagan and George W Bush whereas the Democrats have only had one President since the passing of the 22nd Amendement who has been re-elected, Bill Clinton. The fact is that incumbency normally confers huge advantages on a presidential candidate.
Comment by fans of the twenty second amendment — 21 January, 2009 @ 5:50 am
I don’t detect any real call for root and branch change in his speech, or his appointments. He basically said there was world economic crisis because a few people were greedy, but we should all behave responsibly. This side of the revolution, I don’t expect an American President to say that capitalism valorises the greed of the few, but he did not even sound to me like a serious reformer. It reminded me of the “a few bad apples” crap that is the standard establishment line when something goes wrong.
Comment by Faust — 21 January, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
#16 WSWebSite article said:-
“It is not necessary to refute in detail the absurd comparisons of Obama to Lincoln”
Well Obama is black (mixed race) whereas Lincoln was white.
But I’m not sure that bigging-up Lincoln as a statesman is the right way to go at all.
Lincoln was on the right wing of the Republican Party and a reluctant advocate of full emancipation, promoted by such people as Frederick Douglas and Wendell Phillips.
In fact, it’s doubtful that he would have been happy with someone like Obama living in the USA, let alone being President.
As he said in 1858.
“..I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people..”
That paternal statue, gazing down on Obama’s inauguration serves a similar function in US politics to the myth that Joseph Stalin was the hero who saved Russia in World War Two.
Comment by prianikoff — 21 January, 2009 @ 5:18 pm