skip to main |
skip to sidebar
By Ben Trott
In an article written in the last couple of days, philosopher and queer theorist Judith Butler argues against the idea that Obama's election represents some kind of national 'redemption'. 'The election of Obama', she argues, 'means that the terrain for debate and struggle has shifted, and it is a better terrain, to be sure. But it is not the end of struggle, and we would be very unwise to regard it that way, even provisionally.' As the article draws to a close, she argues, 'If a consequential and dramatic disappointment is to be averted, he will have to act quickly and well. Perhaps the only way to avert a "crash" – a disappointment of serious proportions that would turn political will against him – will be to take decisive actions within the first two months of his presidency. The first would be to close Guantanamo and find ways to transfer the cases of detainees to legitimate courts; the second would be to forge a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to begin to implement that plan. The third would be to retract his bellicose remarks about escalating war in Afghanistan and pursue diplomatic, multilateral solutions in that arena. If he fails to take these steps, his support on the left will clearly deteriorate, and we will see the reconfiguration of the split between liberal hawks and the anti-war left. If he appoints the likes of Lawrence Summers to key cabinet positions, or continues the failed economic polices of Clinton and Bush, then at some point the messiah will be scorned as a false prophet.'
The article has been posted online here.
By Ben Trott
Counter-globalisation movement activist and 'prominent voice in Wiccan spirituality', Starhawk, has an incredibly enthusiastic piece in the Washington Post, entitled 'We All Earned the Puppy'. The title is, of course, a reference to Obama's thanks to his daughters during his speech on Tuesday night, and his promise that a new puppy will be coming with them to the White House. In the article, Starhawk describes the scenes on the streets of San Francisco after Obama's victory had been announced. She celebrates what the results are said to represent, the important role grassroots organising played in the campaign, and the further victories which can be won if people and communities continue to play an active role in the regeneration of culture, the economy and the environment.
By Ben Trott
Rebecca Solnit, author of Hope in the Dark, has an article on TomDispatch.com about the beginning of the Obama era. She describes the ‘passionate joy’ experienced as the world changed last Tuesday, the limited expectations she nevertheless has for an Obama presidency, and the need to conserve the hope held for those (inevitable) times in which dark moments will return. Her hope comes, she argues,
‘not only out of specific stories I have lived through, or even dug up as a historian, but out of a deeper sense of the sheer unpredictability of history, the darkness out of which hope emerges. No one foresaw that five years after George W. Bush stood, seemingly infinitely triumphant, on the deck of an aircraft carrier, he would be slinking off history’s stage in ignominy and an antiwar candidate would be taking his place. Not antiwar enough, but far beyond what most hoped for a few years ago.’
TomDispatch.com is, in fact, in general a great source of writing on Obama, the presidential election and much more. The site is edited by Tom Engelhardt and articles are published, usually with an introduction by Engelhardt, three to four times a week. You can subscribe here.
By Ben Trott
A while back, before the election, I put together a couple of posts (here and here) on the so-called ‘Bradley Effect’ where voters falsely claim to pollsters that they will vote (or in some exit polls, have voted) for a Black candidate. There was considerably speculation as to whether Obama’s candidacy would be effected, leading him to underperform that which was being widely projected. An Associated Press article posted to Yahoo! News today reported, however, that nothing of the kind was observed during Tuesday’s presidential election.
The article cites a large number of polls that predicted the election’s outcome with great accuracy. This is, however, by no means to say that ‘race’ was not a factor in the election, simply that voters do not lie about it as much anymore. The article explains that White voters cast their ballot for McCain over Obama by 12%, and 95% of Black voters went for Obama. 7% of White voters admitted ‘race’ was a factor, and twice as many of them voted for McCain as for Obama.
By Ben Trott
Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel from Chicago has apparently been asked to become Obama’s Chief of Staff. Described by John Nichols at the Nation as ‘a militant advocate for free-trade policies’, he played a key role in the US’s signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during the Clinton administration. Nichols explains that during his 2002 run for Congress, a number of major trade unions supported his Democratic opponent, Nancy Kaszak. Emanuel is also said to have initially supported the war on Iraq.
The New York Times’ biography on Emanuel, published today, explains that he is a close friend of Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod. His background in investment banking is said to associate him, in many minds, closely with Wall Street. Politico described him as 'a consistent voice for anti-crime measures, welfare reform and other measures that pushed against liberal orthodoxy'.
West Wing Spoiler Alert!: And for those of you who have been stunned by the similarities which have played out between the Obama presidential campaign and Matt Santos’ fictional run for President in TV’s the West Wing (Santos’ character was based on Obama, and McCain in many ways resembled Santos’ opponent Arnold Vinick), the strange art-mirrors-life-mirrors-art phenomenon continues. According to a 2005 Rolling Stone biography on Rahm Emanuel, he served as the model for the series’ character Josh Lyman, who after serving a stint in the Bartlet administration is finally appointed Santos’ Chief of Staff.
Biographies & Comment (Updated: 07/11/08)
Here is a bit of background and comment on Emanuel:
By Ben Trott
In the following article, written by Naomi Klein for her Newsletter, she argues that the first order of business for the movement that swept Obama to power (largely on the basis of his opposition to more-of-the-same economic policies) is to halt the economic bailout. ‘Readers of The Shock Doctrine’, she argues, ‘know that terrible thefts have a habit of taking place during periods of dramatic political transition. When societies are changing quickly, the media and the people are naturally focused on big “P” politics—who gets the top appointments, what was said in the most recent speech. Meanwhile, safe from public scrutiny, far reaching pro-corporate policies are locked into place, dramatically restricting future possibilities for real change.’
Here’s the full version of the article. (Klein also wrote a short anecdotal piece for the Huffington Post about spending election night in Washington DC, online here).
Real Change Depends on Stopping the Bailout Profiteers
By Naomi Klein - November 4th, 2008
To understand the meaning of the U.S. election results, it is worth looking back to the moment when everything changed for the Obama campaign. It was, without question, the moment when the economic crisis hit Wall Street.
Up to that point, things weren’t looking all that good for Barack Obama. The Democratic National Convention barely delivered a bump, while the appointment of Sarah Palin seemed to have shifted the momentum decisively over to John McCain.
Then, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, followed by insurance giant AIG, then Lehman Brothers. It was in this moment of economic vertigo that Obama found a new language. With tremendous clarity, he turned his campaign into a referendum into the deregulation and trickle down policies that have dominated mainstream economic discourse since Ronald Reagan. He said his opponent represented more of the same while he stood for a new direction, one that would rebuild the economy from the ground up, rather than the top down. Obama stayed on this message for the rest of the campaign and, as we just saw, it worked.
The question now is whether Obama will have the courage to take the ideas that won him this election and turn them into policy. Or, alternately, whether he will use the financial crisis to rationalize a move to what pundits call “the middle” (if there is one thing this election has proved, it is that the real middle is far to the left of its previously advertised address). Predictably, Obama is already coming under enormous pressure to break his election promises, particularly those relating to raising taxes on the wealthy and imposing real environmental regulations on polluters. All day on the business networks, we hear that, in light of the economic crisis, corporations need lower taxes, and fewer regulations—in other words, more of the same.
The new president’s only hope of resisting this campaign being waged by the elites is if the remarkable grassroots movement that carried him to victory can somehow stay energized, networked, mobilized—and most of all, critical. Now that the election has been won, this movement's new missions should be clear: loudly holding Obama to his campaign promises, and letting the Democrats know that there will be consequences for betrayal.
The first order of business—and one that cannot wait until inauguration—must be halting the robbery-in-progress known as the “economic bailout.” I have spent the past month examining the loopholes and conflicts of interest embedded in the U.S. Treasury Department’s plans. The results of that research can be found in a just published feature article in Rolling Stone, The Bailout Profiteers, as well as my most recent Nation column, Bush’s Final Pillage.
Both these pieces argue that the $700-billion “rescue plan” should be regarded as the Bush Administration’s final heist. Not only does it transfer billions of dollars of public wealth into the hands of politically connected corporations (a Bush specialty), but it passes on such an enormous debt burden to the next administration that it will make real investments in green infrastructure and universal health care close to impossible. If this final looting is not stopped (and yes, there is still time), we can forget about Obama making good on the more progressive aspects of his campaign platform, let alone the hope that he will offer the country some kind of grand Green New Deal.
Readers of The Shock Doctrine know that terrible thefts have a habit of taking place during periods of dramatic political transition. When societies are changing quickly, the media and the people are naturally focused on big “P” politics—who gets the top appointments, what was said in the most recent speech. Meanwhile, safe from public scrutiny, far reaching pro-corporate policies are locked into place, dramatically restricting future possibilities for real change.
It’s not too late to halt the robbery in progress, but it cannot wait until inauguration. Several great initiatives to shift the nature of the bailout are already underway, including http://bailoutmainstreet.com. I added my name to the “Call to Action: Time for a 21st Century Green America” and invite you to do the same.
Stopping the bailout profiteers is about more than money. It is about democracy. Specifically, it is about whether Americans will be able to afford the change they have just voted for so conclusively.
By Ben Trott
Barack Obama was, last night, elected 44th President of the United States. At a little past 2pm Eastern Time today, CNN were reporting that he had received 63,359,706 votes and counting. That makes 52% of the popular vote and secures him 349 electoral college votes. 270 were necessary for a win. His victory, then, was a substantial one.
To see a breakdown of how each state voted, take a look at CNN’s interactive map. The Huffington Post’s political editor has also put together a very interesting piece on voting demographics. It contains some very unsurprising statistics (Obama performed extraordinarily well amongst young voters and Black voters), as well as some more surprising ones. Most striking, perhaps, is that he outperformed John Kerry in 2004 in attracting White voters; and McCain in every income category – and most powerfully (with 73% to 25%) amongst ‘very poor families’ earning less than $15,000 a year. The source used for the Huffington Post’s article is an MSNBC exit poll which is also well worth having a look at here.
Over the next few days, I’ll be posting links to a selection of articles - and perhaps commissioning one or two pieces - on the potential meaning of Obama’s victory.
Posts
