Obama's Victory - Fear and Hope

By Immanuel Wallerstein

The whole of the United States and indeed the whole world was watching, and almost all of it was cheering, the election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. Although, during the electoral campaign, everyone tried to play down the centrality of the racial issue, on Nov. 4 it seemed that no one could talk of anything else. There are three central questions about what most commentators are calling this "historic event": How important is it? What explains the victory? What is likely to happen now?

On the evening of November 4, an immense crowd assembled in Grant Park, Chicago, to hear Obama's acceptance speech. All those who were watching U.S. television saw the camera zoom in on Jesse Jackson, who was in tears. Those tears reflect the virtually unanimous view of all African-Americans, who regard Obama's election as the moment of their definitive integration into the U.S. electoral process. They do not believe that racism has disappeared. But a symbolic barrier has been crossed, first of all for them, and then for all the rest of us.

Their sentiment is quite parallel to the feelings of Africans in South Africa on April 27, 1994 when they voted to elect Nelson Mandela president of their country. It has not mattered that Mandela, as president, did not fulfill the whole promise of his party. It will not matter if Obama does not fulfill the whole promise of his campaign. In the United States, as in South Africa, a new day has dawned. Even if it is an imperfect day, it is a better day than before. The African-Americans, but also the Hispanics and the young people in general, voted for Obama out of hope - a diffuse hope, but a real one.

How did Obama win? He won the way anyone wins in a large, complex political situation. He put together a large coalition of many different political forces. In this case, the gamut ran from fairly far left to right of center. He would not have won without that enormous range of support. And, of course, now that he has won, all the different groups want him to govern as each prefers, which is of course not possible.

Who are these different elements, and why did they support him? On the left, even the far left, they voted for Obama because of deep anger about the damage the Bush regime inflicted on the United States and the world, and the genuine fear that McCain would have been no better, perhaps worse. On the center-right, independents and many Republicans voted for him most of all because they had become aghast at the ever-increasing dominance of the Christian right in Republican party politics, a sentiment that was underlined by the choice of Sarah Palin as the vice-presidential candidate. These people voted for Obama because they were afraid of McCain/Palin and because Obama convinced them that he was a solid and sensible pragmatist.

And in-between these two groups were the so-called Reagan Democrats, largely industrial workers, often Catholics, often racist, who had tended to desert their Democratic party roots in recent elections because they viewed the party as having moved too far left and disapproved of its positions on social questions. These voters moved back to the Democratic party not because their outlook had changed, but because of fear. They were deeply afraid of the economic depression into which the United States has moved, and thought that their only hope was in a new New Deal. They voted for the Democrats despite the fact that Obama was an African-American. Fear conquered racism.

And what will Obama do now? What can Obama do now? It is still too early to be sure. It seems clear that he will move quickly to take advantage of a crisis situation, as his new Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, put it. I suspect we shall see a dramatic set of initiatives in the traditional first 100 days. And some of what Obama does may be surprising.

Still, there are two situations, the two biggest, that are largely beyond his control - the transformed geopolitics of the world-system, and the catastrophic world economic situation. Yes, the world received Obama's victory with joy, but also with prudence. It is notable that two major centers of power issued statements on the geopolitical scene that were quite forthright. Both the European Union in a unanimous statement and President Lula of Brazil said they looked forward to renewing collaboration with the United States, but this time as equals, not as junior partners.

Obama will pull out of Iraq more or less as promised, if for no other reason than the fact that the Iraqi government will insist upon it. He will try to find a graceful exit from Afghanistan, which will not be too easy. But whether he will do something significant in relation to the Israel/Palestine deadlock and whether he can look forward to a more stable Pakistan is very unsure. And he will have less to say about it than he may think. Can Obama accept the fact that the United States is no longer the world's leader, merely a partner with other power centers? And, even if he can, can he somehow get the American people to accept this new reality?

As for the depression, it will no doubt have to play out its course. Obama, like all the other major leaders in the world, is a captain on a very stormy sea, and can do relatively little more than try to keep his ship from sinking altogether.

Where Obama has some leeway is in the internal U.S. situation. There are three things where he is expected to act and can act, if he is ready to be bold. One is job creation. This can only be done effectively in the short run through government action. And it would be best done by investing in reconstructing the degraded infrastructure of the United States, and in measures to reverse environmental decline.

The second is the establishment, at last, of a decent health care structure in the United States, in which everyone, without exception, will be covered, and in which there will be considerable emphasis on preventive medicine.

And the third area is in undoing all the damage that has been done to basic civil liberties in the United States by the Bush administration, but also by prior administrations. This requires an overhauling both of the Department of Justice and the legal and paralegal apparatus that has been constructed in the last eight, but also the last thirty, years.

If Obama acts decisively in these three arenas, then we might say that this was a truly historic election, one in which the change that occurred was more than symbolic. But if he fails here, the letdown will be momentous.

Many are trying to divert his attention into the arenas in which he cannot do much, and in which his best position would be that of a lower profile, the acceptance of new world reality. There is much about Obama's future actions to fear, and much that offers hope.

Note: Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.

More On the Top Jobs

By Ben Trott

As the transition period slowly proceeds towards Obama’s inauguration day on January 20, news and rumours as to whom the administration would like to appoint to cabinet or other senior positions – and new posts they are potentially planning on creating – continue apace.

The Washington Times yesterday reported that the administration were considering creating a ‘Climate Czar’, but that Al Gore had already stated he would not accept the job. Meanwhile, Hilary Clinton is today being discussed (New York Times, Guardian, Huffington Post) as possible Secretary of State. Other potential candidates for the job are rumoured to be 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, Senator Chuck Hagel, and New Mexico’s Governor and one time contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Bill Richardson.

Naomi Klein: ‘In Praise of a Rocky Transition’

By Ben Trott

Claiming that the current US administration’s handling of the economic crisis is both incompetent and criminal, Naomi Klein in her regular column for the Nation argues that Obama needs to come through with his pledge for ‘change’, rather than continuing to concentrate on smooth transition and continuity. She argues,

‘There is no way to reconcile the public's vote for change with the market's foot-stomping for more of the same. Any and all moves to change course will be met with short-term market shocks. The good news is that once it is clear that the new rules will be applied across the board and with fairness, the market will stabilize and adjust. Furthermore, the timing for this turbulence has never been better. Over the past three months, we've been shocked so frequently that market stability would come as more of a surprise. That gives Obama a window to disregard the calls for a seamless transition and do the hard stuff first. Few will be able to blame him for a crisis that clearly predates him, or fault him for honoring the clearly expressed wishes of the electorate. The longer he waits, however, the more memories fade.

‘When transferring power from a functional, trustworthy regime, everyone favors a smooth transition. When exiting an era marked by criminality and bankrupt ideology, a little rockiness at the start would be a very good sign.’

(Not) The New York Times

By Ben Trott

Reportedly, up to 1.2 million copies of a spoof version (PDF) of the New York Times were handed out across the United States yesterday. The 14-page authentic looking paper was post-dated July 4 2009 and carried the cover story ‘Iraq War Ends’. Containing numerous articles likely to be warmly greeted by the left (or, ‘liberal-left’), the paper announced the passing of the National Health Insurance Act, an apology from the Times itself for the role some of its columnists played in legitimising the war by perpetuating claims about weapons of mass destruction, and declared the nationalisation of several major oil companies whose revenues would be used to fund efforts to reduce climate change. The distribution of the paper was accompanied by the launch of a website, making the content available online and open to comment. Like the paper, the site is also designed to look like the real deal. One of the most prominent articles claims that it was popular pressure from mass movements which were responsible for forcing the series of progressive reforms said to have taken place since Obama’s election.

The Times today reported the story (also, here). Several New York Times writers were rumoured to have been involved in the production of the paper which is said to have been months in the planning.

The Times’ article acknowledges that this is not the first such spoof of their paper. The first took place during a two month strike at the paper and included pieces by numerous well known writers. The second saw Virgin’s Richard Branson produce a 1999 April Fool’s Day parody of the paper.

The production of spoof newspapers has also long belonged to the action repertoire of the counter-globalisation movement. The British-based group Relcaim the Streets, in the mid- to late-1990s, produced a series of parodies of London’s centre-right Evening Standard newspaper entitled Evading Standards. The papers were often distributed across the city in the days before one of their spectacular street parties, both advertising the event and explaining some of the ideas, analyses and motivations behind them.

The group also produced a Financial Crimes newspaper (on the FT’s own pink paper) ahead of the protests around the 2000 International Monetary Fund and World Bank protests in Prague, Czech Republic. Before the World Trade Organisation protests in Seattle in 1999, a wrap-around spoof cover of the local daily broadsheet, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, was produced. Globalisation activists then snuck into newsagents and broke into newspaper boxes on the streets, replacing the paper’s front cover with their own.

Obama and the Left

By Ben Trott

I have a piece on Znet today about what an Obama presidency means for the left. You can find it here. I also wrote a short piece for them back in July, the day after Obama gave his foreign policy speech in Berlin.

'Not a Day Too Soon'

By Ben Trott

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have launched a campaign demanding Obama close Guantánamo on Day One of his presidency, ‘not a day too soon’. There was a full-page ad for the campaign in yesterday's edition of the New York Times, and the first in a series of short films has been launched on YouTube. Additionally, a comment piece by ACLU Executive Director, Anthony D. Romero appeared online at the Huffington Post yesterday, and the organisation are holding an online 'Town Hall meeting' in a couple of days to devise a strategy for building pressure on the Obama administration to shut down 'Gitmo'.

Will She Be Back?

By Ben Trott

In Arianna Huffington's round-up of the winners and losers of the 2008 campaign, Sarah Palin is acknowledged as sitting on the winning side, if only because, 'there has to be a reality show in her future.' If Palin's first extensive post-election interview, broadcast on Fox News last night, is anything to go by, her sights are set a little higher, however. Should the opportunity present itself, in either 2012 or four years later, Palin says she prays God will not allow her to miss the opportunity.

You can watch the whole of the interview here, or to see the segment on her thoughts about her potential future, watch the last two minutes of the video below.

And on the issue of Palin and religion, you might like to take a look at the following commentary, written by Joel Schalit, a former managing editor at Tikkun, on ReligionDispatches.org ahead of last week's election.