Sam PF's Journal

Sam PF's Journal - Obama

[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]

March 18th, 2008

11:51 pm

[Link]

Obama
Well, I must say I'm moderately impressed with Obama's speech in response to the furore over Rev. Wright.

I mean, there were some things that made my blood boil - notably:

Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

God forbid that anyone should point out the nasty bodies in the closet of American foreign policy. And no, Mr. Obama, the origin of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not in "hateful ideologies of radical Islam", but in the fact that the nascent state of Israel forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes to make that state possible.

But I hardly expect any different from a serious US presidential candidate who pretty much has to kowtow to the Israeli lobby if they want to stand any chance. One hopes he might be slightly more inclined to listen to advisors with a more balanced view if elected, and somewhat less to the batshit insane Christian Zionist movement that has Bush's ear, but anyway.

But for the rest. I like the fact that he went beyond the platitudes about one happy united American family, and pointed out the rather obvious points about the continuing legacy of racism, continuing Black disadvantage, continuing discrimination - in fact, spelled it out in some detail. That America is in many ways still a segregated society. That he acknowledged the anger this generates, though it's not usually expressed 'in polite company'.

I liked that he didn't simply disassociate himself from Wright, but pointed out where such views come from (albeit that I would tend to think that what Rev. Wright said has much more validity than Obama gives it credit for.) "I can no more disown him than I can the black community". That he acknowledged that people can be full of contradictions.

I liked that he dared to raise the issue - if not the word - of class. Acknowledging also the anger of disadvantaged whites, but pointing out how that's been taken advantage of by the right, and how that is misdirected.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.

(Though, ha! at 'middle class' - no-one is working class these days.)

That the struggle for racial justice has to be linked to the struggle for gender justice and economic justice:

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans - the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.

I like also the way he turned round his criticism of Rev. Wright:

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country... is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.

Neat. Politically pretty clever.

No, I don't see Obama as some sort of messiah - wherever he comes from personally (and he has a rather more radical background than he expresses now), he is bound by the limitations of the corporate-dominated American political system. With Obama is elected all the big corporate funders on whom he depends.

But I do see something potentially positive in where he comes from and the way of thinking he represents. The view of Christianity he comes from, as is also clear from that speech - the Christ who is on the side of the poor and downtrodden against the powerful and mighty - basically a form of liberation theology, as currently repackaged by organisations like the Sojourners, whose founder Jim Wallis I gather knows Obama pretty well. Maybe his candidacy represents a chance, or is part of a chance, to reclaim American Christianity from the forces of darkness that have held sway these past 30 years. (And even if you're not a Christian, given how pervasive Christianity is in America, something that's not likely to change in the near future, that has to be a good thing.)

I don't really expect a lot of electoral politics. It is not the whole of politics, not even the most important part. Whether you get your guy elected or not, you have to keep on pushing in the streets and in your workplaces and in your church, and hassling your representatives and giving them hell, even the ones you voted for when they're not doing what you want. That's what the Right has done, and that's a large part of why they've been winning. But electoral politics do matter, and if there's one thing I learnt from 2000, it's that the difference between an apparent Tweedledum and Tweedledee can be soooo much bigger than you could possibly imagine.

And as far as electoral politics go, Obama seems to me the best on offer Stateside at the moment. For a start, the fact that he does seem to have enthused such a movement behind him could be very important, if - if it keeps going beyond November.

(Yeah, not a US voter, though I am an American citizen (dual national), aside from the fact that what happens over there has enormous implications for the whole planet. 25% of the CO2 for a start. And gosh, my brother actually (I presume) will get to vote over there in November now he's in Cali. Hmm, interesting times.)

Tags: politics

(Leave a comment)

Comments

From:	elise
Date:	March 19th, 2008 02:15 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I was totally bowled over by it. The other main criticism I have comes from the same passage you outlined. I don't think the idea that white racism is endemic is wildly distorted. Still, it's more progressive than anything I've seen from a major political figure in a very long time.

Combined with my disgust at McCain for voting against banning the CIA from "enhanced interrogation", this leaves my support pretty much entirely with Obama.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:	robert_jones
Date:	March 19th, 2008 08:21 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I don't think the idea that white racism is endemic is wildly distorted.

I wondered about that at first, but then I realised I was misunderstanding what Obama meant by "endemic", because people quite often use the word to mean "widespread". What I think he is repudiating is the suggestion that white people are just naturally racist.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	smhwpf
Date:	March 19th, 2008 08:55 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Ah, interesting. Quite a common misusage then - like you I think, I initially took him to mean "systemic", which I think racism is, but the actual meaning, yes, different kettle of fish.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	robert_jones
Date:	March 20th, 2008 06:11 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Although of course this does raise the question of whether it's sensible of Obama to make speeches that you, me and Elise find it necessary to refer to dictionary to understand.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	neonchameleon
Date:	March 19th, 2008 04:36 pm (UTC)

(Link)

No, I don't see Obama as some sort of messiah - wherever he comes from personally (and he has a rather more radical background than he expresses now), he is bound by the limitations of the corporate-dominated American political system. With Obama is elected all the big corporate funders on whom he depends.

He's far less beholden to corporate funders than any other American candidate in my lifetime (with the arguable exception of Perot) - it's what comes of a grass roots campaign. Which is, if not ideal, a positive sign. I also think that he's more radical than he appears.

But electoral politics do matter, and if there's one thing I learnt from 2000, it's that the difference between an apparent Tweedledum and Tweedledee can be soooo much bigger than you could possibly imagine.

I never actually saw them as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. What I saw was the media trying to portray that. And Bush pretending to be nice and Gore playing towards the centre.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:	smhwpf
Date:	March 19th, 2008 08:53 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Must say I haven't followed the details of Obama's funding - I know he's got a lot of grassroots funding, but I understand there's a fair whack of corporate money in the mix too - Hmm, yes, this article lists some of each candidate's biggest donors. Also Obama's had a lot from nuclear energy company Exelon, according to teh intarwebs.

I'm not sure I quite saw Bush & Gore as Tweedles - tbh I can't quite recall what I thought at the time, but generally unimpressed with Gore and not able to get very excited about the election until it suddenly became so close...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	neonchameleon
Date:	March 19th, 2008 11:49 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Hmm, yes, this article lists some of each candidate's biggest donors.

Joy! A fellow at Demos. I'm not sure I don't prefer the Adam Smith Institute (at least I can debunk them almost in advance, whereas Demos are fluffy and irritating).

A quick skim through that article gave a lot of spin, deception and meaninglessness. For one thing, saying that his top donors were [foo] means very little without the magnitude of the donations and the percentage total. Opensecrets.org is AFAIK the best source here - and Obama certainly has the fewest big tickets to pay back.

For another the comments about the Telecoms Immunity is true but misleading. There were two amendments that might have passed that would have removed the effective immunity before the bill itself was voted on. Obama was there for those and voted against them but left before the final vote (which was by that point a formality) whereas Clinton was there for none of it.

I could go on.

tbh I can't quite recall what I thought at the time, but generally unimpressed with Gore and not able to get very excited about the election until it suddenly became so close...

My recollection is of bemusement - it was the first time I'd really looked at American politics and I was wondering why it was even close at any point. And what the US media was playing at.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)