“You can vote however you like,” sang the kids from Bob Clark Academy of Atlanta, Georgia. And we did. We elected Barack Hussein Obama 2008. This simple fact alone is worth savoring. But the boo birds— critics, bless ‘em— are at it already, of course. One of my faves, Paul Krugman, of the New York Times calls Obama’s inauguration speech muddled, its central argument— we need a return to responsibility, says Krugman— the same milquetoast argument Bush made in 2000. But the responsibilities Obama calls for could not be further from those advanced by Bush, right?! Just review the speech.
Consider foreign affairs first. Rejecting as false a choice between our safety and our ideals, Obama points out that our “power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please” around the world. Instead, the best way to extend our power and provide leadership is by the “justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” How could he repudiate any more explicitly the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strike and blundering militarism than with the argument made here? As I recall, this was precisely one of those moments during the speech when the camera panned to Bush with a humiliating wince. The contrast was certainly not lost on Bill O’Reilly and the other leading attack dogs of the right who have been fulminating about the implication of Obama’s remarks since the speech.
On the economic front, admittedly, Obama’s arguments aren’t always so straight-forward. He says of our current economic crisis that it is “a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” Is he referring to our collective thirst for gas guzzling SUVs and, in general, the failure of consumers to demand the products of a green economy? This is a collective failure, to be sure, but it’s a bit obfuscating to link this directly to our current economic crisis. Government spending to stimulate the sagging economy should do whatever possible to lay the foundations for a sustainable green economy, for future generations, for the sake of the planet. But the lack of development in this direction has little to do with our current economic crisis. This is, literally, the bankruptcy of the deregulating “free market” philosophy that has held reign through republican and democratic administrations for almost thirty years.
Still, again, there is no mistaking Obama’s notions about our responsibilities to the market economy with those of Bush. “Without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control,” says Obama. He continues, “A nation cannot prosper long that favors only the prosperous.” I’ll take this as an acknowledgement of one of the bitterest ironies of Bush’s and supply side economics in general. On the one hand, in the name of his “Ownership Society” Bush actively pushed for policy measures that would increase mortgage lending and home ownership. Such noblesse oblige, every American ought to own their home, right?! Unleashing entrepreneural energies from stifling rules and regulations creates wealth that trickles down to everyone, say supply-siders. Let innovators innovate, let the moneylenders make money. But, on the other hand, like every other Administration in the wake of the Reagan Revolution, the Bushies advocated anti-labor and other so-called “free market” policies that eroded the incomes of average American families. A lack of public oversight rewarded those without scruples to swindle paychecks and gamble wrecklessly with other people's money. Or, in other words, reduced the ability of most Americans to pay for their home mortgages!
Obama seems to get this but it would have been nice if he would have elaborated on his case for a more watchful eye. And, frankly, skepticism about his remarks in this area will remain until actions overcome the fact that most of his new economic advisors are old Wall Street heads (or the proteges of them) who under Clinton promoted more of the deregulations that have bred the gargantuan investment scams that are at the heart of the current economic meltdown.
Finally, culturally, Obama counts our “patchwork heritage” (as opposed to a melting pot of unity) as one of our enduring strengths. The overtures to Muslims and poor people the world over, in an address to Americans, struck me as probably unusual? We cannot ignore suffering outside our borders, Obama says, “nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.” We may not plan on apologizing to anyone for our way of life, as Obama asserts, but when is the last time a U.S. President has suggested we need to take more responsibility for our consumption of world’s resources?
Sure, Obama appeals to our sense of responsibility and sacrifice, hard to imagine an inaugural that wouldn’t. But I’d say his central argument is that key to America’s recovery from threats abroad and collapse at home is a return to the values of “hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotisim.” I repeat, these are NOT Bush’s responsibilities of "family values" and big business cronyism and shock and awe to any "freedom haters" who might oppose us!
At the risk of perpetuating the inflated analogies with Lincoln, seeing some of the response of the right and left since the inauguration, made me think of how both the abolitionists and slavers were typically reviling Lincoln. This is probably just the beginning.
Be honest, even those of us pulling for Obama did not think this was likely, if possible, one year ago. Whenever politicians huff and puff about America’s great diversity and opportunity I’m always reminded of the incredibly narrow demography of our presidents: every president of the U.S. has been, white, male, and not just Christian but decidedly Angloid protestant, except one. It’s astonishing what percentage of our presidents graduated from either Harvard or Yale. So our first African American president reassures elites with his Ivy League training and protestant church commitments and manly-manness (that Hilary was a scary ball breaker, right!), but, still, seven years after 9/11, the Patriot Act, two ongoing quagmires against Muslim enemies, and this country elects a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama?!
It’s cracked the smooth, hard shell of cynicism of living my entire adult life in the wake of the Reagan Revolution. Ladies like the one who told McCain at a rally late in the campaign that Obama frightened her because he was a Arab, a Muslim. I really thought there were too many of them, or too many of them that voted. But, in the end, even my parents voted for Obama. Don’t underestimate the people. (Too bad Walter Karp isn’t here to see this.)
I’m not saying calls to our enduring ideals cannot feel stale, but if a man “whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant” can’t revive these values as enduring bonds between us, giving us direction and purpose, who then possibly could? I’m aware of the naysaying from some of my favorite naysayers at Counterpunch and Eat The State but I’m not ready to let go of a sense of hope I never thought I’d feel again. This is the moment of a paradigm shift. Is Obama up to the job, I don’t know. But I can’t think of anybody better for the job. Can you?
No comments:
Post a Comment