The Obama Myth Begins to Fade

by Joe Auciello / January 2009

Up to two million people are expected to gather in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20 for the inauguration of the nation’s first Black president, Barack Obama. Millions more, in the United States and around the world, will watch the ceremony on television or listen on radio.

Despite the spirit of celebration and triumph that will reign on this historic day, the euphoria has already begun to fade as Obama’s real political agenda takes shape. While the Obama team tries to create the appearance of progress, especially with the appointment of some liberal figures to the cabinet and other government posts, substantive reform is already slipping off the agenda.

President Obama is likely to govern as a cross between Bill Clinton and the George Bushes. The swearing in of the 44th president will be the end of the Era of Hope and Change.

Obama’s supporters, especially among the youth, bring such high expectations for his presidency that it seems as if the class divide in America is now out of date. The reality of class has, in fact, never disappeared and will only intensify in the months and years to come.

All of the promises that Obama made on the campaign trail had a simple, fundamental purpose: to make capitalism function more smoothly and safely for capitalists. Even if all of Obama’s proposed domestic reforms are adopted, the wealth of the country will still be in the hands of a tiny elite, and major decisions will continue to benefit them first. The majority of the people get the leftovers. For most Americans, the coming years look grim.

The overall issue affecting a large majority of people is the economy. Obama’s pledge to turn around a failing economy was a vital part of winning the presidency. Since the election, Obama has announced his intention to create more than three million jobs with a recovery package that could cost up to $850 billion.

Nonetheless, Obama’s "economists expect the labor market to shed jobs over the next year," and they predict "unemployment will rise to 8.3% in 2009 from the current 6.7%“ (Wall Street Journal, Dec. 22, 2008). For every job created, then, more than another one will disappear.

The crisis in the auto industry provides an insight into Obama’s leadership. A proposed $17 billion bridge loan to General Motors and Chrysler is being worked out by the Bush administration and Obama’s transition team. The Washington Post reports, "One government source said that Obama’s aides have similar views as the current administration on what to do for the automakers" (Dec. 19, 2008).

The restructuring deal will likely mean the elimination of thousands of jobs, steep cuts in salary, and loss of health benefits and job security. The United Auto Workers union will be forced to accept salary rates no better than those of non-union auto workers. Obama calls this part of "the hard choices necessary to achieve long-term viability." The union will have the hard choices shoved down their throat, and the auto industry will be viable.

Obama’s reform package also promises tax cuts to all "middle-class" families, expanded health-care coverage, greater support for education, reduction of global warming, and new programs to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. But no proposed stimulus package is sufficient to fund all of these goals—some of them will have to be eliminated or scaled back, and the cuts will not be in defense spending or the simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The first of Obama’s big tax breaks will be given, not to the beleaguered "middle class" but to the oil and gas companies. A Wall Street Journal editorial happily commented, "One of Barack Obama’s emerging political qualities is how casually he has been dumping the ballast of his campaign promises. The latest lousy policy to go over the side is a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies" (Dec. 5, 2008). The Journal speculated that Obama’s tough-talking campaign rhetoric was for "appeasing the populist furies," but those parts of the platform can be safely shunted aside now that the election is over.

Backpedaling on human rights

In the transition to the Obama presidency, human rights issues have also been sacrificed in the interests of political expediency. The victory of Proposition 8 in California that ended gay marriage in that state was a loss for gay and lesbian rights around the country. Obama has quickly shifted to the winning side.

Pastor Rick Warren, a hugely influential evangelical and author of the multimillion-selling book, "The Purpose-Driven Life," has been selected to give the invocation at the president’s inauguration this month. Warren opposes abortion rights and homosexuality, and likens gay marriage to incest or polygamy. Progressive and gay rights groups are justly outraged.

Commenting in The Nation website, author Sarah Posner summed up the mood of many when she wrote, "Now it has officially gone too far … the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers … but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics" (Dec. 17, 2008).

Yet, Obama can rightly claim that he has misled no one. In his major speeches he has said he would reach out to those with whom he disagrees in order to have real dialogue. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he told reporters after the controversy erupted. Was anyone naive enough to think he was referring to Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

Pitched at the level of generality, the platitudes of "dialogue" have gone down smoothly with Obama’s supporters; it’s the sour taste of real politics that causes them to gag.

Furthermore, Obama and Warren are not completely at odds. Both oppose gay marriage and agree on the definition of a family. As for Warren’s support to Proposition 8, since the Kerry candidacy in 2004, it has been the standard refrain of the Democratic Party to say that the states should decide on the legality of gay marriage. This setback to civil rights is what Democrats call "democracy."

Even more telling is the fact that Obama is not creating a relationship with Rick Warren but is only deepening the relationship that has already existed for more than two years. When Warren held his 2006 Global Summit on AIDS at his Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., Senator Obama was a featured speaker.

According to a Dec. 9, 2008, article in The Economist, Warren’s reaching out to Obama “brought a rebuke from conservative churchmen and commentators” but “Mr. Warren shrugged off the conservative criticism.“ Now Obama is repaying the favor to Warren. How can anyone who has been paying attention honestly claim to be surprised?

Nor will there be surprises in foreign policy. Obama will continue the principle that the United States has the right to decide the fate of the world in the interests of this nation’s ruling class. Leave aside the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—this policy applies even when there is the appearance of reform.

President-elect Obama has repeated the pledge of candidate Obama to shut down the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. It’s a commendable decision, but a superficial one. First, few are affected: approximately 250 prisoners are held there. Second, in June 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration and decided that the detainees could challenge their incarceration—not in a military court but in a U.S. court. Finally, as Thomas B. Wilner, the counselor of record for the prisoners, recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "Guantanamo has stained our reputation around the world" (Dec. 22, 2008).

Maintaining the prison at Guantanamo, then, serves little purpose. The detainees can be deported to their home countries or tried in the U.S. Yet closing the prison camp will bring a positive symbolic value for the Obama administration. For Obama, shutting down Gitmo is a cost-effective, win-win situation.

Obama supporters might point out that the president-elect has promised to do more for U.S.-Cuban relations. Speaking at the Cuban American National Foundation last May, Obama said he would lift the ban on family travel to Cuba and would allow a greater amount of money to be sent there from families in the U.S. He would, however, continue to impose the 47-year-old trade embargo unless Cuba takes "significant steps toward democracy."

In his speech, Obama also vowed "to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people." This admirable promise could easily be put to the test.

If Obama truly wants to "stand up for freedom in Cuba," then let him propose to the Cuban government a binding referendum that, if passed, would close not just the prison camp in Guantanamo but the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo itself. Let the Cuban people decide whether or not they want U.S. territory to be maintained on their homeland.

One hundred and ten years ago, the United States established a military base in Cuba. The Cuban-American treaty of 1903 granted the U.S. perpetual rights to the base there. Should U.S. policy today be bound by a decision more than a century old?

Senator Obama suggested an answer to this question in his speech to the Cuban American Foundation. "The situation has changed in the Americas, but we’ve failed to change with it. Instead of engaging the people of the region, we’ve acted as if we can still dictate terms unilaterally."

President Obama should follow the wise counsel of Senator Obama. He should change U.S. policy towards Cuba by, in the first place, "engaging the people of the region" to decide whether or not the U.S. should remain in Cuba. That would be a real step toward democracy and would show, as Obama has claimed, that "American values are America’s greatest export to the world."

Of course, nothing like this will happen, especially given the makeup of Obama’s national security team: Bush holdover Robert Gates as secretary of defense; Hillary Clinton as secretary of state; and retired Marine general James Jones, formerly supreme commander of NATO, as national security advisor.

They have all been supporters—if not overseers—of the Iraq War, and like Obama himself, are all supporters of the Bush Doctrine: imperial domination through military intervention and "preventive" war.

As The Economist noted, "All three have supported positions more hawkish than [Obama’s] own. The American left is getting a rather different president from the war-opposing hopemonger that they voted for" (Nov. 29–Dec. 5, 2008).

The Economist, the voice of British capital, is generally quite pleased with their American cousins. Reviewing Obama’s picks for his cabinet, The Economist breathed a sigh of relief: "… his choices are reassuring, especially for those who feared a shift to the left," and pointed out, a little more bluntly, "Mr. Obama’s backers, in fact, can with some justification feel betrayed …" (Nov. 29-Dec. 5, 2008).

In the few months between the November election and the January inauguration, Obama has begun to chart his course. No doubt the future will bring unforeseen conflicts and unexpected turns, but, in general, this new president has already marked a clear path, winding to the right.

The Obama administration will continue the policy of bailout for bankers, benefits to auto companies, and reform for the rich. There will be fewer jobs and more fear for working families. Inauguration Day is where the Obama dream will go to die.