Actual Change and the Need for a Progressive Uprising

As this election season drags on and the race for President is getting more personal by the day, it seems as though we are learning little that is "new" from either major candidate. As has been demonstrated in both Presidential debates, Barack Obama and John McCain agree on many issues. Both have voted for the bailout, both advocate sending more troops into Afghanistan, both are advocating for the use of nuclear power for energy, both advocate unwavering support for Israel and on it goes. This alliance on many issues has some progressives scratching their heads as to what exactly an Obama administration will mean for the country. In fact, it is along these very lines which progressives are divided between supporting Obama and voting for a third party candidate. With under a month left before the election we all have to ask ourselves this question: Will an Obama Presidency produce fundamental progressive change for this country?

Barack Obama has been running on the idea of "bringing change" long before McCain jumped on the bandwagon. It was this message combined with Obama's charismatic ability to appeal to the younger generation that led to a largely progressive following. These supporters are obviously tired of the last eight years of rule under George W. Bush and are looking to take the country in a new direction. During the primaries Obama supported positions that excited the progressive community. He called for an end to the Iraq War and voiced opposition to FISA legislation that would give immunity to telecom companies. Since clinching the nomination, Obama has altered his language on Iraq and voted for FISA legislation that gave immunity to telecom companies. Actions such as these made some Obama supporters think twice about Obama's "progressive" message while others dismissed these changes in position as the traditional "move to the right" that Democratic candidates display after they make it through the primaries. Was Obama running to the left in the primaries and returning to his actual centrist beliefs or did Obama actually hold progressive viewpoints but feel he had to shift to the right in order to get elected? Many still claim that Obama must move to the right so he can get elected and only once he is elected can he implement his true agenda. Is there evidence for this view?


In July, Paul Street wrote a piece that is relevant to this discussion. In his piece, Street outlines Obama's political career and comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence that Obama is somehow a closet progressive that will implement radical progressive change once elected. Street claims that Obama is simply a typical politician with centrist roots. Street writes:

Obama's career prior to his emergence as a national celebrity and politician does not jibe particularly well with the "stealth progressive" hypothesis. During his seven years in the Illinois Senate between 1997 and 2004, Obama developed strong and interrelated reputations for limitless personal aspiration, for working closely with Republicans, for "pragmatic" compromise, and for staying close to the great hidden secret to success under the rules of American "market democracy" - corporate money [8]. As Ryan Lizza notes in an important recent New Yorker sketch of Obama's early political career, "Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them"

The important line in this quote is that at every stage of Obama's political career, he has "been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them." In addition to the examples of FISA, the Iraq War, and Israeli support, Street sites the following as other examples of Obama's eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions:

...he did things like:

* vote with Republicans to cap consumer legal damages ("tort reform").
* confirm the war criminal Condoleezaa Rice as (of all things) Secretary of State.
* lecture "bloggers" (Obama's new code name for the growing number of activists and voters who dare to openly disagree with Him from the left) on their need to show proper respect for U.S. Senators who approved the appointment of arch-reactionary opponents of womens' and civil rights to the rule-for-life Supreme Court.
* distance himself from Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA)call for early withdrawal from Iraq and from his fellow Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin's courageous criticism of American Gestapo-like practices in Guantanamo.
* lend his campaign support to pro-war against antiwar candidates in the Democratic congressional primaries of 2006 and otherwise distance himself from the movement against the Iraq War.
* advance the energy agenda of the nuclear and ethanol industries.

It seems as though many Obama supporters are putting their faith in his ability to fundamentally change the existing institutions that have moved America so far backward when Obama's actions over the years indicate that he is more willing to accommodate these institutions rather than tear them down. The conservative criticism that Obama is a closeted "socialist" and the Democratic belief that Obama is a closeted progressive, are both off base in this regard.


With this being said, is there any hope at all for any type of progressive change to be implemented under an Obama Presidency? To address this question it is necessary to recognize the power of corporate interests and lobbyists within this country. One of the criticisms of Bill Clinton was his shift toward more corporatist policies after running a populist campaign back in 1992. In this regard history could very well repeat itself. The next President will inherit a financial crisis like none we have seen since the Great Depression, a national debt that continues to grow, two wars, and a crumbling infrastructure. This financial crisis could provide the pretext for heavy pressure from Wall Street, to cut programs that are needed to reinvest dollars domestically that the United States needs. Think tanks and lobbyists could advise the next President that we simply cannot afford to expand our alternative energy resources or invest in healthcare for everyone. It is this type of pressure that could reignite the same failed polices of privatization that have led us into this mess in the first place. Naomi Klein recently articulated this point in an address to the University of Chicago:

I think it is a waste of your minds, your creativity, because all of these crises—climate change, the casino that is contemporary capitalism—all of these crises do demand answers, do demand actions. They are messages, telling us that the system is broken. And instead of actual solutions, we're throwing ideology, very profitable ideology, at these problems. So we need better ideas lying around.

We need better ideas responding to what a Barack Obama presidency would absolutely face. As soon as he comes to office, "Yes, you can" turns into "No, you can't; we're broke." No green jobs, no alternative energy, no healthcare for everyone. You know, his plan for—to give healthcare to every child in America costs $80 billion. Bailing out AIG cost $85 billion. They're spending that money. They're spending those promises. So, the people who are going to say, "No, you can't," who are going to use this crisis to shut down hope, to shut down possibility, are ready.

Klein reemphasized this point in her appearance on "The Colbert Report" last week. She stated that there are those who will advise an Obama administration that we are broke and cannot afford these changes. These will be the same people who will push for the privatization of things such as our infrastructure. This will be done under the banner that we must eliminate programs that are "unnecessary" and "wasteful". Obama (like McCain) has already stated that he will go through the budget "line by line" and eliminate "programs that don't work and aren't needed." Massive corporate interests are lined up, ready to pressure those within an Obama Administration to adopt policies that will work to uphold the very same institutions that have led us to the dismal situation in which we find ourselves today.


The view that Obama taking power will result in a complete reversal of where we are currently headed is misguided. This belief, that actual change is possible within the two main parties, is unfounded and not supported by history. All major movements for social change have grown out of movements which have forced the party in power to adopt policies that they can no longer refuse to ignore. From Women's Rights to Civil Rights this holds true and the circumstances today are no exception. It is here that there may be some hope around Obama's candidacy: With such a massive groundswell of support for this man there is potential for a movement to form in order to counter the influence of Wall Street, lobbyists and other corporate interests. It is first imperative to realize that Obama is not going to change things without overwhelming pressure from an outside progressive movement. If those who are progressively minded and have supported Obama walk away from the process after the election, then we will not have any hope for accountability. These energized progressives within the Obama campaign need to join with those who have been fighting within existing movements such as the anti-war movement, the media reform movement, or the environmental movement and hold a potential Obama Administration accountable. We live in times where putting faith in one man to change a system is not going to work. A powerful movement is needed to force a potential Obama Administration to adopt policies that they can no longer refuse to ignore.


Many of those who have been fighting this fight are already keenly aware of these problems. This is the reason that there is a very real fight to open the debates to third party candidates to address these issues and this is the reason that many people will either sit out this election or cast their vote for a third party candidate. Those who feel strongly about Obama's possibility must join with those who feel strongly about a unified people's possibility. Obama will not change things on his own, the people must force Obama to change, especially because Obama is a candidate that adapts to institutions rather than tear them down. The people must tear them down.


While a glimmer of hope is there, I fear that this will not happen. I fear that those who have fought this fight for years will be left to continue fighting while a group of confused Obama supporters wonder why things are still heading down the same path. I hope I am proven wrong because the United States can not take much more of this.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Barack Obama: The Man and The Myth

I have written previously on this blog about Barack Obama's complete reversal in position on the FISA legislation that was signed into law in the last few weeks, but what really needs to happen is a very open conversation about why Obama has seemed to shift positions on several key issues that surround the current campaign for the Presidency.

There are many Obama supporters that have lined up behind the Senator because of the belief that he is a "true progressive" and that his election in November will allow for progressive values to take hold of this country and that he will implement the change that so many wish to see. Throughout the primary season, Obama positioned himself as the "anti-establishment" candidate to further emphasize that he would be a different kind of President and many of his supporters believe that Obama's candidacy operates outside of the traditional Washington model. However in a recent piece by Paul Street, it is argued that Obama is far from the progressive that both the left and the right make him out to be.

Street argues in his extensive piece, that Obama's recent "shift to the right" was actually a shift back to the politician that Obama has become since his early days in the Illinois State Senate. This counters the very notion that Obama is putting on a mask to appeal to more conservative voters and once elected, will implement policies that are truly progressive. This belief, that of Obama as a sleeper candidate, is largely unfounded yet is a viewpoint held by both the left and the right. As Street points out, the left refer to him as a closet "true progressive" while the right refer to him as "a dangerous leftist" or even a "socialist". Street sites three reasons why there is serious doubt that Obama is indeed this closeted individual who will enact leftist policies once in office:

First, very few if any people in key positions in the "radically centrist" [7] Obama campaign seem remotely predisposed to following such a path.

Second, it must have take practically super-human "eyes on the White House prize" restraint for a "truly progressive" U.S. Senator Obama not to have used his already considerable power and notoriety (after 2004) to become a leader (in the Paul Wellstone mode) of left-liberal opposition to the Bush agenda at home and abroad. Instead he did things like:

* vote with Republicans to cap consumer legal damages ("tort reform").

* confirm the war criminal Condoleezaa Rice as (of all things) Secretary of State.

* lecture "bloggers" (Obama's new code name for the growing number of activists and voters who dare to openly disagree with Him from the left) on their need to show proper respect for U.S. Senators who approved the appointment of arch-reactionary opponents of womens' and civil rights to the rule-for-life Supreme Court.

* distance himself from Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA)call for early withdrawal from Iraq and from his fellow Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin's courageous criticism of American Gestapo-like practices in Guantanamo.

* lend his campaign support to pro-war against antiwar candidates in the Democratic congressional primaries of 2006 and otherwise distance himself from the movement against the Iraq War.

* advance the energy agenda of the nuclear and ethanol industries.

Third, Obama's career prior to his emergence as a national celebrity and politician does not jibe particularly well with the "stealth progressive" hypothesis. During his seven years in the Illinois Senate between 1997 and 2004, Obama developed strong and interrelated reputations for limitless personal aspiration, for working closely with Republicans, for "pragmatic" compromise, and for staying close to the great hidden secret to success under the rules of American "market democracy" - corporate money [8]. As Ryan Lizza notes in an important recent New Yorker sketch of Obama's early political career, "Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them" [9].

This "eagerness to accommodate" can be seen simply by looking back at Obama's record within the Illinois Senate versus the positions he has taken since he declared that he would run for President in 2007. Obama's biographer David Mendell weighs in:

"For them, it didn't seem to matter that since the aggressively liberal state lawmaker had gone to Washington he had taken a dramatic turn toward calculation and caution, or that he had yet to propose anything philosophically new, or that Obama was, in his own words, "a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views," or that the higher he soared, the more this politician spoke in well-worn platitudes and the more he offered warm, feel-good sentiments lacking a precise framework. It also didn't seem to matter that in his first two years....he avoided conflict at all costs, spending none of his heavily amassed political capital on even a single controversial issue he believed in"

Prior to Obama's election into the US Senate, he was booked to give a keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. This appearance at the convention and subsequent speech has been marked by many as the official start of "Obama-mania". During this address, Obama did not take the opportunity to denounce the Iraq War on the grounds of its illegal nature, but rather criticized the Bush Administration for not sending in enough troops to effectively do the job. Obama also did not call for a withdrawl of troops or an end to the unjust occupation, but used the opportunity to endorse John Kerry whose candidacy was built on the position that he would more effectively manage the war. This position was also a shift for Obama which underscores the very point that he has an "eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them." Obama was largely outspoken against the war during his October 2002 speech in Chicago. Paul Street states:

Obama opposed what he called "the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." He denounced "the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression" [26].

This use of strong wording against the Administration was rightly placed, but a far cry from his position in 2004:

But Obama's most telling Iraq war comments during the 2004 convention did not occur during his famous keynote address. One day before he gave his historic speech, Obama told the New York Times that he did not know how he would have voted on the 2002 Iraq war resolution had he been serving in the United States Senate at the time of the vote. Here is the relevant Times passage: "In a recent interview, [Obama] declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.' But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know.' What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made'" [33].

It is argued that based upon these shifts on foreign and domestic policy as well as the rise in corporate money largely being thrown at Obama, that Obama is not a progressive posing as a "centrist", but in fact he has been a "centrist" posing as a progressive. It is argued that the kind of shift that we have seen from Obama in the most recent weeks, is Obama's same old song and dance of accommodating himself to the very system that his supporters expect him to change. Obama is not a radical progressive that exists outside of the traditional Washington model, to the contrary Obama is a typical politician who has shown his willingness to shift positions on issues in order to enhance his electability. There is simply little reason to believe that Obama will radically change this country if he is elected President and to view him as a candidate who "needs to lean to the right in order to win so he can implement his real agenda" is a misguided viewpoint that is inconsistent with his political career.

Yes, the candidacy of Barack Obama has invigorated the population's interest in electoral politics, but we need to be careful. We (as a country) need to be careful that we are not so eager for change that we get caught up in the slogans and fail to look at the policies. This country has slid so far to the right in the past eight years that it is easy to fall behind someone who so eloquently promises that he will bring this country out of the deep hole that we have fallen into. Citizens need to closely examine if support for this candidate will really get them the change that they desire. Citizens need to look at this candidates past, his policy shifts, and his corporate backing and ask themselves if this is the mark of a revolutionary or of a typical politician.

I, for one, cannot vote for someone who has "an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them." We (as a society) have played this tired game for too long, putting all of our hopes and efforts into the idea fundamental change while still voting for and supporting the status quo. This is why I am supporting Cynthia McKinney's candidacy for President in 2008 on the Green Party ticket. I will not vote for Barack Obama because he is simply "better than John McCain" rather I will vote for Cynthia McKinney because she is the best overall choice for true progressive change in the 2008 election. We need leaders who live up to the standards of the people in this country, not leaders who give up their principles for status quo. As we continue forward in this election year, let's continue to critically examine all of those running for public office and hold all of them accountable to the public interest.

A Political Climate Shift

I sensed it when I walked outside the the other day. I stopped in my tracks, looked around, and couldn't quite figure out what it was. Was there a different smell in the air? Had the temperature dipped a few degrees? Did the wind feel a little different? I didn't realize exactly what it was until I began look at the news of the day and read some related articles. Some called it a "shift toward the center" and some called it "standing up to the left", but it became clear to me that the political climate is what had shifted. Not only has John McCain gone through an experience since the year 2000 that the reality show world might dub "Extreme Makeover: Political Edition", but now it seems that Barack Obama is the latest candidate to begin shifting and even reversing his position on some key issues.

In a recent article Chris Hedges refers to Obama as a "courtier" who is agile and eloquent and makes us feel good. Hedges states:

"We cannot differentiate between illusion and reality. We trust courtiers wearing face powder who deceive us in the name of journalism. We trust courtiers in our political parties who promise to fight for our interests and then pass bill after bill to further corporate fraud and abuse. We confuse how we feel about courtiers like Obama and Russert with real information, facts and knowledge. We chant in unison with Obama that we want change, we yell “yes we can,” and then stand dumbly by as he coldly votes away our civil liberties. The Democratic Party, including Obama, continues to fund the war. It refuses to impeach Bush and Cheney. It allows the government to spy on us without warrants or cause. And then it tells us it is our salvation. This is a form of collective domestic abuse. And, as so often happens in the weird pathology of victim and victimizer, we keep coming back for more. "

Hedges' reference to voting away our civil liberties refers to Obama's new found support for the FISA bill which will help to give telecom companies retroactive immunity for spying on Americans. Matthew Rothschild gives further insight into this issue in his recent piece in The Progressive. Rothschild points out that the rhetoric Obama used to defend his reversal in position, is quite similar to President Bush's:

Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”

Here’s what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill “allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home.”

But it doesn’t protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that.

Obama's previous position was that he would support the filibuster of any legislation that would give the telecom companies retroactive immunity. His support for this latest FISA bill, is a direct reversal and a shift not necessarily towards the so-called "center", but in allowing the Administration to continue their assault on our civil liberties.

The media coverage on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" of this very issue has been astounding. Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com pointed out in his most recent blog the amazing shift in discourse on this program that directly aligned with Obama's shift on this issue:

What's much more notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama -- rather than George Bush -- supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it's proof that Obama won't "cower." Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.

Greenwald goes on to mention the danger in this type of "blind devotion" to a candidate no matter his/her stance on policy issues. Greenwald mentions that it is no different than the blind devotion than many loyalists of President Bush have ascribed to in the last 8 years no matter how harmful his policies on important issues.

Obama's stance on FISA is simply the latest in a series of events where his position on issues seems to run counter to the type of change that some of his supporters have come to expect. Obama's speech in front of AIPAC was meant to assure Israel that the policy of the United States will remain in direct alliance with Israeli interests. He stated that the United States would continue to give military aide ($30 billion) to Israel, believes that Jerusalem should remain undivided, and all options would remain on the table to defend the "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable" security of Israel.

On Iraq, Obama has not pledged to withdrawal all troops and has not voiced a clear stance on the role of private contracting firms operating with Iraq. In fact, in a recent Wall Street Journal article the Iraqi Foreign Minister mentions that after a phone call with Obama, he believes that Obama will not make any drastic decisions or take any drastic actions to jeopardize Iraq's security gains.

Let us be clear on the meaning of these shifts in Obama's positions. It is continually shown, through the examples I have listed, that Obama's actions and words do not represent a drastic change in policy away from the our current situation. Obama is voting for the FISA bill which will give expanded powers on the government to spy on Americans, has pledged his staunch support for the security of Israel, and has not pledged an end to the war in his lack of support for a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Citizens of the U.S. need to begin to look at what is being said on these issues that are so important to our future and if Barack Obama is starting to look less like a "change" and more like the status quo, then perhaps people should look to other candidates that may fully represent the type of change that they wish to see in this country.