Only about four weeks are left for the presidential elections in the United States and from all indications, it looks like Barack Obama, the African-American senator from Illinois state is going to win the battle. The financial crisis that has afflicted capital, credit and property markets in the United States (and consequently in the rest of the world) is what that has tilted the balance of public opinion toward Obama. The Republican nominee John McCain seems to have been identified (and rightly so) with the eight year disastrous rule of George W. Bush, and this has pushed him more than 5 points behind Obama in many an opinion poll on the presidential elections. But no way is the battle over and no where is victory assured for Obama. This article explores the issues that are contributing to an Obama surge and those that could still derail his candidature.
The operation of subterranean racial feelings among many Americans is feared to be one of the reasons that could work against Obama, despite the resonance of his message with most Americans, who are slowly feeling the brunt of the extended financial crisis that has afflicted their economy. What is termed, the "Bradley effect" (wherein potential voters suggest that they prefer the African-American candidate in question, but eventually end up voting against her/him due to the racial factor), could undercut the possibility of a strong win for Obama. Or as has happened recently in executive elections in the US, substantial populations belonging to the impoverished African American background could just be dis-enfranchised for one reason or the other, a factor that could hinder Obama again.
Yet, what is going for Obama now is the fact that his message has such a resonance that is in particular drawing immense support from the younger sections of America. These sections having been brought up on race transcending cultural influences of sport and music have rejected the argument of race in large numbers even as Obama has tapped their support by relying on a fantastic campaign built solidly on new technology (the internet and mobile telephony), catchy and youthful phrasing of political messages and a reliance on viral networking and volunteering). This surge in the role of the young in American politics could offset the traditional emphasis on race that runs subliminally in America still.
The bad tanking of the American economy, an offshoot of irresponsible de-regulation and the failure of the neoliberal model has helped shore up the Obama message of change. Obama has not offered any radical alternative to the current system ( in contrast to a more progressive and steady message emphasised by long shot independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader), but simply the call for oversight and regulation of the financial hubs of American capitalism, plus a departure from the overly market reliant policies of the Republican administration in various sectors such as health and education, has been enough for Obama to steal a march over his Republican opponent, McCain. More and more Americans, worried about their savings and investments (in the case of the middle classes and the small entrepreneurs), about their jobs (in the case of the working classes) are rallying behind Obama and his message.
The McCain campaign's early response was to draw a line between its candidate 's experience as an American war hero, a patriotic senator who has served in the senate for years particularly as an expert on national security and foreign affairs and Obama's inexperience. Trying to emphasise Obama's relative inexperience as a US senator and therefore calling into question his ability to show leadership on issues such as foreign policy, was the first tactic by the McCain in its discredit Obama campaign. But Obama has largely held intact while facing these criticisms and has even enhanced his standing among voters over the issue of foreign policy by two ways.
One, he has played pretty much to the gallery on the issue of foreign policy. He realises that unrestrained nationalism is still the paramount impulse on various international matters in mainstream opinion in the US and he has never tried to articulate a progressive alternative to it. Be it his position on the Russian-Georgian affair, or the so called, "war on terror" or even the American strategy in west Asia and Latin America, Obama has kept his positions well and truly within the permits of mainstream American nationalism, no matter how dangerous to the world these stances are, from a progressive viewpoint. This is exemplified by his choice of the liberal imperialist Joe Biden as vice presidential nominee. Yet, this positioning of Barack Obama still draws a contrast to the recklessness of neoconservatism, something that drove the presidency of George Bush and is retained by the ultimate war-monger John McCain,. That public opinion on the US invasion of Iraq is negative and that Obama from day one of his executive political career has opposed the war, has helped him.
Secondly, the Obama march has been helped by a reckless mistake made by McCain: the choice of his running mate, Sarah Palin. Palin, the governor of Alaska was clearly chosen to please the social conservative base of the Republican party. With some really regressive views on a host of social and political issues such as the separation of the church and state, the issue of abortion, and even global warming, Palin plays right into the huge gallery of social conservatism and communal religious sections that abound America's rural areas and small towns and are staunch Republican supporters. Even as the conservative base has been revved up by the Palin choice, the sheer stupidity exhibited by the governor in issues such as foreign policy and international issues has come to become a severe undoing of the McCain message of experience in the same areas. Sarah Palin, among several gaffes, touted her foreign policy experience owing to the fact that she governed a state that bordered Russia and thats that! Her views on international diplomacy are as good as non-existent and she prides on being a reckless warmonger - witness her responses to questions on the Russian-Georgian affair or about the volatile situation in west Asia involving Israel and Iran.
Hence, on domestic and international issues cumulatively, Obama has managed to convince voters that he is a better choice than his rival. This has helped him make a dent in states that are traditional Republican voting hubs, such as North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia and others. Despite such good tidings for the Democrats, the overall expectation of an Obama victory is cautious. Why is this so?
The McCain campaign in its attempt to deflect the attention of Americans from issues such as the state of the economy and the disastrous state of his ticket has now relied upon the tried and tested weapon, that is sure to yield some kind of dividend: slander. Trying to "turn a page" over the economic issues (as a McCain aide put it discussing campaign strategy with the media), the McCain campaign is now using Sarah Palin as a weapon to fire in bullet after bullet about Obama's links with "terrorists" and "America-haters". The reference is to a former radical William Ayers who was part of an organisation named the "Weathermen" which placed bombs targetting public institutions (a la Bhagat Singh) to bring notice to opposition to the ruthless Vietnam War 40 years ago. Since then, after incarceration, Ayers built up his recent reputation as an expert on child education and by engaging in community service in the city of Chicago. The prominence of Ayers as a Chicago progressive and his links with community organisers in the city got him acquainted with Obama and this "association" is what that has brought into question by the Republican ticket, which has gone on to denounce Obama's "domestic terrorist links" and consequently his judgment. Obama has pointedly denounced Ayers' past and his methods and to call him an associate of Ayers when Obama was 8 years old during Ayers' days as a radical is surely a ridiculous argument, which has still been sustained by the Republican attack machine.
While this denouncing and slander of Obama has yet to gain a lot of traction in terms of shift of support (opinion polls still point to a stable Obama lead), the Republican attack machine ( so termed for the precedents such as the "Swiftboat attack" on John Kerry, the previous Democratic presidential candidate) has now used this as their primary ammunition in their war against Barack Obama's nomination. This attack could well enmesh itself into the subliminal territory of racial fear of the "African American", who is still not an atypical American for some who still harbour feelings for the other on the basis of skin colour in the country. This could well turn out to be a substantial roadblock in Obama's road to the presidency, or atleast so hope the Republican ticket. This roadblock therefore prevents any dispassionate (or otherwise) follower of American politics from making a prediction that "President Barack Obama" would be inaugurated on January 20th, 2009, presiding over a new United States of America.
Article published in The Post, Lahore
Comments
Excellent article. For the
Excellent article.
For the curious,a Left wing group,Party of Socialism and Liberation(PSL),which is a break-away faction from the Trotskyist Workers World Party,has fielded candidates in the presidential race,and has attained some traction in few centres.It was nice to watch the campaign trail of PSL.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer
Obama, Race and Racism
While both commentaries underline the issue of race and racism in the USA and how the hard right has resorted to time-tested xenophobia with the prospect of losing the elections and argued this to be the final hurdle for the Obama Presidency, the articles do not even spare a line on Obama's (and by extension the Democrats' campaign) position on race and racism.
One cannot but remember Obama's Philadelphia speech, regarded as his most clear statement on racism, where he unabashedly portrayed racism that creates black American anger as a function mainly of the past. It denied the ways in which black status and life had worsened over recent decades, the downsides of the limited and partial Civil Rights victories or the related question of increased class inequality within the black community. His 2006 campaign book "The Audacity of Hope" defined racism that plagues American history in terms of psychological prejudice, not institutional and structural practices and policies. Isn't that exactly what resonates with 'good white Americans' ?
Obama has repeatedly lectured lower-class blacks like "cousin Pookie" (a name he made up for use in a self-righteous speech to black listeners at Selma, Alabama's Brown Chapel) on the need to clean up their culture and behavior and drop 'racially charged sentiments' to take full advantage of what he considers the great opportunities afforded to all by glorious American "free market" capitalism. For White Americans, in contrast, his message has been 'Let us put race aside'.
Obama, through his 'class act', has carefully distanced himself from any meaningful position for even a small step forward in addressing institutional racism. If racism is coming back to haunt him and his campaigners and supporters, in the final run-up to the 'ultimate Masters' House' - the White House, his ingratiating subservience to White America on the question of race and class surely warrants at least a token mention if not equal weight.
Valid criticism but there are starker realities
Chirashree makes a very valid criticism of Obama's views on race as well as the fact that Obama's campaign and positions offer little by way of substantive change from the status quo to make his much repeated theme, 'meaningful'.
That indeed remains the nature of the American capitalist system and its political super-structure which is merely a form of plutocracy that restricts candidature to just variant forms of capital's boot-lickers. In this presidential elections' case, the John McCain ticket simply represents the nexus among neoconservatives, social conservatives and the big capitalists including financial capital as well as the military industrial complex. Barack Obama's ticket has also got to do with lobbying and support from finance capital, big insurance, and other capitalist interests in it. Having said that, the labour unions in the US, including AFL-CIO, and other special interest groups representing labour have put their weight behind Obama after other progressive candidates such as Dennis Kucinich bit the dust in the primaries, while others such as Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader have simply not been able to generate enough traction that would translate into any kind of vote winning momentum, for various reasons.
The article that I have written definitely doesn't allude to the above, but other articles written by me in sum refer to the above, including those on the stances on foreign policy by the various competing personalities in the United States' two big party primaries.
Having said that, in late October, we can safely say that Barack Obama is in a position to challenge the Republican and the Democratic Leadership Council's monopoly to the White House, only requiring to overcome the subterranean fear mongering impulses that is pointed out in the article. While this doesn't mark any tectonic shift in the American polity, it surely raises hopes for the opening up of newer possibilities for the progressive sections in America to voice their opinions, concerns and political stances without being hounded out by the domineering nature of the nationalist beast in the country; whose monstrous teeth were owned by the extreme right in the form of George Bush's government and the Republican party conservatives.
In that sense, a left-progressive-democrat, nay even a communist anywhere in the world, cannot but hope that the xenophobic, hard right in the US is finally defeated, even if the alternative is not quite substantive to the existing status quo from those viewpoints.
Obama is Winning
So far, it seems like Obama is going to have a clear victory. At this time of credit crunch and global depression, his ideas and future plans seem to be very useful. He has made good statements about future activities.
However, his aggressive comments about wars ("will not wait to attack pakistan") and against other muslim countries seem a bit worrying to me.
George
Obama and US imperialism
Obama on Israel:
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/#onisrael
Obama on Cuba:
Mr Obama said he would maintain the decades-old US embargo on Cuba.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7418131.stm
Obama on the Latin American 'backyard':
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/16946
Obama on 'withdrawal' from Iraq:
Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
between white gerontocracy and late imperial black yuppydom, there has to be a third way for the American poor and people of the third world.
To the author
I could not find any article by you, either on this site or on your blog, that either 'in sum' or in parts, takes up the question of Obama's stand on racism. Can you provide the link to your article where you have done that?
In all the articles I could find, you lampoon the neocons (justifiably) and respectfully summarize Obama and later Biden, once he had entered the fray. The Obama-Biden duo's record on everything under the sun in your articles is 'in sum' argued to be better because they are smarter.
The Obama campaign here is telling us the same thing: we are going to get smart guys to run this country after the stupid ones got it all wrong. This country has tasted and tested both sorts in the past. 'In sum', things have only gotten worse and dangerous for most people here and around the world.
You attempt a bizarre classification in one of your articles to differentiate the who's who in the American political establishment. That classification 'in sum' will fail every test of domestic and foreign policy if you care to study the last thirty years of American politics.
You are excited about the hi-tech campaign among the young who you say have 'transcended' racism through sports and music. The Obama campaign also says that. You have bought the Obama campaign hook, line and sinker for all your tepid qualifications. Sports and music are two instances in American culture where 'in sum' institutional racism is writ all over.
From your writings, it is obvious that you are not a Marxist. But as a Leftist, if you believe 'the nature of the American capitalist system and its political super-structure which is merely a form of plutocracy that restricts candidature to just variant forms of capital's boot-lickers', then why should the ''left-progressive-democrat', nay even a communist anywhere in the world', pin their hopes in the electoral defeat of the ‘xenophobic, hard right’ by a candidate like Obama? This does not add up 'in sum'.
Xenophobia for you is only about Candidate Obama's colour of skin. I am stunned to see you citing the AFL-CIO's support to Obama. Ironically, the AFL-CIO is backing Obama for the most xenophobic reasons. The AFL-CIO's political record has been shameful. Here's one account of its China policy:
http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/uschina/ee_aflciochina.shtml
That does not square up 'in sum' to the call for progressive hope.
Regards from a black anti-imperialist in the US of A who cannot pin her hopes on an Obama win to keep the neocons out. The Left in the USA have a long and hard fight ahead before it can afford the luxury of such hope.
@ Madhulika Soni / Shy Stalinist Detective
I have written about Obama's as well as the Democratic Party's positions on Foreign Policy:
http://srinivasanvr.blogspot.com/2008/01/primer-about-primaries.html
I haven't written on Obama's position on racism. Neither have I deigned his approach as a progressive Anti-Racist stance.
But I am very clear that among the younger generation of mainstream America, especially in the east and the west, there has been a great deal of rejection of hard racism of the variety that was practised during the days of segregation and is still dominant in "Middle America" and in the South. Part of the reasons for this rejection is indeed the influence of African American athletes and musicians. I am very clear on this.
And I will love to be informed about whether the Obama campaign's successful mobilisation on the internet and the use of social communities and volunteer networks, most of whom feature the youth, plus the unprecedented garnering of funds from the internet; is all just a fluke which saw no agency from the youth. Am I just buying a "tepid" understanding or what is the truth?
I am sure that the anti-imperialists in America will continue their efforts in building a radical alternative to the debauched excesses of the capitalist parties in the USA. But today on October 20th, I find that there is at last an opportunity for the hard right to lose after the so called Reagan revolution and the hold of the social conservatives-neoconservatives and the racists.
Perhaps in an Obama presidency, the very opportunity provided in questioning, protesting the actions in Iraq will win the Left a greater constituency. Perhaps, the very opportunity provided in highlighting the other side when Obama sits to talk with Raul Castro (as he has promised to do, in opposition to a McCain rejecting any forms of diplomacy) would help the Left gain a voice beyond just articles written on Znet and MR.
To reject altogether the influence of the hard right in taking America where it is, post the Cold-War is no heroic Marxism or anti-imperialism. I would term it "messianic moralism". What else can it be, if the "Marxist" analysis of the differences between the current Republican rulers and the Obama-Biden campaign is that the latter is merely "smarter"?
The author's piece on the
The author's piece on the U.S. presidential election seems to be the result of some subjective generalizations. The author should take time to read the history of US presidential elections in the last few decades vis-a-vis the position of the communists there on the candidates. Obama 'in sum' is a "white catholic American" with colored skin, and has desperately been trying to buy "color" credentials, and his views on racism is just one of the aspects any Marxist analysis worth its salt should have captured. The author has completely glossed over the history of Obama before he figured in this presidential elections.
To Srinivasan Ramani: Question of praxis
Younger generation of ‘mainstream’ America!! Thanks for the clarification. Right, the agency of white middle-class yuppiedom on facebook, myspace, digg and what have you! Cool! Marxists should celebrate that! And if they don’t, they are ‘messianic moralists’!
Prabhat Patnaik called the intellectual detractors of the Left ‘messianic moralists’ after Nandigram. To quote that masterpiece, ‘The crux of political praxis consists at any time in distinguishing between two camps: the camp of the "people" and camp hostile to the interests of "the people". You put your hopes on the camp hostile to people’s interest, the Left here refuses to that.
Who has denied the role of the ‘hard right’? Left groups here are concentrating their campaign to defeat Mccain. Many many activists have lost much more than jobs in fighting the system that was unleashed by Reagan, carried forward both by Democrats and Republicans with equal vigor and signed off with the Bush Administration’s ‘War on Terror’ and disastrous domestic policy. But they are ‘messianic moralists’ if they say Obama is a continuation of the parade of this imperialist establishment with one qualification – he has the most pleasant face.
Obama has not 'challenged the Republican and the Democratic Leadership Council's monopoly to the White House'; he is one of their own, or more charitably put, has become one with them. Obama tells us that waging war on Iraq in itself was not wrong; it was wrong in the ‘way’ it was done. On Obama and Cuba, here is Fidel Castro (The empire’s hypocritical politics).
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/mayo/lun26/Reflections-26may.html
Gunboat diplomacy and gung ho invasion are both part of the arsenal of imperialism. That is what differentiates Obama-Biden and Mccain-Palin in your articles. Your response defending Obama's promises of gunboat diplomacy only confirms this to be a read for the ‘smart’. Not for the Left.
It is fine to work up and steer working class racism towards China and all things Chinese including the Communist Party of China to be ahead in the race, but it hurts when that racism comes back as fear mongering in the final stage of the race! Right!
The Left in the US has no illusions either about a Mccain Presidency or an Obama Presidency. The opportunities lie not with the Obama Presidency, but in the questions that Americans are asking with financial crisis at home and the condemnation abroad. The possibilities lie in the structural interstices of class, race and gender that are gapingly in the open after decades of defeatism – be it questions on jobs, social security or on ‘faith and family values’. The hopes lie in the fact that most Americans are now opposed to the War on Iraq.
Whether the different sections of the Left can advance depends on a host of factors. But if the Left puts its eggs in Obama’s presidential basket of gunboat diplomacy, then all it will have is egg on its face. The struggle would be lost even before it has been waged.
This is no arm-chair anti-imperialism coming out of elite institutions, it is Marxist Leninist praxis built on years of trade-union work and anti-racist struggles. The source of ‘messianic moralism’ if any is tipped the other way by Prabhat Patnaik’s criterion!
To Madhulika Soni
You put your hopes on the camp hostile to people’s interest, the Left here refuses to that.
I don't put any hopes on an Obama presidency to be a leftist government or even a progressive government. I have written about that before as I have pointed out. So shouting again and again about my Obama-loving when there is none is not going to make me one.
But I am pinning my hopes on the left in the America, having greater possibilities in an Obama presidency where even labels such as "liberal" would no longer be a bad one, as it has become to be in America since 1980.
That is precisely where I stand unlike what you make my position out to be : that of an Obama'o'phile.
You, yourself point out that the majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq. It is encouraging news, not just for the trade unionists who work their heart out in the mecca of capitalism, but also for the people of Iraq who only had to get their voice represented in the mainstream of America. But having said that, is it possible at all in the Bush presidency and the Reaganite revolution to take a position that is beyond the confines of the nationalist mainstream, without being hounded off by the Patriot Act or perhaps a seat in the illegally occupied Guantanamo? Heck, even the working class today in the USA associates better with the Republican Right for various reasons that I don't want to go into. Will a Barack Obama presidency and a Democratic senate not have any bearing on how much more vistas could be now available for the various shades of the left in the country?
Wouldn't it be possible to organise a rally for freeing the Cuban Five right when Obama meets up with Raul Castro, a possibility that has never existed in the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush years?
Surely, that opportunity to stage a massive rally with many an African-American activist drawn from the working class suburbia and the downtown areas of the cities in America and saying it aloud, " I got nothing against no united, secular, self-ruled Iraq" (with apologies to Mohammad Ali) is even more possible, no?
And yes, I make a distinction between gunboat diplomacy and gunboat invasion. The distinction is 7,00,000 and counting, dead between the Euphrates and the Tigris. For the organised left, it is possible to ward off the threat of gunboat diplomacy, by shoring up support from an increasingly multi-polar world with the OECD reeling under a financial crisis. Isn't that a greater set of possibilities against imperialism than when say, Iran is invaded by McCain-the-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran maniac?
I quote Vijay Prashad in a recent interview done by Pragoti about Obama's candidature:
"An Obama presidency will certainly not move a progressive set of policies across the board. What it will do, however, is to shift the tenor of US politics toward possibilities."
I do not take this lightly. A change in objective conditions will make it much more convenient for the subjective factors (steady trade union/ activist/ grassroots work) to shore up more support.
Lastly, the Obama campaign raised $150 million primarily from the Internet. If Obama can stir up such a funding spree with an agenda of non-substantive change; why can't the left, with it's given agenda of the most progressive alternative available, make a modest dent on this very same medium? Why can't the left channel its strident anti-imperialism to tap the anti-Iraq War sentiment into viral networking of the message? Surely it could.
Or Is it that, using that option to popularise a cause is mere middle class yuppiedom? If that was so, the Pragoti website is surely just another expression of yuppiedom on the internet. Only I hope it is not.
Srini has illustrated it very
Srini has illustrated it very well.
Obama would have to disown his own slogan of "change" once he assumes power(if that happens).This would give the hitherto marginalized Left of US,and enormous opportunity to resurface with all vigor.The extreme Left stand of discarding these possibilities is a completely misplaced one.There are millions of black in US who sympathize with Cuba and Venezuela,millions of Hispanic immigrants who are progressive,but there isn't a platform for them to organize,there was no space left for their unity,with the vast majority of white workers.Walter Rodney had once written about the white workers' attitude which makes it impossible for the progressive forces to forge a anti-racist working class platform.
The set back to the overtly racist extreme right would be the most significant event in the US electoral history,after the election of Lincon.Obama's victory wouldn't represent a victory of the left,but the defeat of the xenophobic extreme right would.There is where the extreme-Left(if certain rumblings can be labelled so) make mistake by trying to confine Obama's possible victory to Obama alone,and going for an evaluation of his puritanism.This is anything but dialectical.
The victory of Obama would open up new possibilities for Left in US,I am sure history would show us the same.
softer imperialism?
.
This is a debate I have had with Srini for close to a year now and so there is not much new which I can say here. My argument has been that USA is an imperialist State and whichever Government is in power, it will have to implement policies which protect and promote the cause of imperialism both domestically and on a world scale.
I can see the logic of Srini's contention that often there would be a situation where the policy pronouncements of one candidate will be better (from the perspective of the anti-imperialists) than those of the other. Such policy pronouncements may provide crucial relief or space for manoeuvre for anti-imperialist movements, States, etc. But such instances are rare and need to be well argued out. This has not been done here.
In the absence of a clear demonstration of how Obama will be better than McCain in the manner in which his administration will run US imperialism, any analysis which makes him look better/ softer / more humane than his opponent runs the grave risk of sugar coating US imperialism itself. Therefore I find it difficult to accept any analysis which demonises the far-right and thus humanises liberal imperialism. Anything less than an all out attack on the top managers of US imperialism, irrespective of their purported differences, is unacceptable from an anti-imperialist standpoint.
Regarding the issue of race itself, Barack Obama is not the initiator, or even the leader, of Black emancipation. He is the symbol of the acknowledgement by the US ruling class that one and a half centuries after slavery was formally ended, they need to integrate the Black middle class into the US 'mainstream' (or what we would call 'ruling class alliance'). He also represents, because of this, an attempt by the US ruling class to divide, buy off and bottle up the radical aspects of Black politics in the US. In racial terms, one could say that Obama is White-America's way of buying peace with the more demanding, "like-us", sections of Black America. He is, to use a loose analogy, the Shahnawaz Hussain and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi of White-America. In this sense, Barack Obama is the inheritor of the legacy of Condi Rice and Colin Powell. It is therefore not surprising that Powell endorsed Obama and the latter happily accepted his endorsement. (just to remind you of Colin Powell http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1632-the-bagman-c...)
It is therefore, in my opinion, highly unfortunate that you have ended up with an analysis which, indirectly but clearly, supports Obama and shows him in good light. I would have hoped that an article on Obama and Race would expose these charades of imperialism rather than telling its readers how one candidate for running imperialism is softer, more humane and more intelligent than the other. But then your article, and Sainath's, have provided the space for a much needed debate.
.
To Aniket
Dear Aniket,
Neither do I accept that my analysis is supportive of Obama (as you make it out to be) and nor do I accept that the article "humanises" the other form of imperialism that the Obama-Biden ticket represents. By merely stating the rapacity of neoconservatism and that there exists an opportunity as of today for America and the world to escape from the eight years of neocon rule, I don't endorse Obama, as you make it out to be. You merely are asserting thus, because you think I haven't positioned Obama-Biden's policy statements in this article. But that was not the intent of the article. I have written about Obama's positions before and I need not reiterate it everytime I write an article about the American elections.
I however entirely agree with your other assertions on the Black middle class and Obama's positions on racism.
Such policy pronouncements may provide crucial relief or space for manoeuvre for anti-imperialist movements, States, etc. But such instances are rare and need to be well argued out.
Again in an earlier article, I argue out how as compared to the neocons, the very fact that diplomacy is given a chance in the liberal imperialists' foreign policy calculations, that itself is an upgrade over the 8 years of mayhem that the world has been subjected to. And in the comment directed to Madhulika, I have pointed out clearly the difference between gunboat diplomacy and gunboat invasion (a crude evaluation of the positions of the Obama-Biden ticket and the McCain-Palin ticket). I have also argued out how that there exists a chance for the left to articulate its positions without being hounded out of the public debates because of rampant McCarthyism, assertion of crass conservatism and plain right wing badge of honours, once the Bush regime finally goes.
It is unfortunate that Ralph Nader (for all his yeoman work criss-crossing the US of A and using the internet to generate traction despite the ability to register his name on 45 state ballots) or Cynthia McKinney have been able to move beyond 1% in the support garnering in the opinion polls and I have written about why that is the case in an earlier article as well.
The Left in the US of A therefore have now got a chance to articulate their praxis in a more co-ordinated and received fashion than in the neocon regime. That possibility is also editorialised by none other than the CPUSA themselves: I am just pasting their editorial verbatim:
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/975/1/147/
A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.
This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view.
Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”
If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.
The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.
One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.
Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.
I am very clear that the CPUSA is not endorsing softer imperialism while they make a statement thus, as in the above.
Or Noam Chomsky's interview on Real News Network, where he asks for the Left to vote Obama in swing states but "with no illusions".
This a reply to Aniket. You
This a reply to Aniket.
You got me completely wrong.
I never said that I am an Obama supporter,nor I would be too enthused to hear about his victory.But I would certainly smile at the defeat of Mcain,the defeat of the racist sentiments which prevailed over for centuries.
The history of US Communist party would show that deep rooted racism is the single major factor that had impeded its growth.Whether Obama represent anti-racists or not,the racists see him through the age old prism.
Fidel says
"Racism is deeply rooted in the United States, and the minds of millions of white people cannot accept the idea of a black man, with his wife and children, occupying the White House, which is precisely what it’s called: White."
If these millions of racists would witness themselves being outnumbered,it won't be something that the progressive forces should discard.It would bring up a new set of possibilities of the progressive forces in US to stage a come back.
If you want to discard this,its your freedom to do so.
OMG! its the extreme-left!!!!
This is with reference to Unni's comment above.
--
I am amazed by your labelling!
If people to the left of Obama are labelled 'extreme left', are you by sleight of hand, implying that Obama is "left"???
I surely hope not!
And I am not really sure what you are arguing here.... You say that millions of blacks in the US are sympathetic to Cuba and Venezuela. Are you suggesting that Obama represents them? You concede that Obama's victory will not be a victory for the left but that McCain's defeat will be a victory for the left! Now please explain the "dialectics" involved here...
Lastly, I find the tonal difference in the way you refer to the "extreme-left" and to Obama to be very disturbing. The sneer you reserve for the former is missing in your references to Obama. Very strange anti-imperialism this is! I do not accept the ideological positions of Trotskites or of the Maoists, nor do I find myself too enthused by Black Nationalism, Amerindian indigenism or Green activism. But despite all my differences and disagreements with them, I cannot imagine what politics can bring me to sneer at them and speak of Obama in neutral tones. I would rather stand with the former than with the latter, specially in the context of the United States domestic politics.
.
who's better for the third world
.
There could very well be an argument put forward that McCain would be better for India's "national interest" and for the farmers and industrialists of the third world. Have a look at the voting record reproduced in these this article http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Columnists/S_A_Aiyar/Where_Mc... I am not interested in the analysis or the ideological positions of the author of this article, just the voting record with regard to economic interests of India and of third world countries.
.