Chasing the Obama mirage

A reply to the 'Open Letter to Barack Obama' (see below).

Lance Selfa in Socialist Worker
Chasing the Obama mirage
Progressives who see a kindred spirit in Barack Obama are fooling themselves.
August 14, 2008

SINCE CORRALLING the Democratic presidential nomination in May, Sen. Barack Obama has spent the last few months moving to the "center" on a number of issues that motivated his supporters during the primaries.

His somersault from opposing to supporting the rotten Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill that pardons major telecommunications companies for their collaboration with the Bush administration's illegal spying program occasioned protests from liberals.

Thousands of Obama supporters filled his campaign's interactive Web site with protests of his sell-out on the FISA bill, and other prominent supporters expressed unease in editorials in various liberal publications.

One group of prominent Obama supporters issued "An Open Letter to Barack Obama" in the pages of the liberal Nation magazine. After congratulating Obama for his campaign's "tremendous achievements" that have "inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades," the letter went on to raise concern: "[T]here have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance."

The open letter goes on to enunciate a list of policies--including withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable and universal health care--that the signatories consider a minimum program for Obama to pursue. It concludes, in part: "If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don't. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected president."

In the light of such indications of unease among his liberal supporters, Obama felt compelled to note the displeasure among "my friends on the left"--only to slap them down again.

"Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center," Obama told a crowd in Powder Springs, Ga., on July 9. "The people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive and put me squarely in the Democratic camp...I believe in personal responsibility; I also believe in faith...That's not something new; I've been talking about that for years. So the notion that this is me trying to look centrist is not true."

While most people would probably look at Obama's statements as a back-of-the-hand swat at his critics, prominent liberal blogger Chris Bowers of OpenLeft.com read the opposite into them: " [T]he speech is actually directed at what Obama calls 'my friends on the left.' I can't remember a presidential nominee specifically courting left-wing voters and activists before. Honestly, I really can't. This is a sign of increased respect and being taken more seriously."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DESPITE THE signs of discomfort with Obama in the liberal camp, Bowers' response is actually much more indicative of the lengths to which many leading progressives are willing to go to consider Obama--already a member of one of the world's most exclusive clubs, the Senate, and with campaign coffers stuffed with millions in corporate cash--as one of them.

Typical of this willful suspension of disbelief was the founding statement of Progressives for Obama, issued in March over the signatures of prominent figures like Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Jr., Barbara Ehrenreich and Danny Glover. Conceived as an intervention into the Democratic primaries on Obama's behalf in the wake of his March 2008 speech on race, it opens by proclaiming, "All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama."

The statement's key idea is that the support for Obama generated in the Democratic primaries--heavy voter turnouts and decisive backing from African Americans and young people--constitutes a social movement that stands in the traditions of the great American social movements of the past, like the labor movement of the 1930s or the civil rights and Black Power movements of the 1960s.

As its authors write, "We intend to join and engage with our brothers and sisters in the vast rainbow of social movements to come together in support of Obama's unprecedented campaign and candidacy. Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined."

The statement concedes that Obama "openly defines himself as a centrist." But this becomes the reason for the "formation of a progressive force within his coalition. Anything less could allow his eventual drift towards the right as the general election approaches. It was the industrial strikes and radical organizers in the 1930s who pushed Roosevelt to support the New Deal...And it will be the Obama movement that makes it necessary and possible to end the war in Iraq, renew our economy with a populist emphasis and confront the challenge of global warming."

There's no doubt that Obama's campaign--or at least its incarnation during the Democratic primaries--mobilized first-time voters and raised hopes for "change" among millions of people. But declaring Obama's campaign a social movement is an exercise in sophistry at best, and self-delusion at worst.

A discussion of social movements is beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that the mobilization of millions in militant struggle in the union movement of the 1930s or in the civil rights movement of the 1950s/60s--against the forces of the state and employers--is a different phenomenon than voting in a bourgeois political primary. To confuse the two is to lose any realistic way to assess what is actually needed to win the type of social change the Progressives for Obama seek.

Any effort to tailor demands for progressive reforms to what is acceptable to an Obama administration's assessment of the politics of "the possible" risks settling for a lot less than could be won with an independent mobilization that forces all Washington politicians to address the movement's agenda.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THAT IS the real lesson of the 1930s and 1960s: what will determine the direction of social and political change in the U.S. will be grassroots movements on the ground, not tallies at the ballot box. Progressives for Obama would most likely agree with that point, but in their actions so far, they have, as Glenn Ford of Black Agenda Report put it, lent their names and reputations to an effort "to allow Obama to 'pass' for what he is not: a progressive."

The arguments of Progressives for Obama also head off the possibility that those genuinely interested in voting for an end to the war in Iraq, a single payer health care plan or an end to government violations of civil liberties will find prominent advocates for their point of view.

The underfunded independent candidacies of Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney and independent candidate Ralph Nader are raising those demands. But with the likes of Progressives for Obama pledging to "seek Green support against the claim of some that there are no real differences between Obama and McCain," and with Black nationalist-turned-Stalinist Amiri Baraka comparing those who would vote for McKinney or Nader to the German left whose disunity allowed Hitler to triumph (!), it's clear that genuine left voices will be muffled in 2008.

With so many millions wanting to see the end of Republican rule, Obama, rather than McKinney or Nader, will capture the vast majority of votes from those seeking progressive change. But regardless of any "moves to the center," his candidacy has raised expectations among large numbers of people that Obama has no intention of meeting. An Obama presidency will prove that--and set the stage for grassroots movements to emerge in larger form.

ISO Website

SocialistWorker.org looks good to me. I think the paper has gone fortnightly though.

Here are the encomia:
Messages of solidarity
Welcome to the new Socialist Worker, with more-up-to-date news and action, which will provide more effective organizing, together with more informed commentary. Forward to our socialist world.--Dennis Brutus, University of Fort Hare, South Africa

You can now get your grit on the Web as well as the street. SocialistWorker.org--the real-time avatar of Socialist Worker--promises to become the indispensable portal for activism-based analysis and radical social commentary.--Mike Davis, author of In Praise of Barbarians: Essays Against Empire and City of Quartz

For someone originally trained in Marxism by the ISO, in early 1980s Baltimore, this Web site reminds me of the finest traditions and also the strongest contemporary analysis. In South Africa, we'll keep a close eye and expect your coverage of this super-exploited continent to remain rich and deep.--Patrick Bond, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

A daily Socialist Worker Web site from the U.S. is not just something needed by the leftists in America, but also by the international left. Now, when a new global capitalist crisis is spreading from United States and the system of political control in your country seems to have started falling apart, it is becoming exciting to follow political developments in the U.S. This is not to underestimate the strength of American ruling class, but there is a space emerging for radical politics.--Boris Kagarlitsky, author of Empire of the Periphery: Russia and the World System

The new website design is fantastic. It is simply amazing to see how far the Socialist Worker reaches, even in my workplace. Don't stop what you all are doing!--Todd M. Jordan, UAW Local 292

The Socialist Worker is not only a brilliant form of expression, but a most incisive reader that continues to present new realities within the left tradition. This marks it a one of the leading lights on contemporary left discourse, worth all the support that can be rendered.--Kiama Kaara, Kenya Debt Relief Network

The Socialist Worker consistently provides critical analysis of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, among other pressing issues of our day. SW can always be counted on for important reportage and insightful contextualizing of current events which is so often lacking in most news outlets today.--Dahr Jamail, author of Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq

The Socialist Worker site is a valuable resource for everyone who wants to do something to arrest and reverse the imperial goals of the American ruling class.--Michael Schwartz, author of the forthcoming War Without End: The Iraq War in Context

Best of luck as you launch a new look for your publication. May it bring you even broader readership and success. As one of the people interviewed over the past year, I know how important it is to have a publication that offers an alternate view and can tell the stories of ordinary people who work and strive for a solid, meaningful life but often feel left out. Thank you for the work you do, and I will look forward to reading more about health care reform in future issues. Together, we can change this broken system.--Donna Smith, American SiCKO and founder, American Patients for Universal Health Care

Socialist Worker online is very good news, for it reflects the great and growing disquiet among a broad range of people. I would say its informed dissent is the true mainstream. All power to it.--John Pilger, veteran activist and journalist, and author of Freedom Next Time and The New Rulers of the World

Whenever my activism requires me to become informed about a particular issue facing our society, the Socialist Worker is always at the top of my list of reliable sources. It covers a wide variety of both national and international news, but more importantly, its journalists and guest writers have the courage to present the stories from a humanistic perspective. When there are crimes and injustices being committed anywhere in the world, it is not the job of reporters to present a neutral version. The Socialist Worker has not only the courage but also the moral clarity to take the side of the oppressed and speak for justice. I hope the relaunch of your web site is successful in helping you reach a wider audience. It is not only in their best interest, but in the best interest of all of us.--Camilo Mejía, board member, Iraq Veterans Against the War

Socialist Worker is a voice for voiceless inmates and a wonderful chance to reach society for those who are oppressed and depressed by the U.S. prison system. Keep up the good job.--Mark Clements, victim of police torture in Chicago and wrongfully incarcerated for 27 years

US Socialist Worker #659 Jan 25th 2008

The latest Socialist Worker from the ISO leads on racism in American politics.
Lee Sustar says: "THE ISSUE of race and racism emerged openly at the heart of U.S. politics in the Democratic presidential campaign in January. But as any serious student of U.S. history knows, racism is always beneath the surface of U.S. politics.
The trigger for the current debate was a comment by Sen. Hillary Clinton that “Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”

The paper's editorial focuses on the anti-war movement: "MoveOn's backward move on the war"
"A COLLECTION of liberal antiwar groups, including MoveOn.org, Win Without War and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, decided at a meeting in mid-January to retreat from their campaign to get Congress to cut war funding and impose a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
In 2008, the groups say, their new emphasis will be to keep the Bush administration from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi central government that would keep U.S. troops there for a decade.
Last year, these organizations spent a jaw-dropping $12 million on a lobbying and advertising campaign to get the newly elected Democratic Congress to vote against more war funding.
That strategy proved to be an utter failure.
The tragedy, of course, is that such a massive sum could have helped fund any number of grassroots activist campaigns and organizations. Instead, it was squandered.
The explanation offered as a justification is as simple as it is misleading. “We got our heads together and decided to go a different way,” said John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, whose group attended the meeting. “The consensus was not to keep beating our heads against the wall trying to block every funding bill--not because we don't agree with it, but because we don't have the votes.”

There's more: basically saying, 'don't trust the Democrats".