July 4, 2008
Thinking about Change
Change is the keynote of this election year. The vast majority of Americans want it after two terms of George W. Bush. Most of the world, too, wishes eagerly for a changed America.
This sweeping embrace of "change" is not a Barack Obama phenomenon, although he has called it forth as no other living political figure has. His election to the presidency would be a powerful mandate for turning the page on a ruinous course that extends hardship for millions of Americans and puts the US in confrontation with the world as a flailing warrior superpower.
But what change can we hope for or believe in? That's much more than a matter of what any candidate may say or intend.
Change is not mainly something we can choose or reject by ballot. We are already in a period of great, even monumental change. The real choice is how our politics will change to react to a changed and changing reality. There is a huge disconnect between prevailing governmental and establishment politics and the real world of changes in culture, economics and the natural environment.
Reality already departs drastically from how things seemed to be at the start of this new century. Evidence of global warming has overwhelmed any reasonable doubt and complacency about our endangered environment. Illusions about globalization, "free" markets, and immunity to economic crisis are collapsing in a world food crisis, rising poverty and severe shocks in the US economy.
Establishment politics has lagged behind profound cultural change. For decades the political trajectory of government, particularly during the Bush years, has generally been in a right-wing reactionary direction, but the realities of life (and struggle) have favored important advances in popular support for civil rights and diversity, against discrimination and exclusion on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. The history-making Obama and Clinton primary candidacies became possible despite deeply rooted problems of racism and sexism in our society.
Perhaps the biggest departure from prevailing expectations at the beginning of the century has been the change in America's status astride the post-cold war world. A new "American Century" was proclaimed by the neoconservatives associated with the Bush-Cheney Administration. It was preordained by our standing as the world's only superpower, overwhelmingly superior militarily and economically to all other nations separately or combined. After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Administration moved rapidly from retaliation against Al Qaeda and the Taliban to its grander design to be advanced by war and occupation of Iraq. Military "shock and awe" would quickly dispatch the universally hated regime of Saddam Hussein, establishing American power in the Middle East and a controlling interest in Iraq's oil. "Mission accomplished" would be a message to the world of US resolve, of Washington's unilateral and unchallengeable dominance unrestrained by the United Nations or international protest.
Of course Iraq has proved the very opposite of what the neocons intended: the limitations of military power and empire in this new century. In less than a decade, the "American Century" as conceived by Bush and the neocons is expiring.
Beyond the Iraq fiasco, the bubble of unchallenged supremacy as the world's only superpower is being pierced by the rapid development of major economic powers in other parts of the world, most notably in Asia. It has been a disaster, and will be even more so, to view the world as subservient to and manageable by US superpower. That failed outlook has to give way to recognition of inevitable competition and expanding participation in shaping human destiny. Authority is not exclusive to any present or future world power; leadership will demand active championing of the sheer necessity for cooperation to cope with universal issues and crises.
Our next presidential administration will not be able to escape the reality of ongoing change within the USA and in our place in the world. McCain and the GOP would resist and delay changing course from Bush's reactionary domestic policies and aggressive military pursuits abroad— and that would be a tragedy. But there's no way to salvage the Bush-Cheney vision of world control or the Karl Rove strategy for autocracy under permanent GOP rule.
What would be the prospects for affecting change if Obama wins and the GOP suffers a big defeat in the Senate and House? What are the possibilities? What do they depend upon? What may limit expectations for change?
The opportunities arising from a decisive election victory would be major, but delivering on them is far from a given despite Obama's remarkable successes in inspiring the hopes of millions. Obama clearly is a strong leader, but what he says and does is always conditioned by how he assesses the political waters. It is a valuable quality in a leader to have a good sense of what the traffic will bear, to know what it takes to win. But there is a real downside as well to riding the winds of political calculation. That can increase vulnerability to pressure from major interests that wield power in the corporate world and its largely controlled media. It can also reinforce an assumed common denominator of public attitudes that makes it inexpedient to challenge prevailing prejudices and orthodoxies. And it can backfire in lost credibility as a "flip flopper", a label that hurt John Kerry badly in 2004.
Given the vitriol aimed at Obama as the first person of color who may become President, it is no surprise that he feels he must pull out the stops to prove his "trustworthiness" on patriotism, religious faith, national security and all the rest of the media's hallmarks of conformity. It is disappointing but not surprising to see him slide backward on the campaign trail on forthright opposition to key elements of Bush's investment in war and aggression in the Middle East and drastic curtailment of domestic civil liberties. It's good to see that the extraordinary grassroots movement that propelled him to the nomination is the source of sharp criticism of his retreat on Bush's wire tapping dragnet: the participatory website that drives Obama's campaign now also fuels the popular demand that he honor his promise to oppose immunity for the telecom corporations. This may be a rehearsal for the interactive mass pressure that surely must be projected into the battle to realize progressive change after the election is over.
Important as Obama is and may prove to be, the answer to what the future may bring is not programmed in his personality and agenda. Rather than engaging in speculation to discover the "real" Obama, it may be worth considering what change of course might be possible. A clear election mandate for changing direction would first of all set a new tone and begin the process of shifting national priorities. That's not just an abstraction, because nothing is more important than making the real needs of people and the developing crises of human survival the center of attention nationally and internationally— as opposed to priorities dictated by fear mongering, imperial greed and a delusionary quest to impose "solutions" by military and interventionist means.
As for advances on particular issues, many doors that Bush and the GOP congressional bloc slammed shut would now be open. But if an unprecedented groundswell of organized popular support was what the Obama campaign needed to win in the primaries and still needs to beat McCain, then organized popular pressure is the formula for getting through the door on any significant issue. No one can really expect that vacillation in a new Democratic administration and pressure from a wounded Right will fade away on January 20, 2009. That goes for ending the war in Iraq, universal health care, economic and energy relief, immigrant rights, securing the Supreme Court from reactionary control, and any other issue that produced such a cavalcade of interest and involvement in the Democratic primaries.
The Bush Administration, ignoring its "lame duck" status, has done everything possible to lock the next administration into its failures. It uses its "war on terror" to dominate every aspect of foreign and domestic policy. With the help of too many cooperating and cowed Democratic leaders, Bush's latest war budgets and "national security" legislation aim at a fait accompli of continued war and occupation as well as dismemberment of essential constitutional liberties. One can hope that a President Obama will not be trapped into adapting to any part of the Bush legacy. One can hope that he will evolve into the transformational leader the times call for. But that depends on how strongly the times press him forward, how strongly the tides of change rise from the bottom up.
To put the problem of change in a broader global context: history has reached a stage of unmistakable peril to the future of humanity; consciousness of that ultimate challenge is too limited and collective human effort is obstructed by competing drives of capitalist society. Endeavors in various countries to change society in fundamental ways are thwarted and often distorted by the realities of the global marketplace and dominant imperial power. Although the dream of "American Century" has turned quickly into a nightmare, the facts of American empire remain. The vast military and corporate holdings all over the world inevitably present conflicts of interest not only with particular nations but also within the United Nations, starkly evident during the Bush years. Empire will continue to be a serious drag on aspirations for change and on a new type of shared leadership in the world community.
Whatever the future may hold in the way of fundamental social change, something of great urgency has to happen today and tomorrow: people everywhere have to force a change in the agenda, in the priorities that move public policy. There is more than enough experience past and present, more than enough political sentiment and people power, to end the dominance of war and militarism over our own Congressional agenda, and to force primary attention to economic and environmental crises.
In contemplations of the future, the usual question is: optimist or pessimist? The answer may depend on one's view of the possibilities. No one can now foretell how, and even whether, humanity will make it to survival in reasonably good times for all. But one can have the optimism and the will to climb the mountain before us. We have to believe passionately that priorities of realism and hope can replace selfishness and fear. If in the next several years, the main business on the agenda becomes vital human needs— dealing with poverty, disease, global warming— a huge change will be underway.
That can happen.
March 17, 2008
How Lucky to be Black?
Now that Rush Limbaugh and the GOP have picked up the race cudgel, what began as a drip of pollution in South Carolina threatens to become a major sewage spill befouling Election 2008.
The revelation of this historic campaign is that most Americans seem ready to elevate either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to the presidency. That's remarkable progress toward overcoming age-old patterns of discrimination and exclusion. But prejudices and false notions about race and gender run very deep. Events of the past week and the level of media dialog on race are particular cause for alarm. The problem is not only, or even primarily, the ultra-right radio talk jockeys who gleefully stir the pot. Layers of misunderstanding, and unwitting insensitivity to the reality of racial experience and perceptions, could still undermine general good will and good sense.
This week, Barack Obama has been targeted on the "race" issue from two directions. One is the claim that he's lucky to be black, otherwise he wouldn't be where he is. The other is the rising clamor that he denounce militant black religious leaders. It's no surprise that these lines of attack find acceptance by some in the media and general public, even as they cause dismay among others and overwhelming resentment among black Americans.
Geraldine Ferrara can't understand the resentment. (In fact, she dismissed Jesse Jackson with the very same remark in 1984.) Whether you support Obama's candidacy or not, what he has overcome and achieved is astonishing by any standard, all the more so in the context of the realities that confront black youth. It is indeed absurd to ignore his exceptional attributes and accomplishments and pass him off as "lucky" to be black. It's not really surprising that such put-downs are taken as prejudiced and insulting not only to Obama, but to every young person inspired by his example.
More dangerous is the flooding of YouTube and TV news shows with clips from sermons by the pastor of Obama's church. It's not enough for Obama to speak for himself, to disagree emphatically with statements of Rev. Wright. He must damn or be damned through "guilt by association". This is not a new story, not a new way to evoke suspicion and hostility against a public figure who is black or brown or "other". Martin Luther King's views were different than those of Malcolm X or youthful militants in the Southern Negro Youth Congress, but he would not be goaded into denouncing them. He would not deny that they voiced the real and understandable outrage shared by millions coping with racism and inequality.
The remarks of black guest commentators on last Sunday morning's news shows may have come as a surprise to many viewers. Donna Brazile and Michele Norris pointed out that views and emotions like those highlighted by Rev. Wright are commonly expressed in many predominantly black congregations all over the country. We also learn that Rev. Wright is highly respected in major religious and human-rights communities. Rather than shock, that bit of news should give pause to the complacent among us who feel that racial injustice and the anger it rouses are done and gone, history to be forgiven and forgotten. The community that feels poverty, unequal justice, joblessness and incarceration of so many of its young does not accept with passivity the status quo or the legacy of a bitter past. This is as true for beleaguered immigrant communities across America, who resent punitive treatment, the shameful splitting of families, the denial of opportunity and essentials of a decent life.
So when Obama is "cornered" by aggressive reporters and political rivals to go further and further to prove he "denounces" and "rejects" the views of militant black clergy, he is really being pushed to alienate a large part of his community. The not-so-hidden message is that a black man (even if he's white and black in equal parts) can't be trusted in the White House.
How Obama deals with this is an ongoing story. How America will deal with it is the more important story. It's not a matter of whether or not to vote for him, to endorse or to criticize his political positions. It's up to us, especially those who are "white", to counter blackmail on matters of race in the election of the next president. There should be no exceptional burden on a candidate to prove his trustworthiness because he's black. The self-righteous accusers who deliberately use race, subtly or overtly, to poison the electoral atmosphere are the ones who belong in the dock.
Have we come far enough not to fall victim to confusion and smug double standards on "race"? That may turn out to be the most difficult challenge for an electorate anxious to turn the page on the bad Bush years.
January 10, 2008
To family and friends:
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
This greeting is written on the last day of 2007. At 87 and 86, we've taken to blaming our tardiness and all our other deficiencies on old age. We do apologize, though, as we wish your holidays were happy.
We're actually in pretty good shape, still managing to take care of ourselves and keep on enjoying music, books, netflix, and time with family and friends. We've bought tickets for all eight of the Met HD opera transmissions in a local movie theater. Roz is quite disabled and needs a walker and/or a wheelchair to get around. Otherwise, neither of us has any threatening conditions that we're aware of. Leon still takes long walks with friends and is able to keep us eating well and the house in comfortable order. But he does get tired, so we're thinking of finally getting some help to come in a few days a week. Roz's walks are real short, but she doesn't miss many days. Her most recent favorite book is "Jump", short stories by Nadine Gordimer.
As you've noticed, Leon doesn't write much any more. There was a time when he was burning to say things that weren't being said widely. Now so much is said and written that more words don't seem to be what matters. We haven't lost any enthusiasm for seeing the Bush-Cheney-GOP cabal smashed in 2008— nothing is more important. We're worried that McCain will emerge as the GOP candidate after all, and there's no guarantee that the pro-war demagogues and neofascists won't thwart the popular will for "changing course" either by an actual upset or a close to 50-50 split. Let's hope Democrats can be kept from blowing the chance for an anti-GOP landslide that would create a new climate and political conditions needed for any real progress. Beyond that, there are many good reasons to hope and strive for the fundamental changes in national and world priorities that have to come, even if we oldsters no longer expect them in our time.
We'll be glad to update you upon request on the doings of our family's younger generation(s). Let's just say they're our pride and joy.
Love,
Roz and Leon