Obama in Cuba
By Jesús Arboleya Cervera
We witnessed a sober and traditionalist act, looking at an image of the U.S. Capitol that appeared more imposing than the real building. We were again impressed by the president’s personality and ability to communicate, as well as by the number of people who attended the event, which was smaller and less enthusiastic than four years ago.
For Cubans, at least for the better informed ones, there was some symbolic value in seeing two men of Cuban origin – a minister and a poet – take part in the ceremony, chosen precisely because they represented diversity and tolerance.
From my point of view, it was a good speech. Beyond the obligatory rhetoric we’re used to seeing in these acts, where the alleged superiority of the American people and the divine values of their political system are exalted deliriously, Obama was bold enough to raise some very serious problems in that society and discuss them with a level of complexity that is uncommon in U.S. politicians.
True, we also heard some monumental lies, such as the claims that a decade of war has ended and economic recovery has begun. Nevertheless, if we discard the chaff, we can find novel elements that explain why Obama – beyond his inconsistencies and weaknesses – represents a new moment in U.S. politics.
As expected, the president called for Americans to unite, but, if we look at his words with care, we find that he did not talk about a unity without shadings, as the press has superficially commented, but one based on Constitutional principles. “While these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing,” he said, thus making a subtly critical review of U.S. history.
Another doctrinaire element that shouldn’t be ignored is the speech’s emphasis on equality We must be equal “not just in the eyes of God but also in our own,” the president said, adding that “every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity.”
It is clear that Obama is far from being a socialist, but saying this in a country that worships individualism and selfishness has some relevance. Even if that statement is seen as a demagogic exercise, it tells us the need to satisfy the requirements of sectors of the population that no longer may be ignored.
Pressing on, Obama said that “our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it,” which corresponds with his policy to raise taxes for the very rich and propitiating an economic stimulus through benefits to the middle class, counter to the theories of the conservatives.
He even tackled the monopolies when he said that “a free market thrives only when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.” The folks of Occupy Wall Street could endorse that statement. Let’s hope the president didn’t simply steal their discourse.
Also in frank opposition with the conservative sectors, Obama mentioned the need to care for the environment and made a commitment to the scientific evaluations that warn about the dangers of climate changes. He also acknowledged the need for improved programs for social aid and public health that may protect the neediest Americans.
He defended racial tolerance toward a diversity he himself represents and took a public stand in favor of the rights of women and homosexuals. He proposed greater opportunities for immigrants, which raises the hopes for an immigration reform, as well as improvements in education and greater physical protection for school children, which evidently is related to an insistence on gun control to at least palliate the epidemic of massacres in schools.
In the field of foreign policy, beyond the imperialist confession implicit in the assertion that the expansion of “American democracy” is good not only for the other nations, as propaganda puts it, but also for U.S. interests, Obama pushes forward concepts that could indicate a different approach to world problems and the role of the United States in them.
In the first place, it couldn’t be involuntary forgetfulness that kept the word “terrorism” out of the speech, or that the “war on terrorism” did not appear as the primary objective of U.S. foreign policy though it has been the basis for it in recent years.
Nor should we ignore that, at the same that Obama venerates “the brave men and women in uniform,” something common in the political rhetoric of that country, he also exalts those who have “won the peace” through negotiation, saying that “enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”
“We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully,” Obama said. We know that’s an unfulfilled promise but the fact that he reaffirmed it does have meaning.
If anyone reads the articles I wrote four years ago, he will find that, contrary to the great expectations generated by Obama’s election in 2008, I was quite skeptical about his real chances to make his proposals materialize. That skepticism remains, because one of the great weaknesses of his first term was precisely his inability to fulfill the promises he made, due to the exigencies of the system.
However, I must confess that, contrary to those who now deny Obama credibility and opine that everything will remain as before, I believe I see encouraging signs of what might be the course of his policies in the coming years, although I don’t expect sensational changes.
If we look at his most recent actions, we see that Obama firmly opposed the Republican positions in the budget debates and confronted the powerful lobby of the National Rifle Association on the subject of gun control. His inauguration speech was not conciliatory and did not hint at giving in on principles, as happened in previous occasions.
Even in the case of Venezuela, where President Hugo Chávez’s illness was seen by the far right as an opportunity (and they have pressed in that sense), the Obama administration acted with restraint and respect.
But beyond conjunctural attitudes, the display of a more decided character or the awakening of a social conscience that nourishes from the suffering of his ancestors and his own, what motivates me to think this way is that Obama’s positions are atune to realities that the U.S. cannot evade.
Neither a domestic situation that’s explosive by its very nature nor the decadent U.S. hegemony can be based solely on the indiscriminate use of force, as heretofore.
Some analysts opine that if the ideas expressed by the president actually become his political agenda a battle royal will erupt in Congress and in U.S. public opinion polarizing that society even more. Maybe that’s true and inevitable.
But if Obama tries to “reboot” the country, as he has said, and leave a legacy that matches the social impact that led to his re-election, he will have to assume that risk with as much valor as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., on whose Bibles he swore loyalty to his nation.
Let’s home that that’s his purpose and that he does so well that the American people some day, in the not-too-distant future, will have an opportunity to see – live on television – a speech by President Raúl Castro.
Progreso Semanal/ Weekly authorizes the total or partial reproduction of the articles by our journalists so long as source and author are identified.HAVANA – In an unprecedented event, all of us in Cuba had the opportunity to see the ceremony inaugurating President Barack Obama’s second term live, on national television.
