Obama and us

By Weekly Archive On Jan 28, 2009

As of this moment we finally can refer to the expression U.S. progressives have wanted to be able to write: “former president George W. Bush.” But what are we up against? Will the rightist trend that dominated the United States for four decades be reversed now?

Since Richard Nixon’s victory in 1968 (in the midst of the Viet Nam War and of the greatest popular demonstrations in the history of the country, in favor of civil rights and against the war, what he called “the silent majority”), the U.S. experienced a sharp and prolonged shift to the right that has lasted 40 years, a true conservative revolution. Its highest points were the five presidential terms –20 years of Reagan and the Bushes, that were not radically reversed by the three democratic terms –Carter and Clinton–, but hardly slowed.

There was a deep transformation of U.S. society with that conservative revolution, from the consensus of ethical, ideological and political values to the composition of the courts of law, leaning of the mainstream media and main issues of scientific research, and the privilege of religious schools. With globalization, society took a turn to the right. The essential moment was the Reagan campaign to criminalize abortion.

From the right of women to decide on their bodies and decide about their lives, it became an alleged crime, with conservatives taking on the “defense of life” against those that would be promoting the death of innocent ones. From then on, in almost all contemporary issues, the fulcrum swung to the right. An important moment was headed by Clinton, who formally signed the end of the welfare state.

Both of G.W. Bush’s presidential terms represented the apex of rightist hegemony under the lead of neoconservatives and based on the Bush doctrine of permanent war. It was the restoration of the most sectarian form of Manifest Destiny through which the United States would impose “democracy” all over the world, now at the point of bayonets, plus the promotion of the most reactionary doctrines in the media, schools and churches.

Even if Obama wants to break away from all of that, one or two terms would not be enough, due to the roots that conservative thinking have taken in U.S. society. Consider that with so much in his favor –less than 20 percent backing for Bush, an economic recession, serious problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, the backing of major newspapers and important opinion leaders such as Oprah Winfrey and other Hollywood types, plus a great campaign, Obama received 52 percent of the vote against McCain’s 48 percent.

Let us dwell on what could change for us in Brazil and Latin America. As you can see in Obama’s, and Mrs. Clinton’s own, declarations, many conservative approaches have been crystallized in the U.S. psyche, beyond the Bush administration. If the change Obama promised, which got him elected, would also include foreign policy, he would have to go much farther than the shy measures he is promising.

To dialogue with Latin America and the Caribbean is, above all, to have a relation of reciprocity. With Cuba, for example, he has not mentioned returning the Guantánamo naval base back to Cuba, or the release of the Cuban Five, who combated terrorism in the U.S. and have been given very long prison sentences without the least justification.

The U.S. blockade against Cuba should be unilaterally lifted, for it was a unilateral measure that should be unilaterally terminated, with both countries respecting the political regimes chosen by their respective peoples.

Reciprocity also means no intervention in the internal affairs of our countries, whether it be Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay and all of the rest, as a matter of principle. The continent will not tolerate the attitude of tutors, the one U.S. ambassadors have had in relation to our countries, which we will not stand for. The recent expulsion of the United States ambassador to Bolivia was the result of brazen and repeated interference in Bolivian politics, with the ambassador meeting with and goading the opposition to coup. The scandalous coup attempt against Hugo Chávez, the legally elected and confirmed president by the votes of the Venezuelan people, had the direct support of the United States government.

The tone of aggressive declarations against Venezuela, accused of promoting and funding the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), with no evidence to prove it, does not bode well in the sense of a substantially different attitude. Centuries of relations from the top down, believing the U.S. incarnates freedom in the world and is always right, has created a posture of arrogance.

In the case of Latin America, the U.S. will probably attempt to build an ideal block of alliances that would allow it to divide the present progressive block and attempt to break the isolation in which its allies — Mexico, Colombia, and Peru — find themselves. In order to reach that goal they desperately need to separate Brazil from the Latin American integration block and place it alongside Chile. This is a very difficult task, but one on which depends the success of the United States in the region.

The impression we have is that Obama does not have the slightest idea what Latin America is and even less of what it is today. He repeats the mantras that his advisers feed him in their reports. A trip would be enough for him to realize that things are not as simple as his first meeting with President Calderón of Mexico could have led him to believe.
Bush has left without understanding a thing — isolated and defeated. Regarding this matter, Obama’s heritage weighs heavily on him.
Emir Sader is a Brazilian philosopher and Secretary General of the Latin American Council on Social Science (CLACSO)