Obama: Change or continuity?

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

Obama: Change or continuity? (Part III)

By
Elíades Acosta Matos                                                        Read Spanish Version

The
election of Barack Obama as the United States’ 44th president and his
inauguration on Jan. 20 have placed on the table of public opinion
the topic of symbols and their possible readings. If anyone is fully
aware of the enormous cultural and political weight of symbols, it’s
Obama.

The
figure and discourse of the new president, his charisma, brilliance,
composure, boldness, charm, cold blood and intelligence return, on a
symbolic level, a leadership its country lost due to the clumsiness
and mediocrity of George W. Bush. The alliances have renewed
themselves automatically, and an almost unanimous applause greets him
at all his public appearances. With notable exceptions, among them
one of Fidel Castro’s reflections, titled "Against the current,"
and an article by Ignacio Ramonet that analyzed, with fair concern,
the composition of Obama’s Cabinet, few have stopped to scrutinize
with a critical eye the first measures taken by his administration.

In
the specific case of the Israeli aggression against the Palestine
people of Gaza, Obama defended his silence alleging political reasons
and explained that the country should have only one authoritative
voice. But he forgot two essential principles: one, that it is
legitimate and excusable to raise one’s voice against crime, because
it is a matter of ethical principles, rather than political
principles. Two, that if the voice of the nation had to be the voice
of the departing president, the world would prefer that he would keep
his mouth shut.

This
lack of rigorous and objective analyses of the projections and
decisions of the new U.S. president remind us that few things are as
dangerous in the contemporary world and in world politics than to
write a blank check to the president of the world’s most powerful
nation. This was dramatically demonstrated after the events of Sept.
11, 2001.

On
a symbolic level, Obama’s rhetoric operates with arguments and
concepts taken from some "left lite" close to
social-democracy. Categories such as "social justice" and
"change" were never before wielded with such force by any
U.S. politician of Obama’s level. Independently from the fact that in
his public speeches he has never fully explained where social
injustice emerges from and how it reproduces itself (and consequently
against what economic and political forces we must struggle to fully
uproot it), it remains to be seen how the president of the most
overwhelming capitalist and imperialist nation wants to carry out
such concepts — or can do so.

The
constant repetition of such concepts in his speeches clarifies
nothing but leave a cloud of ambiguities and confusions, especially
among the less-informed and less-militant sectors of the left itself.
We are reminded of the actions of the cultural war, so appreciated by
today’s neoconservatives, who were toppled and are now in flight.

Obama’s
statements that in his presidency and under his leadership the
differences between Democrats and Republicans, between left and
right, will be erased are subtle and very adequate to introduce
elements of confusion from capitalism, because they constitute a
deceitful call to halt the political and ideological struggle for the
sake of a false and impossible reconciliation of things that are
opposed by their nature. This involves, in the first place, social
classes that were counter to each other ever since the genesis of
capital.

To
accept this affirmation without a challenge is the equivalent of
jettisoning all the revolutionary theory and practice of the past 150
years, especially the theory that began with Marx and Engels’
"Communist Manifesto." That document made its debut in the
field of ideas by speaking out loudly and clearly and not being
ashamed to point out the true causes of poverty, exploitation and
social injustice.

Another
symbolic element to bear in mind with regard to Obama is his
biography, cleverly exploited by the hagiographers and political
pundits. It matters little that he lived with his Kenyan father only
until the age of 2 and that he met with him again only once, just
before the father’s death. This element has been trotted out to gain
the support of the most humiliated and offended citizens of his
country and the Third World. On the other hand, the image of the
American white mother with a history of counter-cultural rebellion
and affinity with the left has also been widely used.

It
is unimportant if a man with this background is today part of power
elite or if he was yesterday a student at Columbia University, an
institution in the aristocratic and selective Ivy League. We have
been oversold the idea that, through elections, the discriminated and
progressive groups have finally achieved power in the United States
through this new president. He has carried out, we are told,
something similar to a peaceful and democratic revolution that (oh,
what a coincidence) leaves a feeling in the air that it is a superior
and mature system, because it respects the people’s will and is
capable of rectifying a long history of errors.

This
young man (barely 47) has proclaimed himself the representative of a
different and innovative way of doing politics, even though the
novelty is not only that he sends personalized messages to the cell
phones of millions of Americans. For generational reasons, he is not
related to the major confrontations of the 20th Century, among them
the Cold War and the Vietnam war, so therefore he is seen as much
more capable of understanding post-modern sensitivities and the
challenges and opportunities of our times.

His
ambiguous anecdotes about his moderate consumption of alcohol and
drugs during his student years humanized him in the eyes of the
public, converted him in an example of self-improvement and
publicized the facilities his country provides for people to succeed
and reinsert themselves into society. And his archetypical image —
which reflects and represents almost every social class, race and
profession — is enhanced when he publicly describes himself as an
educated, well-informed man who is not ashamed of being an
intellectual and being familiar with the new technologies, as happens
with the younger generations, because much of his success is due to
the fact that he understands that today’s politics and ideas cannot
succeed without the Internet.

What
I’ve said so far is intended to activate the rational and analytical
thinking of people who face new times, times that are coming with
this new administration and will force a rethinking of many previous
certainties and discourses. The days of the Cold War, when a handful
of creative youngsters working for U.S. government agencies could
transform the perception of reality through cartoons, radio
broadcasts, the spreading of rumors and the distribution of
magazines, today seem like the days of a prehistoric past.

Today,
everything is more complex and at the same time simpler. However, the
certainty remains that the cultural tools are most useful to advance,
promote, impose and defend the interests of a superpower such as the
United States. Tools of ideological and cultural struggle are the
concepts of the "soft and intelligent power" that back the
international projections of Barack Obama’s administration. The
ideological challenges this implies for countries like Cuba and
Venezuela, for example, are enormous.

For
the Cuban Revolution, for its people, its artists and intellectuals,
moments of testing are at hand. The battle of ideas will enter a
brand-new phase. The self-preservation instincts of a system like
capitalism, which is being flogged by a crisis of an unprecedented
magnitude, will impose itself over its imperial dreams, which have
foundered on the streets of Baghdad or the Afghan mountains.
Imperialism knows that if it doesn’t evolve it will disappear. That
is why we are witnessing and well-thought-out rescue operation, not
only in the field of finance but also in the fields of ideas and
symbols.

Barack
Obama’s presidency, aside from its positive or negative results,
shows that the system is willing to transform anything that does not
alter its essence, willing to articulate its habitual hegemonic
methods, so long as they remain untouchable.

But
in the field of ideas and culture, which is where the real extent of
the promised changes will be measured, there is no infallible or
invincible formula. The proposals of soft and smart power are neither
infallible nor invicible, either. An interesting article by Josef
Joffe, published in The New York Times on May 14, 2006, under the
headline "The perils of soft power," is illustrative.

"Soft
power does not necessarily increase the world’s love for America. It
is still power, and it can still make enemies. […] Hundreds of
millions of people around the world wear, listen, eat, drink, watch
and dance American, but they do not identify these accouterments of
their daily lives with America […] These American products shape
images, not sympathies, and there is little, if any, relationship
between artifact and affection." (1)

Certainly,
what will prompt humanity to believe in the United States under the
government of Barack Obama, and to believe in Obama himself, will not
be the rhetoric of a soft and intelligent power, well-packaged though
it may be or pacifying though it may be, compared with the
apocalyptic statements of the previous administration. What will be
essential will be the practical policies that the current
administration will enact; they need to be sufficiently honest,
effective, fair and timely, so they may help remedy the huge ills
that corrode the planet.

If
the United States under the new presidency insists on continuing to
be what it has been until now — an imperialist and hegemonic power
— then the vote of confidence given by the American voters and the
rest of the world to that young, black, brillian and charismatic man
who entered history by wielding the word "change" was
worthless, simply because it changed nothing.

In
the days of Rome, especially for the Gauls, Jews and Germans, Rome
was Rome, no matter who sat on the imperial throne — Caesar, Nero or
Constantine.

The
time has come to find out if the man who holds in his hands the reins
of the world’s most powerful nation symbolizes continuity or change.

Let’s
hope it’s change. April 30 will mark the first 100 days of the new
mandate of the United State’s 44th president.

As
our grandmothers used to say: "Works are love." Let’s hope
that the black lady who lived on the shores of Lake Victoria, or the
white lady in Kansas, taught the same to their grandson, Barack
Hussein Obama.

1.
Josef Joffe: "The perils of soft power", The New York
Times, May 14, 2006.

Elíades
Acosta Matos is a Cuban writer and essayist. He has written numerous
essays and books, among them "Apocalypse according to St.
George," "From Valencia to Baghdad." Hist latest book,
"21st Century imperialism; The cultural wars," will be
launched at the 2009 Havana Book Fair. Acosta was chief of the
Department of Culture of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of Cuba.