Obama Critiques - Henwood

[We have recently published articles several articles on the relationship of progressives to the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign (Fletcher, Hayden and Glover, "Progressives for Obama," http://tinyurl.com/6meuyn; Henwood, "Obamamania," http://tinyurl.com/3m3xem; Hayden and Bennis, "Pressing Obama on the War: An Exchange," http://tinyurl.com/6n7ezs). We look forward to sharing further discussion of the subject, including readers' responses, which we hope will contribute to a productive discussion. The first three of the discussion pieces below are from the moderators' discussion list.

Moderator]

Re: Doug Henwood on Obamamania

Remember the line, "the 90s will make the 60s look like the 50s"? Dennis Hopper said it in the 1989 farce, Flashback, but I remember at least one progressive repeating it half-seriously as the first Bush era came to an end in 1992. That optimism was obviously misplaced, but it strikes me as level-headed in comparison to the prediction, by Progressives for Obama and others, that Obama's candidacy represents a political opening comparable to the election of Roosevelt in 1932 or even Kennedy in 1960.

It is true that social movements pushed those centrist candidates to the left after they were elected, but those movements did not simply appear out of thin air.
Do we really believe that last year's mobilization in Jena, for example, compares in any way to the strikes in Gastonia (1929) and Harlan County (1931) or to the Bonus March, which brought 17,000 veterans to Washington the spring before Roosevelt's election in 1932? The civil rights movement pushed Johnson to deliver the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but not before it attacked segregation in Montgomery (1956) or launched the sit-in movement in Greensboro (1960).

The problem with misplaced optimism at this point is that it leads to disillusionment after November. It is ironic how many people claim to support Obama because he is different from Bill Clinton, but then echo the hope of 1992 -- he's not perfect but we can push him to the left. As Doug Henwood points out, their desire may be strong enough to put Obama in the White House but it is not likely to influence him once he's there. It is comforting to remember 1934 and 1964, but don't forget 1994.

Indeed, even Henwood may be too optimistic about Obama.
Recent polls indicate that McCain can get the upper hand by talking tough on terrorists and housing speculators (big and small). Obama seems to have ducked the smear campaign against Jeremiah Wright, but that is not even the tip of the iceberg coming his way.
In this respect, Hillary Clinton did him a favor by allowing him to test his response with relatively sympathetic opponents in the Democratic Party. I personally think she would do better than him in an open field.

In the long run the left should be less concerned about which centrist Democrat wins the nomination than how it can affect policy despite its unprecedented marginalization. Universal health care seems the most likely focus for such an effort, as public opinion appears to be closer to the left on this issue than to any of the viable candidates. Mobilizing behind the Conyers/Kucinich US National Health Insurance Act (HR
676) will help the Democrats while pushing all three viable candidates to take stronger positions.
Demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq seems less promising, as McCain seems to have convinced many voters that the problem is Bush rather than the war and as the Democratic proposals for gradual withdrawal put them at the center, if not to the left, of public opinion.

As long as the labor movement remains weak and divided it is unlikely that any President will pay attention to Progressive proposals on trade or any other economic policy. Therefore, attacking the Clintons as "power- driven Wall Street Democratic hawks," can only deepen the disillusionment that Progressives for Obama will feel if their man prevails.

Will Jones,
Madison, WI

---

From: Ethan Young
Subject: Henwood response

I can't deny there's a lot of infatuation around--that's campaign fever and it sets in every time. But the Hayden-Ehrenreich-Fletcher statement and some others that are archived at http://johndelloro.blogspot.com/ are more along the lines of political analysis than mere hype, despite Doug Henwood's characterization. The pro-O left includes both the scarred and the starry-eyed.

I am neither hopeful nor fatalist: No question the right will fall on Obama like an old plantation house. They already are [though it hasn't come to any real damage yet]. We will see some wild racist shit this summer. But the outpouring of Democratic registrants and voters is unprecedented, and the GOP's numbers have been shrinking. The war is a big loser for the GOP, and I don't think McCain playing tough guy as he continues to confuse Iran & Iraq, Sunni & Shi'a will rebuild the shattered GOP coalition.

By hitting Bush/McCain hard on the war and the economy, it is indeed possible Obama will beat the racist odds.
What happens in that event depends on whether his base wants single payer, peace and jobs more than giving O the benefit of the doubt for the first 100 days. Tough call, but there it is.

ethan young

---

From: Carl Bloice

Funny how Henwood takes his arguments from the left and the right and how his critique sounds so much like what comes out of Fox and CNN.

'What does Obama have? A lot of slogans that connect with nothing in the real world; in fact, their very emptiness may be the source of their appeal, because it allows people to project whatever they want to onto him.'

That statement is absurd. He evidently didn't read the Cooper Union speech. In it Obama makes it clear he's no radical. He's a down the line liberal believer in market capitalism and believes it can be rescued with regulations. But the speech was hardly short of specifics.

Henwood would better spend his time doing what most left economist aren't: comin up with a program for the left that goes beyond the liberals' - with specifics.

===

From: Mark Solomon

Events move pretty fast in electoral seasons. With that in mind, Doug Henwood's smug rant against Barack Obama and the movement that has grown around his candidacy is egregiously dated. Why Portside would bother to post it is mystifying, to say the least.

Henwood trots out largely discredited and refuted assaults on Obama's record and activity. (A prime example among many: that "Obama campaigned for happy warrior Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont in 2006." Obama appeared at a single Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Connecticut out of an obligation mandated by the Senate's peculiar mentor-mentee system. At the dinner Obama underscored his disagreement with Lieberman over the Iraq war. Henwood fails to note that Ned Lamont, Lieberman's primary opponent in 2006 is now the Connecticut co-chair of Obama's campaign.)

Henwood also echoes the Clinton camp's contemptuous dismissal of the emerging social movement around the Obama candidacy, invariably describing it as "fantasy,"
"Obama disease," and "Obamamania," duped by "slogans that connect with nothing in the real world." Really?
That movement, spearheaded largely by young people and African Americans with significant labor support, has not embraced the campaign's driving theme of "change" in a vacuum. That craving for change reflects anger and disgust over the political and human wreckage created by the Bush presidency and its abettors. It is rooted in unwavering opposition to the disastrous Iraq war, to economic policies that have deepened the chasm between rich and poor and contributed to a major economic crisis, that have ravaged the hopes of millions, especially youth, for peace, economic security, affordable health care, quality education and a society rooted in justice, equality and respect for the Constitution.

That emerging movement does not need cynical put downs.
It needs contributions from the left that will give it greater coherence, permanence and unwavering progressive policies to trump the centrist elements in Obama's program. Obama has repeatedly declared that "change comes from the bottom up and not from the top down," essentially calling for the creation of political space to push his candidacy more firmly in a progressive direction.

Henwood ascribes the overwhelming African American support for Obama's candidacy solely to "racial pride."
How does that dismissive and gratuitous assertion square with the fact that Hillary Clinton led Obama by two-to- one margins among Blacks early in the campaign? Racial pride may have ultimately come into play, but as the Obama campaign and the movement that grew around it crystallized, it is not surprising that the most consistently antiwar, pro-ecomomic and social justice segment of the population would gravitate to that campaign. One need only listen to African Americans who overwhelmingly assert that their support for Obama is largely based upon his opposition to the Iraq war, and upon his job-creating program to rebuild the nation's rotting infrastructure and reverse the mentality that spawned the post-Katrina disaster. Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech obliterated Henwood's claim that "...whites love to hear a black man say that racism has largely receded as a toxic force..." Obama has said the exact opposite. In an act unprecedented for a presidential candidate, he stressed the tenacity of institutional racism and racist ideology, locating African American anger in that present-day reality and in the nation's tortured history of slavery, segregation and persisting discrimination. Obama has stressed the necessity of a conversation about race in order to remove the barriers to multiracial cooperation, acknowledging the racial resentments of white workers that obscure the fact that they are ultimately not all that "privileged" by a system that denies them secure employment, adequate health care, secure home ownership and quality education for their children.

Henwood perversely sees "hope" in an "inevitable disappointment" with an Obama presidency that will end the "crush" on him and pave the way for a radical upsurge. That replay of the old 19th century Russian Narodnik "worse the better" outlook gets it totally backwards. The hope for a strong progressive turn will come from an ever-broadening mass social movement, located in part by the forces rallying around Obama's campaign. Should he gain the presidency, a powerful surge of all progressive forces -- labor, women, peoples of color, youth, gay and environmental activists
-- heartened by new possibilities will be energized to demand a constructive, peaceful foreign policy and a progressive domestic policy to rebuild the country based on the primary interests of the majority working population. Progress does indeed not flower in decay, but in hope.

---

From: DuaneCampbell
Subject: On Pressing Obama

The issues raised in this exchange are too limited. I recognize fully the need for limited objectives. And, as people engage in the Obama campaign we should be clear of what we can ask for. However, Democratic Socialists of America faced the same questions at their November convention in Atlanta. They did not endorse either candidate. Some members, including myself, are working in the Obama effort.

We did pass this resolution which sets forth a policy we should be working toward:

"DSA opposes the Iraq war as a part of our position opposed to imperialism and the hegemonic domination of international relations by a few countries and a few corporations. This domination of the international system by a few countries and a network of powerful corporations costs the people of the U.S. our national treasure, the lives of our people, it restricts and limits our own democracy and our sovereignty, and it causes major economic dislocations including global poverty and global migration.

"In our anti war work we will work in coalitions toward an anti imperialism perspective. "

In the case of Progressives for Obama, we should continue education toward an anti imperialist perspective. The debate over troop levels etc. is too limited.

(1) Progressives & Obama

Folks--

I think there is too much focus on Obama. I think we need to widen this discussion.

First thing we should all do is appreciate what Obama has done: not only has he developed a first class campaign that has been able to withstand some serious attacks--both by the Clinton folks but the right--but he has also brought thousands of new people into the electoral processes, raising millions of dollars in the process. And amazingly, for example, in March, he raised $40 million, but with average donations of around $98 dollars: he's not only bringing new people in, but he's getting them to contribute. We ignore this at our own peril.

I think he's done about as well as can be expected in mainstream electoral politics. He's acted with class, generally not engaged in personal attacks, and has grown as a candidate throughout the process. Yes, he could have better positions on the war and universal health care, and a number of other issues, but he's done very well for his first national campaign. And he's done it in a contest with a very capable opponent--Clinton is no fluke, although saying that, I don't like the personal attacks that have been carried out by herself and her surrogates against Obama.

Unlike many people, however, I think Obama's the stronger candidate against McCain. I think he'll tear McCain a new one: Obama offers hope--to a nation greatly needing such--to McCain's 100 years of war.
And Obama does not have the negatives--on many levels-- as does Clinton.

All that being said, Obama is not a radical. At best, he's a liberal who runs slightly left of center. The good thing about him is that a President Obama will not only set a different tone to US politics than anyone else, but he will be subject to pressures that we on the left can present, as well as probably pick better people to fill governmental vacancies, such as the Supreme Court. These are all to the good. But Barrack Obama will not save any of us--much less all.

I want to return to the fact that he's inspired many people--and especially young people--to get active in electoral politics. To me, that's where progressives should focus. We want him to win because he's inspired people to get involved, and a victory of getting him the Democratic nomination will help reinforce this involvement. Obviously, winning the presidency will do even more for these newly involved folks.

But--and here's the caveat--the $64 million question is what will these newly involved people do??? If they get involved, participate, etc., but go back to sleep after the presidential election in November, then we won't be able to push the envelope wider, much less enter any period of transformative, or even potentially transformative politics. On the other hand, IF the newly involved find ways to stay involved after the election--whether opposing the war, fighting for health care, reproductive rights, alternative energy, whatever--then we've got a chance to do something important.

To me, progressives should support Obama's candidacy-- with no illusions--but do everything we can to hook up with new activists, link them to established organizations and/or help them build new ones, and support them and help them deepen their critique of the social order. To me, this must include helping them understand that we cannot limit ourselves to national solutions, but must take a global perspective, and work to build solidarity with people around the world and in a way that improves things for people around the world, and not for just those of us living in the US.

To do this in a concrete way, this means we must tackle the issue of the US Empire. As I often point out, the US spends more money on our military than do all the other countries in the world COMBINED. The House has passed a budget for next year of approximately $700 billion, and that does not include financing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is money that cannot be used to create jobs, advance education, improve health care, provide mass transit, tackle alternative energy creation, or anything else. So, I think that we must put the argument forward to the American people that we can have Empire, and watch our society further deteriorate and decline, or we can take care of our people and help others. We can do one or the other: we cannot do both. Which side are you on?

Young people will respond to these arguments, but we've got to make them: Obama will not, Clinton will not, and we know about McCain. We are uniquely situated to do this, IF we will recognize this opportunity AND treat people with respect AND get involved in any way we can.

Let's not quibble over whether Obama's the second coming or not: the reality is that he is not. But let's figure out what he brings into the process that we can take advantage of--and then let's do so.

Kim Scipes Chicago

_____________

My name is Saleh, some of you may still remember me from the day of the US Peace Council and living in NYC
in the eighty's and ninety's. I am now in my late
fifty and I am so energized by Barack Obama candidacy like no other time in my life. Now that I am both US citizen and Saudi Arabian, I made sure to vote in the primary in Texas. This is the first time, I truly felt that there is pen and ready citizen to welcome change in the US. They are white and non white that are willing to take a chance, a gamble, mind you not just leftist, Please support Obama this time, he is the the best, his nuances are in the right place, no more wars, He is not a left candedate, but look at the other one we have.

Fawaz, Saleh

______________

Doug Henwood is just trying to disparage Obama supporters by calling it "mania" and "disease." This is the worst kind of slime attack and name calling.
Henwood has his own kind of mania. The myopic mania of people who see things one sided. Ostensibly Henwood wants to warn against the audacity of false hope. But his approach to criticism of Obama and Obama's supporters is self-defeating. Henwood claims to also have criticism of Clinton, but Henwood's mouthing of the Clinton talking points about "change without content" only sounds hollow. Obama has as much content as Clinton does so why does Henwood focus his attack on Obama? The question Henwood should be raising is the comparison of the content, not the disparaging and false attack that Obama doesn't have any content. It is also disingenuous to say the only difference between their Senate voting records is one vote that Henwood
cites as showing Obama favoring Henwood is an
embarrassment to "the left" if this is all he can come up with as a criticism of the Democratic Party's infatuation with Obama and Clinton.

Gregory Wonderwheel
Santa Rosa, CA