It’ll Still be Politics as Usual Under Obama

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

A black president – it happened. Anyone who didn’t feel a twinge of emotion as Barack and his beautiful family came out to greet the crowds in that Chicago park officially has a heart of stone. In many ways it was a profound moment in history: the end to the centuries of white supremacism that has moved from slavery to Jim Crow to the still-existing economic exploitation – progress within what was all along referred to as “civilization.”

There on stage was the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world, the son of a Kenyan farmer and a single white mother from Kansas, beaming from ear to ear. It was as improbable as it was moving. And we should never forget the slaves who revolted against their masters and the civil rights activists who were shot dead in the 1960s; it was their sacrifices that furrowed the rocky path to this epochal moment. It was imagining their incredulity at such progress that really made the loins quiver on that night.

But Obama’s got a lot on his shoulders now. If you hear his supporters talking about his presidency, you might be forgiven for thinking Obama was the messiah, the untouchable Second Coming of Christ, who will cleanse us from the sulphureous scent of Hades, or George W. Bush, as he is more commonly known around the world.

And it’s a nice change for a world that has become accustomed to being ruled by nutcases. When Bush was elected I was 17, so most of my adult life has been lived with the most powerful man in the world as an unadulterated force for violence and pain. Whatever Obama becomes, at least he’s not mad, or stupid.

But I’m not holding out much hope about the next four years. Not because of Obama. I think he is probably an upright, nice guy. Certainly his writing seems to be sensitive and thoughtful. But what people don’t seem to understand as they undertake the flights of hope-infused rhetoric is that the president, while powerful, is often merely a vector in a vast tapestry of powerful forces that govern government policy. No matter how good, nice or genial he is, he is being pushed by decidedly malicious influences from all sides.

Most crucially, state power is nearly indistinguishable from big-business interest, limiting what a democratically elected leader can do. Essentially they are beholden to what Noam Chomsky has called “private tyrannies”: corporations and big money. They are private tyrannies because they have no democratic input and are driven by one sole motivation: profit.

This was revealed in stark terms with the financial bailout of the world’s biggest investment banks, where money was redistributed upward with no stipulations that the capital be used for loans, resulting in vast amounts going to shareholders, not the attested “stimulus.”

But while this was a particularly egregious case that has admittedly elected anger across the political spectrum, the same thing happens all the time behind closed doors. It’s how state capitalism works. There is a revolving door between big business and government in policy-formation and personnel. Dick Cheney went from the board of Halliburton to the executive branch of government like an oily fish, and will probably go back the other way. And look who benefited in Iraq.

Every superpower through history has sought to dominate lesser powers and make them pliant to their own economic interests. This has happened whether the superpower has been communist, socialist, capitalist, Nazi, whatever. The common denominator to all superpowers is that they have extraordinary amounts of power, and power by its nature will try to dominate. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides expressed this timeless maxim most baldly in his History of the Peloponnesian War. “Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power,” said the Athenians to the Melians. “While the strong do what they can, the weak must suffer what they will.”

That fundamental dynamic has not altered since his time and probably never will. So essentially in the two-party system the individual leader is irrelevant to the real big picture. Be it Barack Obama, or Tony Blair or George W. Bush, the empire and power structure will continue to run unimpeded, with only variations in style. Political scientist Robert A. Dahl famously called this system polyarchy: a competitive elite ruling the rest of us.

That doesn’t mean that Barack Obama has tweaked his opinions to get into office, it means he couldn’t have gotten there if he believed anything different. As Comment Factory writer Laurence Witherington pointed out, it’s hypocritical of people to say that Obama is going against his principles; in fact, Obama has been consistent in his support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the war in Lebanon in 2006.

And there’s more too. If we can stretch our memories, we should remember that Obama suggested he would bomb the sovereign nation of Pakistan during his primary campaign, he has said he is against Iran enriching uranium even for energy purposes even though Israel is not part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and he has proposed a surge in Afghanistan. He has also most egregiously gone in front of the vile outfit AIPAC and said Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, a position even hardened Likudniks like Ariel Sharon would gasp at.

Real change this election season didn’t begin and end with Obama. The Green Party had the first all-people-of-color ticket in history, as well as the first all-female ticket too. But how many people have heard of presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney or vice presidential candidate Rosa Clemente? They were given a complete media blackout because they posed a real threat to the corporatocracy that runs American politics. The change they proposed wasn’t a cosmetic retouching of an imperial system, but the overhaul of a democratic system, which is saturated in private dollars that aren’t given altruistically by lobbyists, but are seen as an investment, like treating the federal government as a hedge fund.

Ralph Nader was another who provided a real alternative, but was ignored. Without the corporate backing he received one percent of the vote.

Maligned by both the “left” and “right” in the U.S. mainstream, he is one of the most principled individuals in politics. Here is his verdict on Obama: “Well, obviously we all congratulate Barack Obama. We wish him well.”

But the precursor to his election has not been very encouraging, and he has repeatedly taken up the positions of the corporate supremacists, not just his latest vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, but a whole string of votes and policy positions. He opposes single-payer health insurance. Well, the HMOs and the insurance companies do, too. He wants a bigger military budget. So does the military-industrial complex. His idea of a living wage on his Web site is $9.50 an hour by 2011. That would make it less than it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation.

He matched McCain in the third debate — belligerency for belligerency — toward Russia, toward Iran, more soldiers in Afghanistan, supporting the Israeli military repression and occupation and blockade of Gaza and the West Bank. And virtually nothing about 100 million poor people in this country. That’s why I really fault him; that he played the Clinton linguistic game by talking constantly about the middle class and not mentioning the word “poor.”

And we expect more of him. And I don’t think he has a public philosophy of where corporations must operate in this country. How? Under what rule of law? Under what regulation? Under what vulnerability to litigation in the courts? He’s proud of tort reform, supports the nuclear industry, supports the coal industry. So we’re really talking about just more of the same, in terms of the corporate domination of Washington.

I detected no concern, no quaking of concern, among the drug industry, oil, gas industry, nuclear, coal industry, Wall Street, over his probable election in the last few weeks. Usually, when they’re really worried about a politician, they will issue warnings. But Barack Obama has raised far more money than John McCain from Wall Street interests, corporate interests and, above all, corporate lawyers. And the question to be asked is, why are they investing so much in Barack Obama? Because they believe he’s their man. So, prepare to be disappointed, but keep your hope up.

Until people like Nader, and Bob Barr on the other side, are able to stretch the narrow political spectrum in the U.S., and likewise around the world, we will never be able to hope for change and not in the back of our minds think that in fact nothing ever changes.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.