[Fwd: [Marxism] Obama: the American Dream]

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Marxism] Obama: the American Dream
Date: 	Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:12:54 -0500
From: 	Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
Reply-To: 	Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
To: 	aorta <aorta at home.nl>



<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/raju211108.html>mrzine<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/raju211108.html>.monthlyreview.org/raju211108.html

Obama: The American Dream
by Suvrat Raju

The American Empire, like other empires in the past, relies on two
myths.  The first is that, internally, the American system is a
meritocracy.  "Hard work and enterprise can overcome a disadvantage
at birth whereas rich good-for-nothings soon lose their wealth."  The
second is that American foreign policy is principled and essentially
just.  "It is sometimes misguided, but never malevolent."

The first story is meant primarily for domestic consumption.  The
second dovetails neatly with a similar story that European
governments tell about themselves and is required to maintain a
vicious transatlantic alliance.  Of course, neither tale stands up to
any serious scrutiny.  Research has repeatedly shown that social
mobility in America is low.1  The claim about Western foreign policy
hardly requires a rebuttal.

Nevertheless, it is hard to overstate the importance of this
narrative.  Americans would probably revolt without the chimerical
hope offered by the American dream.  Western foreign policy would be
untenable without the soothing moral justifications offered by
governments in North America and Europe.

As Herman and Chomsky have pointed out, this narrative is kept in
place with the help of a massive propaganda system.  Yet, this
propaganda can hardly be successful unless the governments involved
maintain at least the appearance of fairness and justice.

 From the viewpoint of the American ruling elite, one of George
Bush's most serious transgressions was to wreck this narrative.  Abu
Ghraib and Guantanamo are discussed repeatedly not because they are
the most serious crimes committed by the US in its war against terror
(they are not) but because it is impossible to reconcile the image of
gloating American soldiers standing over Iraqi captives with the
notion of a benevolent and just empire.  Halliburton's war
profiteering hardly compares to the immense profits made by American
corporations as they looted Eastern European and Asian economies in
the nineties.  However, Clinton's advisers spun out sophisticated
free market rhetoric to justify their actions that Dick Cheney was
unable to match.  The first Gulf War was every bit as criminal as the
second Gulf War.  Yet, Obama held it up as a model of external
intervention because Bush Sr. was able to "garner the clear support
and participation of others."2  The initial amount spent on the
Paulson plan is comparable to the amount the US government spends on
the defense budget year after year -- money that ultimately goes to
subsidize high-tech corporations.  Yet the bailout raised hackles,
because it stripped the system bare of its veneer of fairness.

This is the central reason for elite disenchantment with
Bush.  George Soros, who has consistently argued against Bush on
strategic grounds, articulated this viewpoint succinctly: "An endless
war . . . is doing great damage to our power and prestige . . . it
has tarnished our adherence to universal human rights . . . [and]
diverted attention from . . . finishing the job . . . in Afghanistan."3

Obama's main achievement has been to resurrect this narrative.  As
The Economist, a candid and influential proponent of the capitalist
world order, explained while endorsing Obama: "Merely by becoming
president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America;
it would be far harder . . . to claim that American democracy is a
sham.  America's allies would rally to him . . . he would . . .
lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism."4

The day after the election, the Washington Post was delighted that
"America had produced . . . inspiring and overdue proof that the
American dream was still alive."5  The New York Times shared this
euphoria as it approvingly quoted a British historian: "[Obama]
brings the narrative that everyone [sic] wants to return to . . .
that America is the land of extraordinary opportunity."6

Obama himself has consistently adopted the standpoint of a pragmatic
imperialist.  In 2002, he explained that he opposed the war in Iraq
only because it was "dumb" and "rash"; even though he was speaking at
an anti-war rally, he spent much of his speech justifying the war in
Afghanistan!7  Obama's hawkishness on the Afghanistan war has already
caused damage; the Bush administration's decision to launch
cross-border raids into Pakistan was almost certainly influenced by
Obama's outspoken support for this tactic.  The contours of Obama's
cabinet are not yet clear but the inclusion of establishment hawks
like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel, and Hillary Clinton hardly makes for an
auspicious start.

Despite this, Obama's campaign has already had a debilitating effect
on the anti-imperialist movement.  In 2004, several thousand people
turned up to protest the Democratic National Convention in
Boston.  In 2008, the Democratic campaign claimed so much of the
energy of popular movements that not even a hundred people turned out
to protest the 5th anniversary of the war.  Moreover, Obama's
campaign, for all its reliance on grassroots groups, has hardly
advanced progressive politics.  If it had, one would have expected
genuinely progressive candidates like Nader and McKinney to get a far
larger share of the vote than they did, at least in the so-called safe states.

More seriously, Obama's victory seems to have resulted in an
international propaganda coup.  Across Europe, governments are
already warming up to Obama.  This is ominous for it heralds the
return to strength of an alliance between Western ruling elites that
has consistently opposed independent development anywhere in the
world.  In India even the communist parties, which have consistently
taken an anti-imperialist position, seem sympathetic to
Obama.  Sitaram  Yechury's post-election article8 is almost hopeful
in stark contrast to the CPI(M) position four years ago.9

When Bush visited India there was so much popular outrage that the
government could not arrange for him to address parliament.  As
Arundhati Roy put it, he was forced to address the animals at the
Delhi zoo instead!  However, when Bill Clinton visited India, he did
address the parliament.  I remember watching as Indian
parliamentarians, in a sickening show of servility, fell over
themselves just to touch the great man as he walked down the
aisle.  Obama will probably induce a repeat-performance.

Obama is undoubtedly better than McCain would have been.  His
election should be greeted with relief.  However, his victory should
be understood as a tactical retreat by the American ruling elite and
not as a mandate for progressive change.  Unless progressives all
over the world appreciate this, Obama might genuinely succeed in
reviving the American dream and restoring America's "position in the
world."  That should be prevented at all costs!



References:

1  See, for example, Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg, and Stephen Machin,
"Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America," Center for
Economic Performance, April 2005.

2  Barrack Obama, "Renewing American Leadership," Foreign Affairs,
July/August 2007.

3  George Soros, "A Self-Defeating War," Wall Street Journal, 15 August 2006.

4  "It's Time," The Economist, 1 November 2008.

5  Kevin Sullivan, "U.S. Again Hailed as 'Country of Dreams',"
Washington Post, 6 November 2008.

6  Ethan Bronner, "For Many Abroad, an Ideal Renewed," New York
Times, 5 November 2008.

7  "My Vision for America: Speeches by Barack Obama," Independent, 8
November 2008.

8 "US Electorate Creates History: Extraordinary Change, But Will It
Change Ordinary Lives  for the Better?" People's Democracy, 9 November 2008.

9 "US Elections & India's Stand," People's Democracy, 14 November 2004.
Suvrat Raju can be reached at suvrat dot raju at gmail dot com. URL:
mrzine.monthlyreview.org/raju211108.html


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/aorta%40home.nl

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********