The Moderate Man

This a fascinating example of the power of the electronic media to project an image. Obama is seen in terms of a series of media events, beginning with his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that brought him into the national consciousness. Since then, he has triumphed over Hillary Clinton and John McCain not due to the policies he advocates (which are secondary), but because his image is so much more appealing. He really is great on TV, and now clips of him can also be viewed on sites like YouTube. This continues into his presidency. His greatest achievements are rhetorical. He spoke in April about nuclear disarmament as a future goal (he wasn't the first American President to do so, but certainly the one who had the best media coverage); this is the main reason given for his Nobel Prize nomination. He has also talked about a different way of engaging with Israel/Palestine, the Middle East and the Muslim World; again, this has yet to materialize, but then again he's been President less than 9 months. Virtually all the other memorable Obama moments have been moments of media coverage or symoblic acts, such as his decision to offer his first interview as President to an Arab news network. What all this demonstrates is that the Presidency is a role. Obama puts on a mask, that of the President (a figure of enormous respect) and acts accordingly. We think of the role of President as a serious one, yet the fact that he's assumed a mask means he's ready to play. He'll play along with other people who also wear their masks in the context of a "public arena" (which is itself a mental-social construct). Nowadays, people who love the electronic media love a President who is willing to put on that mask and play in front of the media because they feel more connected to him; they get involved when they watch him on TV. Not everyone can do that as well as Obama; Nixon wasn't all that good at it, and Kennedy was better on TV than Nixon (perhaps the major reason why Obama is compared with Kennedy, though not the one that occurs to most people). The Nobel Prize business is fodder for political commentators (who are really entertainers), with the Democrats and Republicans playing their roles as expected behind their masks. I find all that rather tiresome because it's so predictible, but there are many people who really get involved in this and have visceral, gut reactions in favour of or against Obama, making it about him (read: the man they think he is) rather than seeing it as simply a matter of successful media promotion of a man's image and the decision of the Nobel Prize selection committee based upon their own biases. I don't find TV as interesting, so I don't feel as involved with Obama and all the political games (and they are games, playing with emotions and mindsets, though most people see them as more than that). The trouble is that American politics follows such a predictible, repetitive pattern that I find it boring, and probably a lot of the Americans who don't vote also feel the same way. There are better entertainments. Is this irresponsbile? Maybe not. Maybe they're just seeing more clearly than the others that this is all a spectacle and that, if it doesn't interest them, they needn't feel involved.

This is to be expected, as America has long championed the idea of "individual" over government; the nation was founded as a "kneejerk reaction" to such policies. First of all, the concept of the 'individual' is itself a social construct. Calling someone an 'individual' implies that he is a single, essentially autonomous unit that is not integrally linked with everyone else around him. On the contrary, particularly since the advent of capitalism, people are more interconnected and reliant upon one another than ever before due to the changes in the international economic order; it's highly ironic that, in such an era of interconnectedness, so many people complain of loneliness or isolation. Everyone relies upon others and upon communities for basic economic reasons, but for much more besides. Communities fulfil an important psychological need in people, that of belonging, and most of us feel that we need the support of our fellow human beings to get through this often difficult experience that is our life. It really is 'our life' because we live together, not as atomized, isolated entities. I feel that 'individual vs. government' is a false dichotomy. Isn't the United States supposed to have a democratic system? Why, then, should anyone distrust a government if it truly represents their interests? To the extent that the government is democratic, it should represent the wishes of the people; if this doesn't happen, then that's a deficiency in democracy. Why is the American fear of elite concentrations of power confined only to government? Why not corporations, which are themselves bureaucratic, top-down organizations that manage most of the economic life of not only the United States but also the world? Why aren't Americans irate that corporations, impersonal entities (essentially legal fictions), have usurped the rights of individuals in the American legal system? Corporations also enjoy many additional rights and privileges to those of individuals, such as the right (according to NAFTA rules) to demand 'national treatment' in Mexico, while an individual Mexican could not demand 'national treatment' in America (and some Americans are grumbling about those who try to demand it). People say they don't like their lives being managed by the government, but their lives are instead managed by the big corporations. The fact is that the economy is always planned; the question is who does the planning and what form that planning should take. Perhaps once upon a time there was such a thing as a free market (or something close), but now international economic relations are very closely managed by corporations, which often receive government support; and yet there is little outcry from those who call themselves supporters of the free market when the U.S. government pursues policies that allow corporations to eliminate whatever is left of 'free trade'. In practice, 'free trade' and laissez-faire are for the poorer countries where the First World corporations operate, but back at home we use measures of protectionism, corporate welfare, and make laws that benefit corporations both directly and indirectly. Adam Smith was a greater believer in individual liberty. He supported the free market because he believed it would lead to essential equality between people; to him, it was only a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Nowadays, we do not have a free market system; we have a system of government-corporate collusion in the interest of maintaining elite privilege. Has the current system freed us as individuals in any meaningful way? I would say that it has not. Do we have any meaningful degree of control over the factors that influence our lives, which are mostly economic factors? No; such decisions are made by bureaucratic, top-down institutions, whether they be government or corporations. Only when the government itself represents the community (the group of individuals) through a functioning democracy and the shadow of corporate power is removed from the political arena will the individual be free. I didn't say that healthcare was a right in Canada. But I do feel that, if the United States' general trend of economic growth continues in the future, then the benefits of that growth could best be guaranteed to the greatest number of individuals through social spending. One important step would be to make healthcare a right. Of course the government has a role in defence and related spending; I agree with you. But surely the United States is spending far more than is necessary for its own defence? I wouldn't consider the well over 100 military bases the United States operates around the world 'defence'. A better term would be 'power projection' for the purpose of promoting 'U.S. interests' (read: the interests of corporations rather than those of the public) around the world. I think that the United States could drastically scale back its military spending and still have perfect security domestically. Perhaps a primarily defencive military? And what threat does the United States face militarily? Terrorism is only fuelled by these international interventions; and besides, domestic security provisions and co-operation with the international community are much better means to counter terrorism. I think that the well-being of the American people would be much better served by cutting back military spending and global operations, and that this could be achieved without compromising the legitimate interests of business. If Americans really love the free market and believe that U.S. businesses are the best in the world, why do they need a powerful government and a massive military to promote the interests of U.S. corporations (e.g. forcing open markets, destabilizing antagonistic regimes) globally? Why not just compete in the global marketplace with all the other countries? Surely that would be the fairest option.

Somehow, American politics always leaves me thoroughly dissatisfied. Where is the discussion of real issues? A back-and-forth of soundbites between Democratic and Republican spokesmen doesn't count. I mean, where is the political discourse? The two-party system has a lot to do with it, but surely there must be some other factors. Perhaps it's because the United States' political arena has become so desensitized to the pervasive influence of private power that it isn't even a topic of discussion, even after this latest economic crisis and the massive bailout packages. The most anyone could muster was some undirected 'populist' anger, which has so far achieved nil. I'm not aware of any significant movement to create a political alternative capable of challenging the status quo. It would be something if a third party like the Greens could build up its voter base and actually stand a chance of winning national elections. The electoral system has something to do with their failure thus far, but it is probably also due to entrenched attitudes and modes of thought, as well as political apathy and a widespread feeling that one is powerless to change anything in the world of politics. Perhaps middle class America remains complacent because, when all is said and done, even post-economic crisis they enjoy incredibly affluent (not to say decadent) lifestyles compared to most of the world, and so they don't really care all that much about politics (though this is not true for the millions of Americans who make up the working poor; they probably feel more exhausted and helpless than anything). This isn't much of an excuse, though, because Canada (with comparable living standards) has a markedly more pluralistic political landscape. I'm still trying to understand why America is so far off the trajectory of most of the Western, developed world. Incidentally, I do think that the Democrats are marginally better than the Republicans (God help us if McCain had won; it would have been disastrous for America's reputation in the world, among other things). They are somewhat more receptive to movements for social change and progressive legislation, though only when they find it politically useful (not due to anything approaching principles or values). Obama is obviously an improvement over Bush, in too many ways to list, but he's hardly made radical policy shifts (look at Afghanistan and his hesitancy to prosecute those responsible for curbing freedoms and countenancing acts of torture). Let's also not forget that his healthcare reform, branded the 'public option', still falls short of universal single-payer healthcare (which the Democrats believe is not politically feasible because the Republicans would stand on the sidelines shouting 'Socialism!'; oh wait, they already have anyway). At least the Obama administration hasn't resorted to wooing the least informed and playing to various kneejerk responses that linger in the American psyche against government involvement in social policy (apparently, a massive defence budget doesn't count as 'government spending', nor do tax cuts to the wealthy or corporate welfare). Meanwhile, his Afghanistan policy is not particularly more enlightened, and the U.S. is still in Iraq (though a timetable less ambitious than the one he originally promised has been set). Ultimately, Obama and the Democrats are still supporters of American global hegemony and they pose no serious challenge to the status quo because they are an integral part of that status quo. Perhaps one day American politics will mature to the point that there is a greater diversity of opinion (more independent and globally-conscious media would help a lot). Until that time, American politics is bound to be rather depressing.

Well, the entire country is a mess, isn't it? Karzai only controls the capital, and even he is suspect for various reasons, including his previous employment with a US oil company, accusations of corruption and the claim that he has returned to power in the latest election via fraud. Then you've got the Taliban, who are going into guerrilla mode (something they perfected during the Soviet-Afghan War when they were receiving American support and military aid, as well as the assistance of the Pakistani intelligence community). Those Taliban are tenacious, and who knows if they will ever give up the fight; chances are, they won't, and they seem to be gaining strength and support the longer the U.S. remains in the country as more and more Afghans get fed up with the foreign occupation. Then there are the warlords who are supporting Karzai and the U.S. occupation because it is politically useful to them. They don't exactly have sterling records on human rights, democracy or . . . well, any of the things that matter when it comes to the well-being of the Afghan people. Take the Uzbek General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who was recently removed from his position as Chief of Staff in the Afghan Army due to allegations that his fighters broke into the home of one his his rivals, beat him and his family and shot one of their bodyguards (incidentally, he's not being charged due to 'the political situation', which would 'make things difficult'). He was previously known for his readiness to change allegiances (he fought for the Soviet-backed government in the late 1970s and through the 1980s, before switching to the mujahideen when they appeared likely to win) and his ruthlessness towards his enemies, which included tying men to tank treads and crushing them to death, as well as setting men on fire or drowning them; the list probably goes on. This all brings to mind an Afghan saying that 'Uzbek mercy is worse than Pashtun revenge'. The Western media haven't really remarked on his atrocities (not that they have reported much on him at all) because they are par for the course among Afghan warlords. Indeed, Dostum is regarded as a progressive, relatively speaking; he thinks that women should be allowed to go outside without covering their faces, that alcohol should be legal and that foreign films should be available to Afghans (policies he carried out when he controlled northern Afghanistan prior to the Taliban takeover). He is now regarded as the leader of the significant Uzbek community in Afghanistan. As far as I can see, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan has only exacerbated the situation. As I've said, the Taliban seem to gain support when they can point to the U.S. presence; people are inclined to forget the Taliban's own atrocities in power when they seem to be the only force that can challenge the American occupation. One could also question whether the U.S. should have invaded Afghanistan in the first place, as negotiations with the Afghan government were cut off prematurely; had a little more time been given, the Taliban may have agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden and other members of the al-Qaeda leadership accused by the American government of plotting the 9-11 attacks. Indeed, it was known that the only member of the Taliban leadership who had not yet agreed to this was Mullah Omar, but he could probably have been persuaded; all he wanted was to see the evidence of bin Laden's guilt, which apparently was an insult to the United States because he failed to comply with their demands immediately and unquestioningly. I would love to see a credible non-U.S.-backed, non-Taliban political force with a popular base emerge in Afghanistan, as I think that this would be the best chance the Afghan people have for bettering their lives. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, no such force has yet emerged, and who knows when it will (if it does at all). The entire affair is a quagmire for the U.S., which I suppose might as well withdraw ASAP; for the Afghan people, it's just destitution as usual.

I would disagree with your definition of socialism, though I find your comment that all organizations are socialistic interesting. I would instead use the term 'bureaucratic'. In my understanding, true socialism is actually about workers' control, i.e. the extension of democracy and social ownership. Various autocratic governments calling themselves 'socialist' have come into existence, but these could be more properly categorized as bureaucratic statist regimes. In addition, there have been efforts within capitalist countries to direct government money towards helping the poorer segments of society and the population as a whole, such as by providing social benefits or creating tax schemes that favour the poor; this I would define as social democracy rather than socialism. In both these cases, the governments often co-opted or claimed to represent a genuine workers' movement, but in reality they merely consolidated power into the hands of a new elite (i.e. the political leadership) which either came to predominate or continued to have prominence alongside the traditional private power. This does not mean, however, that there is not a genuine socialist movement. When workers forum unions to struggle for better pay and conditions, or when other organizers campaign for social causes, they could be said to embody the spirit of socialism (forgive me for using such an esoteric term; but it flows nicely, don't you think?) My point is that we can distinguish between the grassroots, democratic organizing and the top-down bureaucratic systems that take hold. Usually, the bureaucratic institutions only take measures towards socialism (or, more often, social democracy) due to pressure from popular movements; this makes sense, as if there is no call for change then the political leadership has no incentive to effect it. I do feel that the social benefits provided by the government, while necessarily administered from a bureaucratic system, are important concessions to the public, which have been essential to the formation of a middle class and the generation of unprecedentedly high living standards for the bulk of the population. The opportunities we now enjoy didn't magically materialize thanks to the market; granted, a system that allows for ease of business does generate economic growth, but whether that growth translates into a better life for most people has historically depended upon social policy. This also demonstrates to me how meaningless the word 'socialism' has come to be nowadays. There are so many different definitions of what it means, so how can anyone come to a consensus? As I said, I define socialism in terms of the degree to which ordinary people have control over the factors that impact their daily lives (i.e. democracy, extended to the workplace and the rest of society). Many people, it seems, define it as the level of state intervention in the economy (so they would say that there are aspects of socialism even in the United States). Still others define socialism as a bureaucratic state in which central planners direct the economy from above. In any case, I find it unfortunate that the American people have such a kneejerk reaction when it comes to words like 'socialism', and also tend to be wary of any government programme (especially if it involves higher taxes; America is seemingly taxophobic). Why not curb military intervention abroad and funnel all that wealth into improving the quality of life? America is the richest country in the world, which has had unprecedented resources and opportunities. There is no reason why it should not be able to extend healthcare and other vital services to all of its people.