By Malcolm Shore
Among progressives, there are basically
two categories of Barack Obama supporters.
The first consists of those who-for a
variety of reasons, and coming from a variety of perspectives-deeply
believe in his message of “change” and “progress.”
This belief is most commonly based on a feeling that Obama’s candidacy
signifies tremendous strides in the battle to end racism, and that the
prospect of his presidency represents light at the end of the seemingly
interminable tunnel of the George W. Bush years.
The second major category of Obama supporters
consists of those who are skeptical that the candidate’s vague rhetoric
of “change” obscures the realities of his agenda, and who
feel uneasy at best with the elements of Obama’s platform about which
he has been more specific. These supporters throw their weight behind
Obama, in spite of their reservations, for one basic reason: He is
not John McCain.
There is likely considerable overlap
and gray area between these two positions. And certainly, these two
camps generally share admirable qualities in common. They are both motivated
by a genuine hatred of the Bush program of war, torture, and repression;
by a desire to bring that program to an end; and by the hope of a far
better planet. However, these two groups of Obama supporters have
something else in common: They are both being asked to entrust their
own longing for a genuinely better world-and their ability and energy
to work for such a world- to a person whose vision of the future is
perhaps slightly less ominous than that of John McCain.
Since when is “better than McCain”
a valid yardstick to evaluate whether someone offers a solution to the
problems facing the world? We can and must dream higher, and act bigger
than that .The people of this country, and of the world, desperately
need and deserve better.
To understand why this is so, there is
no better place to start than Obama’s June 4 speech before the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
The Background for Obama’s AIPAC
Speech
A bit of context for this speech is in
order. Obama’s address to AIPAC was significant for several reasons.
First, he had officially won the race with Hilary Clinton only one day
earlier, so this was pretty much the first major address Obama gave
after emerging definitively as the Democratic nominee for president.
Secondly, the AIPAC address came on the heels of a speech Bush gave
marking the 60th anniversary of Israel, in which Bush had attacked those
who “seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals,
as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong
all along.” This comment, together with Bush’s labeling of
this position as the “false comfort of appeasement” was almost-universally
interpreted as a condemnation of Obama’s position that the U.S. should
be willing to negotiate with Iran. Third, and most importantly,
his speech came at a time of intensely- escalating threats by both the
United States and Israel against Iran. To cite just one example,
Israel reportedly carried out a “rehearsal” for an attack on Iran
during the same week as Obama’s speech to AIPAC.
In his speeches and writings, Obama has
sometimes tried to distinguish his stance on Iran from that of Bush
and Hilary Clinton. For instance, the first item that pulls up
when you click on the “foreign policy” section of Obama’s
Web site (barackobama.com) is an excerpt from a speech he gave in Iowa
last November. The excerpt begins, “When I am this party’s
nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war
in Iraq; or that I gave Bush-Cheney the benefit of the doubt on Iran;
or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders we
don’t like.” Obama has said he would be willing to
meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And Obama
was critical of Hilary Clinton’s infamous comment in early May that
the U.S. could “obliterate” Iran if Iran attacked Israel.
For these reasons, many of Obama’s supporters-those
enthusiastic and otherwise- conclude that electing him will prevent,
or at least greatly lessen the prospect of, a U.S. attack on Iran.
It is against this political backdrop
that Obama delivered his speech to AIPAC, providing in the process a
very strong sense of where he actually stands on this issue. In
order to let Obama’s words speak for themselves, here are some particularly
choice quotes:
* “I have been proud to be part
of a proud bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face
of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share.
Because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party.”
* “There’s no greater threat to
Israel -or to the peace and stability of the region– than Iran.”
(empahsis added)
*”I will do everything in my power
to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power
to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything.”
(the crowd responded with sustained applause)
* “Let there be no doubt: I will
always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend
our security and our ally Israel. Don’t be confused.” [emphasis
added]
* “Sometimes, there are no alternatives
to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we
must use military force, we are more likely to succeed-and will have
far greater support at home and abroad -if we have exhausted
our diplomatic efforts. That is the change we need in our foreign
policy. Change that restores American power and influence.” [emphasis
added]
Is Obama Just Pandering?
Now, you the reader might respond here:
“Well, of course he’s going to talk that way, since he’s speaking
before AIPAC.”
A few thoughts on that. First, in making
this argument, you’re basically saying that presidential candidates
need to lie in order to get elected. One should be suspicious right
off the bat of any system of “change” in which dishonesty
is a necessity.
Secondly, it speaks volumes that -at
a time of escalating U.S. and Israeli threats against Iran- Obama chose
to address AIPAC to reassure them of U.S. commitment to Israel; rather
than addressing the Iranian people or anti-war groups and promising
not to attack Iran.
Third, it’s not as if Obama’s speech
to AIPAC were out of step with the foreign policy stance he has repeatedly
articulated. For instance, in an April 24, 2007 speech to the
Chicago Council for Global Affairs, Obama said, “The world must
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate North
Korea’s weapons program”. In pursuit of that goal, we must never
take the military option off the table.” [emphasis added]
http://www.realclearpolitics
l
As was the case with his recent AIPAC
speech, Obama did advocate diplomacy as a first resort, adding, “Our
first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive
diplomacy.” But hearing the “candidate of change”
baldly declare that he would consider launching yet another illegal,
preemptive war should send shivers up the spine of anyone concerned
who wants to bring the Bush program to a halt. And lest anyone
think Obama’s diplomacy-first position is cause for relief, consider
that George W. Bush has repeatedly-and as recently as June 11-articulated
the same stance.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap
In fact, one can look to that same April
2007 speech to get a fuller sense of the relationship Obama sees between
diplomacy and military force: “No President should ever hesitate to
use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our
vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened,” Obama
said. “But when we use force in situations other than self-defense,
we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation
of others – the kind of burden-sharing and support President George
H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.”
[emphasis added]
And perhaps most damning is what Obama
did in the midst of Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon-which killed thousands
of Lebanese civilians, including hundreds of children, and displaced
millions: Obama co-sponsored a resolution supporting Israel’s actions,
which he is eager to brag about on his Web site.
http://www.barackobama.com
This is the guy who’s going to
save us from war with Iran?
If you want to argue that all of these
actions and comments do not reflect Obama’s real sentiments-that he
has no choice but to express these viewpoints because any candidate
who wants to be president has to articulate unqualified support for
Israel-then I urge you to follow through on the implication of this
idea: If hawkishly supporting Israel and threatening Iran is a
requirement for any candidate who even hopes to be elected” then remind
me how the elections are going to prevent war with Iran?
And if you are of the opinion that Obama
is just “talking tough” to get elected, so that he can pursue
his “actual” agenda of peace once his term begins, consider
these hypothetical scenarios: Let’s say Obama is in the Oval Office,
and Israel launches war against Iran. Or let’s say Israel has already
launched an attack on Iran when Obama is sworn in. In either of these
instances, do you really believe that Obama is suddenly going to go
against a decades-long “bipartisan consensus” and refuse to
get on board in support of Israel’s actions? That he will condemn
Israel’s actions, or even allow the U.S. to stand on the sidelines?
Finally, let’s return to the comments
cited earlier in this article; the ones that sound more promising and
lead people to think that Obama opposes war with Iran. In the speech
referenced on his Web site, he says that nobody will be able to accuse
him of giving Bush and Cheney the benefit of the doubt on Iran.
He did not say, “If I am the Democratic nominee, no one
will be able to say that I advocated attacking, or threatened to attack
Iran.” More to the point, he did not say-and has never
said-that if elected, he will not attack Iran.
Are we to take comfort in knowing that
if Obama does attack Iran, it won’t be because Bush and Cheney said
so?
Here, meanwhile, was Obama’s response
to Clinton’s “obliterate” comment: “Well, it’s not the language
that we need right now, and I think its language that’s reflective of
George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling
and tough talk, and, in the meantime, we make a series of strategic
decisions that actually strengthen Iran. So — and, you know, the irony
is, of course, Senator Clinton, during the course of this campaign,
has at times said, ‘We shouldn’t speculate about Iran.’ You know, ‘We’ve
got to be cautious when we’re running for president.’ She scolded me
on a couple of occasions about this issue, and yet, a few days before
an election, she’s willing to use that language.”
Clearly, Obama’s objection was to the
language Clinton used, not to the idea of attacking or even “obliterating”
Iran. In that one short excerpt, he used the word “language”
three times. But can you find in that statement anything that
would indicate opposition to actually attacking
Iran?
Again, should we breathe easier knowing
that if Obama does attack Iran, he will choose his words more carefully
as he “sells” the war?
Obama and Pat Buchanan: On
Iraq They Can Agree
While the most obvious significance of
Obama’s AIPAC speech is that it illuminated his position on Israel and
Iran, there was another reason this address was important: because it
revealed the true nature of his objections to the war in Iraq.
Throughout his campaign, Obama has pointed
to the fact that he opposed the Iraq War before it started-something
his main democratic rival, Hilary Clinton, could not claim-as evidence
that he truly is a departure from the political norm; not only from
the policies of the Bush Regime, but from other current and past
Democratic candidates. Implicitly, Obama has said to
the anti-war movement: “Look, I know you”ve been stabbed in the
back by Democrats before, but you can trust me because I”ve been on
your side the whole time.”
Bullshit.
Two people, or groups of people, can
arrive at the same viewpoint for entirely different reasons, and with
completely opposing motives. Just because the vast majority of us in
the anti-war movement opposed the Iraq War from the start, and Barack
Obama opposed the Iraq War from the start, doesn’t mean our interests
and his interests are parallel. If you want to get a clear sense of
somebody’s position on an issue and where that position leads, you
can’t just look at what they believe; you have to look at why
they believe it.
Yes, Barack Obama did express opposition
to the Iraq war way back in 2002. But so did the ultra-conservative,
racist, and xenophobic Pat Buchanan. Why? Because Buchanan
felt the war was detrimental to America’s global interests.
“Not in our lifetimes has America been
so isolated from old friends,” Buchanan wrote in 2003. “Far worse,
President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons
that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of
peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.”
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24
Does Pat Buchanan’s opposition to the
Iraq War-and even to the neocons waging that war- make him an advocate
for the people of the world? Were he running for president in
2008, would people place their faith in him
to reverse the nightmare of the Bush Regime?
Obviously neither Barack Obama and Pat
Buchanan, nor their agendas, are identical to one another. However,
Obama’s opposition to the Iraq War comes from the same basic source
as Pat Buchanan’s: He believed, and still believes, the war
undermined U.S. security and interests. And his speech
before AIPAC made this point crystal clear.
Again, it’s best to just let Obama’s
words speak for themselves:
- “I respect Senator McCain
and I look forward to a substantive debate with him these next 5 months.
But on this point, we have differed and we will differ: Senator McCain
refuses to acknowledge the failure of the policy he would continue.
He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy. But he offers
only an alternative reality, one where the war in Iraq has somehow put
Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite: Iran has strengthened
its position. I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United
States and Israel less secure.” - “Iran posed a grave threat
to Israel. And instead of pursuing a strategy to address that threat,
we ignored it. And instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed
the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle
East. That is precisely what has happened. The hard-liners tightened
their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. The
United States and Israel are less secure.” - “Keeping all of our troops
tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran, it is
precisely the way to strengthen it.”
People of conscience object to the Iraq
War because it is a crime committed in the service of U.S. imperialism.
Barack Obama objects to it because he views it as an obstacle
to U.S. imperialism. The difference between those two objections is
night and day: If one believes that the principal problem with the
Iraq War is that it undermines U.S. power in the Middle East, then it
only follows logically that he or she will willingly unleash the most
brutal of wars if it were perceived as advancing U.S. power. Hence
Obama’s eagerness to “keep the military option on the table” with
Iran.
Imagination versus Illusion
Some people react negatively to the argument
that-while there are differences between Obama and McCain-an Obama
presidency would nonetheless represent a continuation of the politics
of empire, repression, and war. For instance, during a recent
conversation about the elections, a middle-aged activist decried the
“rhetoric of hopelessness” he felt was embodied in the position
I was putting forth.
But the point of everything I have written
here, and of similar sentiments voiced in World Can’t Wait writings
and speeches, is not to dash people’s hopes. In fact, the intent
is the exact opposite: to inspire people to place their hope, and more
importantly their efforts and energies, into a vehicle that is actually
working for change. This process requires some imagination, to
be sure, but there is a crucial difference between imagination and illusion:
Imagination means envisioning a different future in service of transforming
the present. Illusion means distorting the future in service of accepting
the present.
With that in mind, I ask the reader to
imagine. Imagine the impact on society if the manifestations of resistance
we have seen recently-too small and too rare but very important nonetheless-began
to multiply exponentially in numbers and in spirit. Imagine thousands
of students at UC Berkeley had worn orange jumpsuits and demanded the
firing of John Yoo, rather than roughly 200. Imagine tens of thousands
of students had marched in Washington, D.C. on the 5th anniversary of
the war, instead of hundreds. Imagine hundreds of thousands had
taken to the streets of New York City on May 7 to protest the Sean Bell
verdict, instead of thousands. Imagine if 1 percent of the U.S. population-3
million people-were actually wearing orange to show their resistance
to the Bush Regime and its agenda, as Dennis Loo has called for. And
imagine these things were happening regularly, not periodically.
By “imagine,” I do not mean, “Gee,
wouldn’t it be nice if these things happened?” I mean, “Consider
what a different place our world could be if this actually did happen.”
And weigh that vision honestly against your best interpretation of what
Barack Obama is offering.
The World Can’t Wait is not seeking
political office , so it would be not only immoral but futile for us
to offer guarantees of “change.” In actuality, we cannot be
sure- even if mass movements of resistance mushroom in the manner
described above-that we will be able to reverse everything the Bush
Regime has done in the past 8 years. But we could at least be sure of
trying.
And that is more than can be said of
any of the presidential candidates, including Barack Obama.
If we want to see the American people rise up in mass manifestations of resistance against the crimes of the Bush Regime, then two things must occur before a mass movement can truly be achieved.
Firstly, the American people must be boldly confronted by their silent complicity in all of the crimes which have been committed by the Bush Regime. So many Americans simply shrug their shoulders and mutter, “There’s nothing I can do about it”, “It’s not my problem” or “It’s none of my business”. They must be shownthat their silent condoning of the crimes committed by George Bush and Dick Cheney makes them co-conspirators in these crimes. When the point of their own complicity in these crimes is brought home to them is a powerful way which will strike — and powerfully shake up — their jaded emotions, then, many Americans will join in a mass movement of active resistance. Some will do it voluntarily, and some will do it to silence their newly-reawakened consciences, but no matter how they come to join in the resistance, the fact that they’re participating in resistance is a powerful statement in and of itself.
Secondly, the American people must be made aware that the “pocketbook issues” which they claim to care about — such as high gas and food prices, collapsing infrastructure, and the overall collapse in their standard of living — are directly correlated to the crimes which have been committed by the Bush Regime. Too often, the American people think that high gas and food prices are “normal”, and have nothing to do with the Bush Regime. They have to be shown that the high prices they’re paying for the necessities of life, and the collapse of their standard of living is due to the crimes of the Bush Regime, and if they want to have a better standard of living for themselves and their children, they must join the resistance.
Basically, when the American people realize that the crimes of the Bush Regime are hitting them where they live, and those crimes have a direct impact upon them, their children and their overall standard of living, then a mass movement of resistance will occur, but if these things don’t happen, the American people will once again give their silent, knowing consent to the continuation of “the politics of empire, repression, and war” which they’ve become accustomed to settling for during the Bush Regime.