Obama’s Acceptance Speech: Operation Redefine You

By Malcolm  Shore

The official attendance count indicated that more than 84,000 people packed Denver’s Invesco Field August 28 to hear Barack Obama’s acceptance speech. But his actual audience was the millions of progressives in this country who are angry about the crimes their government is committing, and who desperately want to stop these crimes; who are anxious about the future of this country and the world. Addressing that audience, Obama made it more clear than ever that the raison d”etre of his campaign is to neutralize mass dissatisfaction with American government and society.  This, in turn, is a goal he aims to accomplish by a basic two-step process:

1) Acknowledge the widespread alienation, anger, and anxiety that large sections of the American people feel towards their government, as well as the hunger many feel for a different world.

2) Marry that progressive yearning for a better world to reactionary values and policies that will actually maintain and expand the current world order.

In short, the genius of the Obama campaign is his effort to permanently redefine what it means to be “progressive.”

Let’s say you are having a conversation with a friend, or
even someone you just met.  They ask you
casually where you stand politically, and you say, “I consider myself a
progressive person.”  They respond, “Oh,
so I guess that means you believe in sending more troops to Afghanistan; in expanding
the U.S. military; in threatening to attack Iran, and always being ready to
carry out that threat; in taking a harder line towards Russia; in strengthening
U.S. support for Israel; in compromising on whether a woman has the right to
control her own body, or whether homosexuals and heterosexuals should have
equal rights; in the inherent superiority of the United States and its citizens
compared to the rest of the world.”

Undoubtedly, you would look at the person asking this
question with puzzled indignation and respond, “Of course not!”    And yet, when Barack Obama puts forth these
very same positions, millions of Americans who genuinely consider themselves
progressive rise to their feet and shout, “Yes! Yes Barack, that is what we
long for!”  Or else they say, “Hmm.
That’s not what I signed up for. I”ll have to go talk to Barack later and make
sure we”re on the same page.”   Something
seems to keep these millions from saying what they should say, which is -to
steal a line from Cindy Sheehan-“This is HORSESHIT!”

So far, I did not even mention Obama’s repeated threats
against Pakistan;
his votes to criminalize immigrants, including by building 700 feet of
additional wall on the U.S.-Mexico border; his vote to allow government spying
on citizens; and his utter refusal during the past few years to take any action
to stop torture. Obama did not really touch on these issues in his acceptance
speech, and that speech is the focus of this writing.

Obama: What You Want
Vs. What He Says You Want

So let’s take a look now at the speech. As he has done
several times previously in major addresses and writings-including his June 4
speech before AIPAC and his July 14 Op-Ed in the New York Times-Obama laid out
very clearly what he believes is wrong with the war in Iraq: that it is
crippling the U.S. military’s ability to fight other wars.  “While Sen. McCain was turning his
sights to Iraq just days
after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us
from the real threats we face,” Obama told the Denver crowd. “When John McCain said we could
just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more
troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on
9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants
if we have them in our sights.”

Obama supporters: Don’t say he didn’t warn you! He is
telling you in no uncertain terms that he believes he can be a wiser and better
war-mongerer than John McCain; not that
he is opposed to warmongering. In case anyone missed the point, he restated it
several times, and was particularly explicit at one point. “If John McCain
wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as
the next Commander-in-Chief,” Obama told the crowd, “that’s a debate I’m ready
to have.”   The audience roared its
approval.

You might have thought your
objection to the Iraq War was that more than one million innocent Iraqis and
more than 4000 U.S. soldiers have been killed- and that the U.S. has
systematically decimated and terrorized an entire country- in a war based on
lies and aimed at empire. 

But no, Barack Obama tells you: In fact, your objection
is that these things should have been done in Afghanistan instead.

Another major criticism Obama has frequently voiced in relation to U.S. policy in Iraq
is that the war has strengthened Iran,
thereby threatening U.S. and
Israeli dominance of the Middle East. Given
recent world events, Obama has now expanded on this point, adding that having U.S. troops in Iraq
diminishes U.S. military
strength in relation to Russia.
“You don’t defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by
occupying Iraq,”
Obama said Thursday. “You don’t protect Israel
and deter Iran just by
talking tough in Washington.
You can’t truly stand up for Georgia
when you’ve strained our oldest alliances.”

You might
be infuriated that the United States
and Israel continue to
insist that Iran is
attempting to build nuclear weapons, even though the U.S. intelligence community itself
said this is not the case.  You might be
of the opinion that the U.S. and Israel-two countries with, respectively, at
least tens of thousands and hundreds of nuclear weapons -have no right to tell
other countries they cannot have one nuke. You might find it utterly outrageous
that the U.S and Israel have been threatening and preparing to launch yet
another illegal, preemptive war that would likely result in massive civilian
casualties in addition to a host of other difficult-to-predict consequences.
You might believe it is absurdly hypocritical for the United States to speak of
“Russian aggression” when its military has spent the last several years
brutally occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, and threatening to do the same to
other countries.

But no, Barack Obama tells you: In fact, you are upset
because the U.S. has not
been effective enough at threatening Iran,
confronting Russia, and
defending Israel.

“Trust Me: You Love America”

Now, if you”re trying to
rally your supporters behind the kind of logic inherent in Obama’s foreign
policy platform, it’s really going to be a major obstacle if these same
supporters are questioning the fundamental role that the United States government and its
military are playing in the world.  There
is no room at the table for people who ask questions like, “Hey, wait a minute,
the U.S. unleashes one brutal atrocity after another against the people of this
planet ; what right does it have to be calling other countries “threats”? Why
should we put the interests of a country like that first?”

This is where another
major element of Obama’s speech last night- and of his campaign in
general-comes into play: the effort to establish the precedent that the U.S.
government may do things you don’t like every once in awhile, and that our
country may “make mistakes,” but everyone must recognize it is still the
greatest country in the world and place U.S. interests above all else.  In fact, if you read the text of Rep. Jesse
Jackson Jr’s speech from the Democratic National Convention, or the
text of other Obama speeches-most notably his “patriotism” speech on June 30 you will
see this same point hammered at over and over again.

“America, we are better than these
last 8 years,” Obama said Thursday. “We are a better country than this.”

Later in his speech, Obama
was not shy about telling his supporters straight-up what they think. “So let
us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and
so does John McCain,” he said. “The men and women who serve in our battlefields
may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought
together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag.
They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.
So I’ve got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

You might
be aware that the United States
would not have 50 states, and would not be a wealthy superpower, except for the
enslavement of Africans; the genocide of Native Americans; and the theft of Mexico.
That the current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are only the latest
chapters in a blood-drenched book of U.S. imperialism; that, since its
founding, the U.S. military has either directly or covertly massacred massive
numbers of people in the Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile, and El
Salvador, just to name a few countries. You may believe in working for the
interests of humanity, not just one country; that American lives are not more
important than the lives of non-Americans.

But no, Barack Obama tells you. “We all put our country
first.”

Now, to be fair, among
those drawn to Obama, among progressives in general, and within World Can’t
Wait specifically, there are people who do
view the Bush years as an aberration; as a departure from, not an extension of,
American history and values. Within these groups, in other words, there are
those who do in fact “put their country first.” 
To those people, Obama says: “Keep thinking that way!”  And to those who believe that the Bush Regime
is in fact symptomatic of U.S.
history and values-to those who do not “love this country” or place it above
all else-Obama says: “You have the right to remain silent.”

In both cases, a major
theme of Obama’s candidacy is and always has been: You can criticize particular
government policies or actions, but don’t you dare question the nature of the United States
or its government overall.

“We Must Compromise” When I Say So”

Another key idea that Obama has sought to advance since his
campaign began is that this country is overly-polarized around key social and
political issues.  Of course, Obama is
extremely selective when it comes to identifying these issues-conveniently, the
areas in which he says Americans must “compromise” are always questions
relating to fundamental human rights, not, for example, questions related to
the overall role the United States or Israel should play in the Middle
East.

“We may not agree on abortion,” Obama said. “But surely
we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.”

You may feel that a
woman’s right not to have a child-and, more generally, to have control over her
own body-is non-negotiable. You may be aware that there is a powerful,
prominent, organized, and vicious movement in this country that is trying to
deny women these basic rights, and that in fact this movement does not even want women to have access to
birth control to “reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.” You may know that
this movement of Christian fascists is not interested in “compromise” – that it
is determined to lock women into a position of permanent societal subservience-
and that protecting women’s rights against this movement therefore requires
fighting back, not accommodating.

But no, Barack Obama tells you.  Your main concern is finding common ground
with those who want to deny women fundamental human rights; your goal is to
unite with these forces by “reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.”

Obama similarly called for compromise around the issue of gay
marriage. “I know there are
differences on same-sex marriage,” Obama said in Denver, “but surely we can agree that our gay
and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the
hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.”

You may feel it is cruel
and reprehensible that-in most places in this country, in the year 2008-two
people who love each other can never get married if they are of the same
sex.  You may understand that the
movement to keep things that way is spearheaded by the same forces who show up
at the funerals of homosexuals with signs reading, “God hates fags”; the same
forces, in fact, who are determined to rob from women the right to have control
over their bodies.  You may recognize
that adherents to this movement are no more interested in homosexuals “living
lives free of discrimination” than they are in extending this same right to
women. 

But no, Barack Obama
tells you. It is possible to deny homosexuals the basic right
of marriage and still grant them “lives free of discrimination.”  And as long as gay people can achieve this
otherwise undefined “life free of discrimination” and visit their loved ones in
the hospital, it is both  possible and
desirable to find common ground with those who wish to keep gay marriage
illegal.

So it is that Barack Obama seeks to transform those who
would fight for justice into, at best, passive witnesses to its
miscarriage.  This transformation,
indeed, is the actual “change” Obama seeks to bring to this country. 

The Carrot and the
Stick

Of course, even though millions of Americans desperately
want to prevent the election of John McCain, there are still probably large
sections of progressives who would not be won over to Obama’s campaign if his only pitch were, “This is my platform,
and if you don’t like it, tough shit- the only other choice is John McCain.”
Even though Obama has inspired huge numbers previously disillusioned with both
Republicans and Democrats to once again gravitate to electoral politics, the
bad taste from past experience still lingers on the lips of many Americans;
after all, the elections which vaulted Democrats to a majority in Congress were
only two years ago, and we know well what did and did not happen after that.

Therefore, Obama-like countless other Democrats before
him-uses the classic “carrot and stick” approach:  He dangles the stick of a potential McCain
presidency to dissuade progressives from working outside electoral politics or
even seriously challenging his positions, but he also promises carrots in the
form of social and economic benefits at home.  On Thursday, Obama assured you, as Bill
Clinton so famously did years ago, that he “feels your pain” – that he
understands your predicament if you are facing massive credit card debt or
vanishing retirement savings; if your factory closed down and moved abroad; if
you are a college student working a night shift just to make ends meet. And he
appealed to the millions of Americans shivering in the cold realization that
their boss, their bank, and their president don’t give two shits if they
survive or not.

“Our government should work for us, not against us,” Obama said
in his Denver
speech. “It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just
for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who’s
willing to work. That’s the promise of America – the idea that we are
responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the
fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper.”

A bit later on in his speech, Obama made specific promises
of economic reform if he is elected, including reducing taxes for small
businesses and working-class families; lower health-care costs; and equal pay
between men and women.

Three main comments here: First, neither these promises nor
this rhetoric are at all new. If you
go back and survey the text of John Kerry or Bill Clinton’s campaign speeches,
to give just two examples, you”ll see what I mean. Hell, even our current
president once campaigned as a “compassionate conservative” – remember? 

Second, there is a long history of Democrats breaking their
promises to ease the burden of the middle-class and the poor. Writing several
years ago, in his book “Stupid White Men,” Michael Moore brilliantly captured
the sense of betrayal that he and many other Clinton supporters felt after 8 years of
Slick Willy:

“In
a short span of time, he has been able to kick ten million people off
welfare-that’s ten million out of fourteen million total recipients. He
has promised states “bonus funds” if they can reduce their welfare
numbers further” He has introduced a plan that would bar any assistance to
teenage parents if they drop out of school or leave their parents’ home. Though
he is careful not to draw attention to it, he supports many of the old
provisions of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” including
lowering the capital gains tax”There are now more people in America without
health insurance than when he took office. He has signed orders prohibiting any
form of health care to poor people who are in the United States illegally… Yes, you’d have to agree, considering all
of his above accomplishments, that Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican
Presidents we’ve ever had.”

Finally, and most importantly, when you couple Obama’s lofty
rhetoric about helping the less fortunate in America with his hawkish foreign policy, you detect the ugly and
thinly-veiled assumption he is asking his supporters to swallow: That so long
as life gets a tiny bit better for some Americans, we should not concern
ourselves with detainees who are kidnapped and tortured; children bombed to
pieces in Afghanistan; immigrants living in constant fear of being rounded up
and deported; or Iranians who wonder if tomorrow will be the day they wake up
to the roar of bomber planes overhead.

No. This is the “America
first” logic we cannot and should not accept any longer, whether it is
presented explicitly or snuck in the side door. There is a long and brutal
history of populations being bribed to accept atrocities committed in their
names with the promise that life in the “home country” will improve; one must
look no further than Hitler’s Germany
to see the consequences. The moral responsibility falls on the people of this
country to stand up for the people of
the world. 

Doing that, in turn, requires boldly staring down-and seeing
through- the poisonous illusions of Barack Obama’s campaign.