What Obama Means
I tire of the scholastic discussions about the significance of the Obama candidacy — discussions that, for the most part, eschew the fact of Obama’s race, which is odd, since in the sort of analysis they perform, this would seem to be the most important thing about his election. That is to say, now, at the raw level of the spectacle, children and everyone else for (at least) 4 years will perceive, see, hear, witness a black man wield the highest power in America. This is significant, and, if Obama manages to manage public opinion in the right way, stretches his presidency out over two terms, and becomes the Reagan of the “center-left,” it will be even more significant. It will drastically reshape the social apprehension of proper roles.
But it seems that this aspect of the Obama win garners little attention. Instead much attention has been paid to the supposed winning strategy of prattling on about “Hope” and “Change.” There is something to such prattle, and it is not completely insignificant, but to focus on it to the exclusion of what was at stake in the election — who Obama was running against — is absurd. This was not a plebiscite for vacuous notions of or Hope or Change, but a rejection of yet another neocon imbecile. Obama was not ahead in a real way until the economy tanked. People identified economic failure with the past 8 years of Republican administation (correctly or no) and so opted for the alternative*. Likewise, the only way he was able to stick around long enough to battle it out with Clinton was by maneuvering around his opposition to the Iraq war.
There is nothing novel about empty rhetoric or the party-bacchanal fervor. This is, and has been for quite some time, the nature of American mass politics; and it is, and has been for quite some time, the result of empirical, demonstrable social relations. But the inner cadre of wild-eyed supporters do not win elections — they didn’t do it for Kerry, and the didn’t do it for Gore or Dole. Nor do vacuous words or ghost-written books translate into success. For that you need either friends at the election board or a disgusted populace. Obama had more of the latter than McCain could overcome with the former. And we should be grateful for our disgust, maintain it, and keep Obama aware of it.
*Opting for the alternative is the scope of electoral politics in the US, as well as for Obama. I remember when I first voted for him to be Illinois senator he was running against Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes! His success, as with every elected official in the US, has always been a mix of affirmation and disgust: there is affirmation that this person might be better than the other, and absolute disgust with the other.
16 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By traxus4420, 15 November, 2008 @ 3:18 am
being myself a producer of prattle on this topic, i have to disagree. the bailout turned out to be a coup, but especially given that obama was an activist for the extremely unpopular policy early on i don’t see how it was inevitable that he managed to win the war of perception. disgust with bush precedes everything else, but if that was really enough, shouldn’t it have manifested more strongly before the bailout when the polls were tighter? plenty to blame on republicans then too, without having to think very hard. kerry had a significant groundswell of disgust to work with and still failed, against the grand poobah himself. to dismiss obama’s record-breaking campaign support as an “inner cadre of wild-eyed supporters” seems quixotic. from what i understand the inner cadre were if not the most pragmatic then certainly the least wild-eyed. that his savvy and well-funded (another reason why he won) marketing campaign won by rebranding disgust as this affirmative redemption thing is very significant i think, not for figuring out what people ‘really believe’ but for how norms and limits of political discourse are being reasserted and revised.
By chabert, 15 November, 2008 @ 7:30 am
“given that obama was an activist for the extremely unpopular policy early on ”
hm…he played this very well remember. in fact he communicated his support for it without ever doing so, instead moving directly over the question of yes or no to the form of objections to it and requirements, demands, that started off with a refusal of the bush regime request “no blank check”, went through protecting the taxpayers and ended with international cooperation (“a global response”) and fairness (“main street not just wall street”). he treated the bailout - some bailout - as a fait accompli so that he never actually openly pledged approval of it, just sort of took responsibility for engaging with it, and he actually cast himself in the role of the public’s lawyer in negotiation as this unstoppable thing went forward. it was quite deft the way he did that; he was obviously never blamed for it, and he instead projected that he was already the chosen protector of the public interest in the situation of an inevitable unfortunate policy foisted on him and us by the Bush policies. He used that brilliantly as a kind of screen test, and the scenario he created was there was the enemy - wall street and bush - and us, and he was our lawyer empowered by us already to negotiate a settlement.
By JCD, 15 November, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Traxus: the “wild-eyed supporters” I am using to stand in for the prattlers’ posited populace that dumbly buys the “Hope” and “Change” line. I sit in a seminar every week with people who really do think that the politically significant factor of the Obama campaign is the fact that he taps into an amorphous religious longing, a yearning, a “hope.” I don’t discount that there might be a handful of hopefuls, joyous in their Obama-love, I just happen to find the suggestion that this is what turned this year into a victory for the Democrats laughable. Hope was on the way in 2004, remember!
Obama’s victory became a done deal after mid September, when financial institutions seized up and the stock market began its more spectacular unwinding. The disgust that he could motivate was not the American liberal distaste for occupation, but the broader American horror that they are losing their homes, their jobs, and perceive their brute social position among the expendable millions. It is much harder to manage discontent when its source is the foreclosure sign stuck in the front yard and the boarded storefronts dotting suburban communities.
This, coupled with Obama’s well organized, pragmatic campaign — not his empty, supply-me-with-significance, rhetoric — that knocked on doors and wore soles out on concrete in many states which Democrats in the past have consigned to loss, produced his victory.
By JCD, 15 November, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Chabert: He’s very, very good at playing politics, very nimble. It is a thing to behold.
Another thing that his campaign did was use the internet and all its gewgaws to immense effect. His staff plans to continue to do so (his radio addresses will be broadcast on youtube, for instance), and it seems that the million+ calling list might be used in the future to target local residents when there is a local election or measure on their ballots.
By Nate, 15 November, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
hi JCD,
I wonder if you’d accept a non-vacuous version of appeals to hope and change as explanation for Obama’s success, and of how excited about it many people seem to be. Seems to me that this is implied in what you’ve said here: the hope is that Obama will be better than the other guy, and the change will be that things won’t get so much worse so fast, or maybe even will stop declining. That’d be a hope based on fairly reasonable expectations and fairly reasonable interpretations of recent history. It’s also sad, speaks to lowered expectations.
take care,
Nate
ps- any thoughts on Obama picking Rahm Emmanuel?
By JCD, 15 November, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Hey Nate: Yea, I’d accept that. I mean, that’s why (he’s most likely not going to bomb Iran, for example) most the people I know voted for him, in combination with a whole slew of other things (I do know 1 or 2 people, out of the probably 1,000 people that I interact with, who were starry eyed Obamamanians, and who now think the world is in a better place. But that’s a slim margin, and fewer than the number of family members who called me to be on the look out for terrists now that there is One of Them in the White House).
The thing is, the electoral system in the US is rotten, sure. But it is there, and it has effects, as it were, on the ground. It’s not ideal; it’s what is, what we have to work with, and from where we need to proceed. Otherwise you may as well wait for the messiah — which reminds me, I need to right about the early 20th century messianism of some Marxists.
Re: Rahm Emmanuel, well, the news didn’t make my morning, I can say that much. But it’s standard operating procedure for US politicians at the national level. And changing that is going to take a lot of work.
By JCD, 15 November, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
It’s standard operating procedure: being pro-Israel, that is.
I also had a discussion with a policy wonk type the other day who was hoping that Emmanuel was chosen for his connections on the hill and not for his Zionism. Time will tell how much his Zionism counts for.
By chabert, 15 November, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
“Time will tell how much his Zionism counts for.”
One thing is if this administration was tasked by the consensus of the elite to discipline Israel, impose some settlement and recognise a Palestinian State in the vein of what was outlined by Clinton, it would be virtually necessary to have someone like Emanuel, immune to any aipac/neocon attacks, to sell that policy.
By Nate, 17 November, 2008 @ 5:09 am
I was more thinking of Emmanuel in relation to NAFTA and welfare deform. I think he also had a hand in the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act.
As for the electoral system being there, I agree. It matters who wins these elections. We’re all better off with Obama than McCain. I think in terms of race there may well be an element of a real advance. Beyond that, I’m not hopeful - it’ll be more like a much slower retreat or more humane attack than like a real advance for our side. Pistol whipping rather than shooting, so to speak. Emmanuel’s one of the guys who’ll be helping craft that beating.
Since that’s my view, I wouldn’t say the electoral system is where we need to proceed from (I may be mis-interpreting what you mean by that remark). Who wins matters - after all, who wouldn’t choose pistol whipping over shooting? - but it’s not a terrain for advancement. It’s a holding action at best. This is only partly related but in relation to a thing I’m working on I just read this speech from the ComIntern’s 7th Congress in 1935 - http://www.marx.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/unity.htm. I have mixed feelings re: the remarks on bourgeois democracy, but I think the final two sections are pretty much entirely correct, which surprised the hell out of me.
take care,
Nate
By traxus4420, 17 November, 2008 @ 10:39 am
“knocked on doors and wore soles out on concrete in many states”
well i agree on who did the actual work — but i took you to be implying that there was a sort of simple causal element at work — like obama’s victory was entirely (or mostly) the product of crisis. or that his supporters were entirely (or mostly) a bunch of pessimistic lesser-evilists as was the case with kerry.
i guess i interpret the psychology of his support differently. if prompted to rationally reflect on their actions, sure, no one will say “yes obama is our redemption.” but there was enthusiasm there, and had to be to push the inner circle as well as recruit as many people as they did. they did not get that excited about selling out for the next imperialist president, or someone who *might* not screw them out of their homes and jobs. if it wasn’t sparked by obama, then where did it come from?
i take his rhetoric, his personal skill and charisma, and his marketing dollars very seriously as components of his organizational model, as his team obviously did. one has to identify the fawning media response and their representation of obama zombies for what they are, but it’s also important to avoid an equally caricatured picture of americans as a bunch of hard-headed realists. obama is EVERYONE’s president, recall.
By traxus4420, 17 November, 2008 @ 10:59 am
it’s also significant that the frame became such that criticizing obama from a left perspective meant you were ‘cynical’ whereas supporting him meant you were an ‘idealist.’ this is the language that we’re going into a recession with. during the campaign you didn’t have to promote him strictly from a policy standpoint as you did with gore or kerry who aren’t personally charismatic and didn’t market themselves half as effectively — a logo and an attitude was enough for people to think they had something to consider.
By traxus4420, 17 November, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
by the way — hillary clinton? really?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state
By JCD, 18 November, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Nate: Proceed from, in the sense that we shouldn’t ignore it or wait for some pristine political moment with which to act. I’ll have to take a look at the Comintern text. Been sick, behind, and swamped.
By JCD, 18 November, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Proceed from (as in I spoke/typed unclearly!)
By JCD, 18 November, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Traxus, I think my head is swimming too much to give a coherent response, but I think I somewhat agree with you. It’s important not to go to the oppposite extreme and say that Americans are solely “realists.” I will respond further later though.
By Nate, 21 November, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
hey JCD, hope you feel better, and thanks for clarifying.
cheers,
Nate