A-Infos (en) Irish Anarchist Review #3 - OBAMA - change you can’t believe in

The election of Barack Obama to the White House in 2008 was one of the most celebrated 
electoral victories of recent times. Not since Nelson Mandela’s win in South Africa, 
following the collapse of the Apartheid regime, was the supposed power of the ballot box 
so publicly celebrated and displayed. ---- Obama’s victory was hailed as a triumph for the 
‘democratic process’ and was widely touted as a fine example of how people power and 
electioneering can trump entrenched bigotry and money. ---- Even outside the United 
States, in part due to the adverse reaction to George Bush’s rule, the Obama win was 
widely viewed in a very positive light.  It was speculated that the victory would open up 
a new chapter in U.S. foreign policy and might even amount to a clear break with Bush’s 
militarist and war-mongering approach; a view that, no doubt, was in part responsible for 
Obama’s dramatic Nobel Peace Prize win.  Der Spiegel, a leading current affairs magazine 
in Germany, even went so far as to describe Obama as ‘the World President’. [1]

Colour

Obama’s victory was indeed significant – and for a number of reasons.  Most importantly, 
perhaps, he was the first African-American to become President of the United States.  In a 
country long dogged by endemic racism and discrimination, this was quite an achievement. 
After all it is not so long ago that the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. fought and 
overcame institutionalised racial segregation in its Southern states.

Today, legally speaking, African-Americans are fully equal but in reality like other 
groups in U.S. society they suffer massive disadvantage in terms of wages, their life 
expectancy and in terms of having the means to access health care.  Not only do African 
Americans, for example, make up a disproportionably large section of the prison population 
in the States, there are also more African American men in jail than there are in college. [2]

The symbolism of Obama’s win in this context was not lost on anyone.  Because of the 
colour of this skin and because of racism’s strong and overarching connection to 
generalised oppression in society, Obama’s victory had a strong resonance among other 
oppressed sections of U.S. society.  American workers came out in droves to vote for him, 
as did a wide range of discriminated communities across the States – from Latinos to 
American Indians.

Nor was Obama himself slow in making the same point and underlining this connection. 
Drawing the obvious comparison with a similar journey made by Abraham Lincoln (the U.S. 
President credited with ending slavery) Obama said on his way to the inauguration day 
celebrations (a journey he also made by train) that:
“To the children who hear the whistle of the train and dream of a better life—that’s who 
we’re fighting for.”

Obama’s victory was certainly historic but this should not take from the reality that the 
road to the White House was nonetheless a long fought battle that drew on massive 
resources and commitment.  Obama, to his great personal credit, went out and mobilised to 
win.  He was determined and spoke at rallies that drew a huge layer of electoral activists 
into his orbit; these activists believed whole-heartedly in his mission.  Ultimately it 
was the combined and effective efforts of this army of supporters that made his victory 
possible.

Yes, We Can

In a similar vein it must emphasised that Obama’s victory didn’t derive just from some 
sort of ‘underdog’ effect or simply from having an effective electioneering machine.  On 
the contrary his victory, and the message of social justice and change (remember the ‘Yes, 
We Can’ slogan?) that he embodied could not have come at a more relevant juncture in U.S. 
history.

For many Americans, the prospect of ‘the American Dream’ (in other words enjoying material 
well-being in your life), has become a distant and unattainable goal.  In the States, 
millions survive in poverty, in low wage jobs and are effectively excluded from access to 
basic healthcare.  This at a time when the United States is, by any measure, one of the 
wealthiest societies in the world.

The reality that Obama was able to connect to was the increasing gap in the States between 
the rich and the poor – and the anger that this has fuelled in layers of U.S. society. 
Commenting on the Obama campaign victory, the Wall Street Journal put it eloquently when 
it said about the United States that: “populist anger is like a long-caged animal now on 
the loose”. [3]

In itself inequality, of course, is no stranger to the United States.  But this said, 
there is no escaping the conclusion that in recent times, this situation has worsened 
dramatically.  These recent figures point this up:

In 2007, 1% of the population of the U.S.A. received a staggering 25% of all income in 
that country.  Note that wealth ownership (as opposed to income) figures are significantly 
worse!
The top 10% of the U.S. population received a staggering 50% of all income in that same 
year.  The present income gap is now equivalent to what it was in 1928 in the U.S.A. 
Moreover the division is getting bigger.  (See Figure 1)
The average household income of the top 0.1% of the U.S. population is $27 million dollars 
per year.
Corporate bosses (CEOs) in the States now earn 185 times the average industrial wage.  In 
the early ’80s the factor was about 30 times. [4]
The amount of tax paid by millionaires in the U.S.A. has been in steady decline since the 
late 1940s. [5]
If any particular aspect underlines this worsening situation for many Americans today it 
is the problem with the U.S. health care system.  Access to an adequate and affordable 
level of care is just not possible for many, many Americans – a problem accentuated by the 
reality that if you can pay (or if you have access to top level insurance) then you’re 
guaranteed the very best and most advanced treatments that money can buy.  But, for so 
many, it is not a question about getting access to the best or most advanced care – rather 
it is about getting access to any care at all!

No, We Won’t!

As we all know now Obama’s period in office, so far, has been marked by a series of broken 
promises and u-turns.  The scale of these has been huge and around key issues like 
Guantanamo Bay (see A promise broken: Obama and Guantanamo Bay) and health care they have 
been fairly stark.   But the key question is why have they happened.  To get a better 
understanding of the answer to this question, consider this little discussed incident: 
Obama’s NAFTA promise.

During the election campaign Obama made a very prominent pledge to pull the United States 
out of the NAFTA agreement – NAFTA being the free trade arrangement with Canada and 
Mexico.   NAFTA was an election issue because it was (and is) one of the mechanisms used 
to force down pay rates in the U.S.A. particularly in manufacturing.  NAFTA allows U.S. 
manufacturers to move plants and production facilities to low wage Mexico and not suffer 
tariffs on re-imports to the States.

Needless to say for many U.S. workers and trade unionists, opposing NAFTA makes a lot of 
sense.  For this reason Obama said, in order to appeal to these working-class voters, that 
it was also one of his policy aims to pull the U.S.A. out of NAFTA.

However when this became known (that this was an Obama policy), Canada, a signatory to the 
NAFTA protocols, became alarmed.  They were aware that Obama was likely to win and so the 
Canadian government inquired as to whether this was true or not.

They were unable to speak to Obama himself but an Obama campaign director said ‘There’s 
nothing to worry about’.  The official added that Obama’s statement on leaving NAFTA was 
just ‘campaign rhetoric’.  The Canadian Government were pacified by this and made the 
situation known in a press release.  As a result of the Canadian publicity however, Obama 
himself was now challenged anew – to clarify his true position.  Once more and publicly he 
declared that it was a priority for him to take the U.S.A. out of NAFTA.  However this 
time the Canadians took no further action and maintained that they had ‘been told 
otherwise’ and they believed what they had been told.

So what happened?  As they often say, the proof is in the eating.  Well, all this time 
later, the U.S.A. has not withdrawn from NAFTA.  And in actual fact it has never even 
appeared as a remote possibility at any point in time - the U.S. will not be leaving NAFTA 
because it suits the big U.S. manufacturers too well.

So consider the explanations – and you decide!  Is Obama a liar?  Was he just ‘playing the 
game’, telling a bit of ‘white lie’ maybe?  Was there confusion in the campaign?  Either 
way – the point is – it doesn’t matter now.  People who voted for him were swindled.  At 
some level in the electoral process voters have to make a call on trusting the people they 
intend to vote for.  But, what many voters don’t fully realise is that it is part of the 
game to lie to the electorate.  And there’s nothing we can do about it.

Let’s look at other campaign pledges by Obama.

Heath Care Reform:  One of Obama’s campaign promises was to move to a system that 
guaranteed basic care to ordinary Americans [6].  And indeed there can be no doubt that if 
Obama had followed through on this priority alone, he would’ve been forgiven many other 
broken promises.  But he reneged.  His Heath Care Bill, signed into law in March 2010 was, 
Obama admitted himself, only ‘a first step’.  But a first step to what?  Robert Reich, a 
mainstream economist, described the Bill as ‘a very conservative piece of legislation, 
building on a Republican (i.e. a private market approach) rather than a New Deal foundation.’

And according to Rose DeMoro of Nurses United, the Obama bill ‘strengthened the hand of 
the U.S.’s powerful Insurance Corporations and would require ordinary Americans once more 
to fork out thousands of dollars out of pocket to big private companies.  In fact it 
amounted to little change.’  Commentators noted that ‘Too many people will remain 
uninsured, individual and family healthcare costs will continue to rise largely unabated 
and private insurers will still be able to deny claims with little recourse for patients.’ [7]

Guantanamo Bay: See separate article.

War and Military Expenditure: In a famous speech about his opposition to the U.S. war in 
Iraq, Obama said in the lead up to his election victory: “If the troops are not home by 
the time I am elected, it is the first thing that I will do – you can take that to the 
bank.” [8]  In fact Obama only very gradually reduced troop numbers in Iraq.  The current 
plan will see combat troops removed by the end of 2011 but the U.S. military will continue 
to base approx 30,000 in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

In tandem with the war in Iraq, the U.S.A. has hugely increased its involvement and 
commitment in Afghanistan under the NATO alliance.  The U.S. military has been involved in 
a number of atrocities and in the murder of civilians in the border area with Pakistan. 
The use of the ‘people killing’ drone bombing tactic has also skyrocketed under Obama who 
has pursued war and sacrificed civilian casualties in favour of minimising U.S. troop 
casualties.   U.S. military expenditure has also risen during Obama’s term in office.

Wall Street Inequality: Near economic collapse followed quickly on the heels of Obama’s 
election – for reasons that had nothing to do with Obama.  The collapse was the result of 
Bush’s tenure and the massive deregulation that had taken place in financial and housing 
markets.  The consequences of the collapse were that millions more Americans were 
impoverished and thrown out of their homes.  How did Obama respond?

In 2009 he signed into law a two year extension to Bush’s infamous, ‘super-rich’ tax 
breaks.  These tax breaks have been a foundation stone of increasing the share of income 
accruing to the very rich.  What is perhaps more criminal is the fact that Obama appointed 
many of the figures that were at the helm in the financial crash to be his advisors once 
he got into office.  As has happened in Ireland, the very wealthy white collar criminals 
have not been targeted.

Deep Well Drilling: The scandalous oil drilling accident in the Gulf of Mexico was one of 
the most serious crises to hit Obama’s term in office.  The accident polluted a huge area, 
ruined livelihoods and cost a fortune to clean up.  Cost cutting, abandonment of safely 
guidelines and ‘risky’ behaviour by the multinational companies involved in the drilling 
(BP Oil and Halliburton) have all been implicated in the disaster.  Although Obama ‘got 
angry’ about what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, the moratorium on risky drilling was 
lifted in March of this year in the States. [9]

Change That Won’t Happen

Obama rode to power on a wave of optimism and hope.  He ran a vibrant, innovative campaign 
which maximised his support and raised expectations (See Obama + Internet + Money = HOPE). 
 Yet, more than two years on from his dramatic victory, it is a changed reality that is 
facing those who supported him.  To suggest that hope in this mission has been dashed and 
that optimism has collapsed is probably an understatement.

In truth, many of Obama’s supporters have been shocked by the about turns and broken 
promises.  Activist numbers and supporters have drifted from his camp and there is no 
doubt that his May 2011 visit to this country, Ireland, is a sign that Obama himself is 
now scraping the barrel.  In order to get elected for a second term, he will no longer be 
relying on promises.  Rather he will be warning the voter that: ‘However bad I am, the 
Republicans are worse’.   It is indeed a far cry from the heady days of slogans like 
‘Obama - Yes, We Can’, ‘Obama – Hope’ and ‘Obama – Progress’.

For anarchists, of course, Obama’s election and his subsequent litany of broken promises, 
come as no surprise.  Rather they prove once again, albeit more dramatically than usual, 
that the anarchist arguments against involvement in the electoral process are solidly 
rooted in a reality we all see time and time again.  However the anarchist argument is 
more than just a critique.  Rather it is vital to understand if we are to move away from 
this cul de sac of the ballot box.  The bitter truth is that there can be no wealth 
redistribution or meaningful reform through this method.  Another way is needed; another 
way is possible.

But what exactly is the anarchist argument?  Well, it is simple.  Modern parliamentary 
democracy is not about giving you a say, it is rather about maintaining social control. We 
are offered the illusion of change and having a say, but what we vote for is easily 
deflected and quickly forgotten about.  In reality, we are made promises and offered 
policy platforms - and these do influence how we vote in an election - but afterwards we 
have no say, one way or the other, as to what happens with any of these promises or policy 
pledges.  Some people say, ‘Ah but at the next election, you can get your revenge!’  But, 
by the time the next election comes around, it is too late – a case of bolting the stable 
door after the horse has run a hundred miles away.  And also, let’s face it, revenge is 
fruitless.  What we want and need is to have a say in the decisions that matter in our 
lives. That’s the very thing we are not getting in fact.

A key point to realise too is that the present system of democracy – so called 
representative democracy - protects politicians and defends their right to break promises. 
 We elect politicians but we have no power to recall them.  The system moreover was set 
up this way in order to allow politicians to ignore popular mandates.  This is the basic 
but most important ground rule of parliamentary democracy: politicians in government only 
have to be guided by our wishes; they are not bound by them.  As a result of this rule, 
don’t be surprised that this is exactly what they do.

Sometimes it is argued that this anarchist view point is over-simplifying the problems. 
Why don’t people just wake up, look more closely and really vote for an option that they 
believe in?  We are not children after all, this argument goes.  But the problem with this 
argument is manifold.  Firstly, isn’t that what they did with Obama?  The electorate that 
voted for him – that vote for change and hope – really did think he ‘meant it’ and look 
what happened.

Moreover you also have to accept that at election time is very difficult to separate out 
who stands for what when everyone promises ‘good things’.  So what are people to do?  Say 
for example in France, the electorate might appear more thinking and vote in the Socialist 
Party there, but what if the Socialist Party then turns around – as it did – and 
implements the status quo and business friendly policies.  What is the electorate to do?

Lastly it is worth pointing out that parliamentary and presidential elections constantly 
need to re-invent themselves to appear relevant in our lives.  Hence the appeal and 
profile of Obama.  The system of control always has to appear ‘new’ and ‘fresh’ and to 
‘appear’ like it still relevant.  New blood that fosters the idea that ‘this time we will 
be different’ is an essential part of how social control operates.  This is because, at 
heart, there is a hunger for change out there in society.  This hunger is fed with a few 
crumbs every four or five years and people grasp at it.  But it goes nowhere.

Here in Ireland we can already see that ‘new radicals’ and ‘real alternatives’ are ready 
to step forward to dance in front of the tired electorate.  The ULA/Socialist Party/ 
People before Profit option now have some new faces in the Dáil, like Clare Daly and 
Richard Boyd-Barrett.  They ULA is suggesting that it could become ‘a real left’ or ‘a 
principled left’ or even ‘a radical left’.  All we need to do, the ULA spokespeople say, 
is to devote our time and energy into the project of creating this ‘new movement’.  The 
ULA want activists to commit themselves to a long term campaign that will aim to ‘capture’ 
the Dáil one day.  The promise, of course, is that – THEN – finally real change can and 
will happen.  But it’s the same tired illusion spun out once again.  An Obama apparition 
of a different sort.

For anarchists the key is to build outside the parliamentary system.  We want to channel 
our energies and the energies of those who want change into building something that is 
meaningful in fighting for change now – in our lives today, tomorrow and next week.  The 
sorts of areas we want to build influence in are in areas where we live and where we work. 
 We believe it is fundamental and vital to put our efforts now into any and all work in 
the union sphere, where our fellow and sister workers are opposing their bosses and this 
new regime of cuts and austerity.

Long term this where a real and strong extra-parliamentary opposition can be created.

Notes
[1] Amy Goodman interview with Mathias Muller Von Blumencron, editor-in-chief of the 
German magazine Der Spiegel, 
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/11/president_of_the_world_editor_of
[2] www.kff.org/minorityhealth/upload/7541.pdf
[3] Gerald Seib in Wall Street Journal  April 3rd 2009
[4] Dean Baker (Economic Policy Unit) The U.S. Wage Gap and the Decline of Manufacturing 
in http://legacy.usw.org/usw/program/content/432.php
[5] http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
[6] http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07/obama_july_22_2009_press_confe.html
[7] Rose DeMoro of National Nurses United in  http://www.counterpunch.org/demoro03252010.html
[8] Obama in  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn134-KLL7Y
[9] http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/oild-m02.shtml
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en