Obama: a besieged progressive, a naive spineless fool, or a bourgeois imperialist?

[GPDP]

As far as I can conceive, these are the three positions most commonly held on the left regarding Obama.

The first position is most commonly held by his liberal supporters, who believe that Obama is a genuine progressive under an insurmountable siege by the right-wing, which means it is necessary for him, and by extension his supporters, to compromise on the issues, which effectively means he should not be criticized.

The second position is held by people more to the left of Obama's supporters, such as the Greens and other social-democrats, who hold that while Obama may be well-meaning, he has a naive belief in gradualism and bipartisanship, which consequently make him spineless and unwilling to confront his opposition. The way to go for progressives, then, is to push Obama towards a stronger position.

The third position is held by the more radical and revolutionary left, who see Obama as a player in the bourgeois system of politics, whose primary role is to co-opt his supporters into compromising (read: giving up). Obama is seen as a sleek politician with a unique ability for presenting himself as a progressive candidate for change, but who is in reality a firm believer in the general status quo. To this end, the only way for actual, meaningful change to come about is to cease having illusions about Obama, and organize independently of him and the Democratic Party to force them towards structural change, and furthermore toward working class mobilization against bourgeois class rule, whom the Democrats represent in the end.

I believe it is important we make it clear who Obama and the Democrats really represent, and what values they truly hold. If we are to do so, we need to break away from notions that they are victims of the far-right or that they are merely lacking the spine to enact meaningful reform, and move toward a position that posits them as one of the main pillars of the ruling class in the U.S., Obama included.

[fabiansocialist]

It was pretty clear what he was even before he got elected. As a candidate, whenever he was pressed on specifics (and couldn't wriggle out with high-sounding bullshit) he would invariably veer towards the status quo. But to be frank, a worthless little shit like him is not the real issue; rather, it's a system that only pushes forward scum like this -- and this masquerades as democracy. That system has to be exploded.

[RedSonRising]

I'd say that Obama is a combination of them all. Judging from individual analysis, it is not impossible for me to imagine a young Barack Obama not unlike ourselves in our frustrations at ignorance and the contradictions of superficially ideal government produced by Capitalism.

Neither is it hard to imagine a liberal-minded youth with a sharp mind interested in politics that sees the radical-left in the United States and recognizes a certain futility in associating with those that hold such world views.

The way I see it, Obama is someone who advanced thinking he was doing the right thing by differentiating himself from other politicians in just the right way for personal credibility and popularity, and conforming to norms of the US political sphere in just the right ways to ensure success as well...all along without any serious concept of class struggle as a means to interpret political economy. The expressed sentiments of righteousness are visible in the way he spoke to the "Muslim World" (while I don't consider it anything substantial, the words themselves expressvalues of tolerance and peace.) So the petty reforms he is trying to attempt probably aren't something he cooked up in the white house as a list of "Ways to preserve the bourgeoisie's power", but he isn't doing anything to challenge it at all either. Naive is something he is not... you're right, he is a slick one, able to present himself as the face of progress while the right demonize him (much to his advantage in many cases.)

He is a bourgeois politician who perpetuates the ruling-class's ideology by constantly bribing the people and preserving the oppressive economic order.

[Bill Hadnot]

The role of the democratic party in this capitalist ruling class dictatorship is to make the common people feel as if we have a voice in government when we actually don't. Their job is to throw us just enough crumbs so that their buddies can get back in and go full steam ahead with empire building again, except with the Obomber it's hard to tell that it's even let up, because it hasn't.

I highly recommend the dialouge (available online in video and audio) between Carl Dix and Cornell West on this subject entilted "The Ascendancy of Obama and the Continued Need for Resistance and Liberation"

[RED ARMY FACTION]

he is george bush in a black mans body.
he says he is not, yet he is sending even more soldiers to the middle east and is duping the yanks into thinking he is a change.
he is scum of the highest order, with bush most americans knew what they were getting, obama ass raped them from behind his yes we can banner.

[Dr. Fish]

I 'personally' don't think that there should be a president, or a senate, or a congress bred to be bribed... but that's just anarchist bullshit.
I think Obama is like Roosevelt, he wants to do good and sympathizes with the working people, but the world is shit and he is confronted with capitalism. I also think he'd be better off a community organizer... but we'll see.

[Dimentio]

Obama is probably less of a puppet than his predecessor. One thing is certain, whatever Obama wants, he is aware of its implications. That actually makes him more scary.

[GPDP]

In case anyone found the OP a little unclear or incoherent, I apologize. It was late and I was drunk.

What I'm trying to do is bring to attention the many "faces" of Obama, if you will. Obama is a unique president, in that he is viewed in many different ways. Of course, you might say, the same is true of most presidents, particularly Democrats. But the difference between Obama and past president is that the way they were viewed was mostly on ideological and policy grounds, whereas Obama's image is far more dynamic, to the point that he is whatever people want him to be.

I believe this comic makes the point a bit more succintly:

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/10/13/tomo/story.jpg

Thing is, it goes beyond the way the left and the right see him. There is little agreement even within the left as to what Obama really believes. Between his diehard supporters, his critical supporters, and his outright left-wing critics (which, I believe, should include us), there exists a chasm that's going to be hard to bridge, and as we all know, fragmentation is one of our most dire predicaments.

Too many leftists (granted, most are left-liberals or reformist progressives) are content with imagining Obama as either a fellow progressive who can't surmount the attacks from the right or who doesn't have the balls to stand up to them, or even go as far as attack the Democrats as a whole while sparing Obama (I've heard people say the Democrats are betraying him, for an example of this nonsense). Too many of them ignore Obama's background, his aspirations, and his climb to the top of the bourgeois world order. They neglect his actions in the Illinois state legislature, where he was instrumental in gutting a bill that would have provided more affordable health care for citizens of that state. They refuse to acknowledge his cozying up to major financial circles and the insurance industries. They turn a blind eye to his relatively conservative, Bill Cosby-esque views on race, which pose the mainstream myth that, for instance, black poverty is now predominantly a problem of culture and individual shortcomings, and not the legacy of racism.

In light of all of this, I cannot stay quiet while people keep giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, or keep attributing his inaction to some naive belief in gradualism and compromise, or worse still, defend his inaction on the premise that we can't expect him to change things overnight.

Well, that last point has a bit of merit. We really can't expect him to do that, even IF he was an actual progressive (which he isn't). The only way things ever get done is when we organize and make them get done. In that sense, it is a bit fruitless to attack Obama for not doing enough. What is not fruitless, however, is the effort to dispel the "idea of Obama" to which much of the left clings to, and which subsequently prevents them from speaking out, breaking with the Democrats, and organizing to truly push things in a progressive direction.

I highly suggest everyone who still has such illusions about Obama read Paul Street's excellent book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics. Hell, just about anything by Street is good in this regard.

[manic expression]

One thing's for sure: he's damn well not besieged. The Democrats have overwhelming control of both the executive and legislative branches, and the judicial seems to be leaning their way as of late. If that wasn't enough, most of the bourgeois press is either mildly or heavily supportive of the Democrats (excepting FOX). To top it all off, Obama enjoyed some of the highest approval ratings in recent history after his election, and yet with this support he only managed to slaughter innocents halfway around the world.

I'll go with cold-hearted bourgeois imperialist who's had a lot of practice pretending to be idealistic and hopeful.

[FSL]

The reason people might seem a bit lost on Obama is that the US has hardly seen any center-left presidents in the last decades.
Someone talking all sweet about how progressive they are, how supportive they 'll be of the working man, how respectful of human and citizens' rights and then doing exactly the opposite is a very common sight in Europe.

Obama is just a capitalist politician. There aren't really many faces, perhaps many masks.

[GPDP]

By the way, I suppose I should make another distinction between his supporters. There are diehard apologists who defend him and justify his (in)actions ("we must be pragmatic," "change doesn't happen overnight," "give him more time," etc), and then there are supporters who, while still seeing him as a well-meaning progressive under siege, just kind of throw their hands in the air, and hope he can manage ("the right-wing is just too strong," "the Democrats are betraying him," etc).

Either way, both views are quite blind, and the critical view that paints him merely as naive or spineless does not go far enough. The problem lies not in his lack of spine, but in his lack of a single progressive bone in his body.

[Prairie Fire]

Well, aside from the fact that Obama has maintained the same economic system (with concessions), the same wars of imperialism abroad, the same Israel policy, the same founding myth of the United States, the same aggression against Iran... This alone should be enough to peg him as an imperialist bourgeois leader, nothing more.

As for the fact that the rightist bourgeoisie have been "attacking"/opposing Obama on his concessions, this is not unusual. The bourgeoisie as a class may hold state power, but they are not necesarilly monolithic. At the end of the day, they have common interests and stick together in the face of workers unrest, but different sectors of the bourgeoisie have different needs, hence the abundance of bourgeois political parties in most countries to represent the different needs of the various sectors of the bourgeoisie.

Any struggle against even the most token reforms brought forward by Obama are a perfectly normal part of capitalism. The pharmeceutical bourgeoisie, the HMO's, insurance providers, private medical practitioners...they are in oppostion to Obama because their interests are threatened.

This is inevitible to happen. When the bourgeois state must make necessary concessions to keep revolution at bay, there is always a sector of the bourgeoisie that has to take a hit from these consessions. Naturally, there is discontent.

In the long run, this may lead to the United States bourgeoisie choosing a new champion, but for now Obama is their man. Of this there is no doubt, and the fire that he has drawn from media talking heads, think-tanks, rightist politicians, racist police organizations (re: his comments about the proffesor gates incident), and common reactionaries on the streets in no way invalidates his current status as a bourgeois politician, and the premier bourgeois politician of the United States.

Until we see otherwise from his policies and the socio-economic system employed in the US, then pay no mind to Glen Beck, Dick Armey, or the tea baggers and all of their racist clown-tactics.

If Obama did not represent the will of the elite, he would not be in the White House. Case closed.

[RadioRaheem84]

Obama is such a strange person. He stands up to insurance companies by insisting that anti-trust legislation be used on them and wants to start up an agency that protects consumers from financial scams. Yet, at other times he sounds very pro free market.

He has people on the right saying he's Marxist and people on the left saying he's a moderate capitalist.

[h9socialist]

Regardless of how you want to classify Obama, my contention is that he faces a situation not unlike those which social democratic and labor parties have found themselves in many times: faced with managing capitalism, a system they vow to change. This is especially difficult when you come up through th system, and are elected to lead it. I happen to think that Obama is, down deep, a good guy -- and regardless of other opinions expressed, I think he seriously wants to be "progressive." But he's "riding the tiger" and it's very hard to do that and not "end up inside." But don't be too quick to condemn Obama -- he may not be a socialist, but he has enabled the imagination of many Americans to move beyond Reagan, Bush and neo-conservatism -- about high time!!! The President of the United States can rarely be expected to do much better. After that, any more radical change in the U.S. depends on the American radicals themselves to open up new breathing space for more radical ideas.

[Raúl Duke]

As far as I can conceive, these are the three positions most commonly held on the left regarding Obama.

The first position is most commonly held by his liberal supporters, who believe that Obama is a genuine progressive under an insurmountable siege by the right-wing, which means it is necessary for him, and by extension his supporters, to compromise on the issues, which effectively means he should not be criticized.

The second position is held by people more to the left of Obama's supporters, such as the Greens and other social-democrats, who hold that while Obama may be well-meaning, he has a naive belief in gradualism and bipartisanship, which consequently make him spineless and unwilling to confront his opposition. The way to go for progressives, then, is to push Obama towards a stronger position.

The third position is held by the more radical and revolutionary left, who see Obama as a player in the bourgeois system of politics, whose primary role is to co-opt his supporters into compromising (read: giving up). Obama is seen as a sleek politician with a unique ability for presenting himself as a progressive candidate for change, but who is in reality a firm believer in the general status quo. To this end, the only way for actual, meaningful change to come about is to cease having illusions about Obama, and organize independently of him and the Democratic Party to force them towards structural change, and furthermore toward working class mobilization against bourgeois class rule, whom the Democrats represent in the end.

I believe it is important we make it clear who Obama and the Democrats really represent, and what values they truly hold. If we are to do so, we need to break away from notions that they are victims of the far-right or that they are merely lacking the spine to enact meaningful reform, and move toward a position that posits them as one of the main pillars of the ruling class in the U.S., Obama included.

In my everyday life I usually voice the second option (to anyone, especially liberals, except people who I know I can toss a radical statement at. Although when pressed about it I'll just throw in my real position and argue along those lines) while obviously holding a form of the 3rd position.

The problem with the 1st position is that it's a lie...he has party majority in congress and should not bother on "consensus" with the Republicans and just force through the damn public option or whatever on the damn health care reform because it doesn't matter if he does or not the right wing will still hate him like he's the anti-christ. So basically, there's more that keeps him from not doing anything then just partisanship (like...the fact he's a puppet and the dems are really more of the same).

[lvatt]

I think obama is "none of the above." He's just a politician. What he believes him will change every day with poll numbers. Like other politicians, he's mainly preoccupied with pleasing the companies he gets funding from and try to win over independent voters and swing state voters to stay in power

The sad thing is, if he was a genuine progressive who really wanted to get something done, he probably wouldn't have been elected president. In fact, he probably wouldn't have been elected to the senate and much less get his party's nomination last year

Or maybe I'm just too cynical

[Revy]

Regardless of how you want to classify Obama, my contention is that he faces a situation not unlike those which social democratic and labor parties have found themselves in many times: faced with managing capitalism, a system they vow to change.

The Democratic Party is not a social democratic or labor party, actually. And Obama and the Democrats have never vowed to change capitalism.



This is especially difficult when you come up through th system, and are elected to lead it. I happen to think that Obama is, down deep, a good guy -- and regardless of other opinions expressed, I think he seriously wants to be "progressive." But he's "riding the tiger" and it's very hard to do that and not "end up inside."As President of the United States of America, he holds a great deal of power and influence. It's not the system holding him back, its himself. He is not a good guy "deep down". And regardless of whether he thinks he is being progressive or doing good, objectively, he is not.



But don't be too quick to condemn Obama -- he may not be a socialist, but he has enabled the imagination of many Americans to move beyond Reagan, Bush and neo-conservatism -- about high time!!! The President of the United States can rarely be expected to do much better. After that, any more radical change in the U.S. depends on the American radicals themselves to open up new breathing space for more radical ideas.Ugh. This is the same "Obama as movement and moment" bullshit. Look at him when you think of him, don't think of him as people "imagine" him. He has NOT helped people move beyond the era you speak of. His Secretary of Defense is the same one Bush had in the latter part of his term.

[RadioRaheem84]

Apparently, the bailout did not work according to a new CNN interview with a watchdog group in DC. The economists are now saying that a recession after this one is imminent. A long term lag is unavoidable.

Stimulus packages will do little if credit market is not restored to it full capacity. The stagnant economy and little productive growth will not help the downturn either.

Obama cannot fix this by compromising or "fixing" an already irreparable system.

[proudcomrade]

I 'personally' don't think that there should be a president, or a senate, or a congress bred to be bribed... but that's just anarchist bullshit.
I think Obama is like Roosevelt, he wants to do good and sympathizes with the working people, but the world is shit and he is confronted with capitalism. I also think he'd be better off a community organizer... but we'll see.


I wish that I could believe that charitably of him; but if this ^^^ were true, then from whence came the mandatory privatized health-insurance policy? I nearly died when I first heard that. Even Bush himself was neither that cruel nor that venal.

[Orange Juche]

I think Obama started activism and politics with the right idea, and his heart was probably in a good place. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a time in his life (college, especially) where he was at least sympathetic to revolutionary left ways of thinking, though I could be wrong.

But to get where he is, he constantly had to sell himself out more and more, to the point where he's given up moral conviction in his own cowardice to serve a corrupt and oppressive system. Just a crony for the money. A bourgeois whore.

[ComradeR]

The man has shone that his "progressivism" is nothing more then rhetoric, it simple doesn't exist. He never intended to try and change the capitalist system you can see that simply by looking at what he's done before and has been doing since coming to office. He has maintained the same exact course as all the other bourgeois leaders before him. And I'm frankly quite sick of this liberal left apologist crap, and this right-wing red scare bull I seem to be surrounded by everyday.
(GPDP hits it right on the head.)

[Sir Comradical]

An imperialist scumbag.

[danny bohy]

he wanted to get involved with the american government which means he is in the bourgeois system of politics; hence he is an enemy of the left