What Colour is Barack Obama

If only Europeans got a vote for the leader of the ‘Free World’, perhaps the American Presidency would already be decided. Following American presidential candidate Barack Obama’s triumphant European tour, Donald Morrison investigates the complexity behind the hype and asks

‘I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America, I want to be the President of the United States of America’

Ever since Barack Obama secured himself as the Democrat Party’s candidate for president he has been the focus of much conjecture as to exactly what kind of president he may potentially be. Indeed due to his liberal policies and left wing connections he has been labelled by elements of the US right as a ‘shady Chicago socialist’ with a ‘hard left’ voting record. Indeed, a precursory search on the internet reveals an array of venomous right wing bloggers and sites ranging from the simply misguided to the downright ridiculous all claiming vociferously to have the inside scoop on Obama’s ‘dangerously socialist’ credentials.

Despite efforts to portray him otherwise Obama is not a socialist, and that he could ever be described as one merely shows how far right the American political system has moved and how paranoid the right has become. However ridiculous this accusation seems it does serve to pose three very pertinent questions: what does Barack Obama stand for? How able a man is he to stand by his central convictions and how should socialists and others on the left regard him?

Clearly a gifted orator, Obama is, in my opinion, a refreshing change against a backdrop of severe distrust and anger over American foreign and domestic policy. After years of government being so blatantly and ruthlessly used as a tool to serve the interests of corporate America it is revitalising to hear a politician talking about unions, civil rights, affordable health care, global warming, tax reform, challenging the corporate lobby and ending one of the most disastrous and misguided wars in modern history.

Furthermore, a front running black presidential candidate and the son of a Kenyan immigrant in itself signals a significant societal change in the US. As Malik Miah writes ‘Martin Luther King may have had a “Dream” that it could happen, but few believed it could occur in the lifetime of those who marched in Selma.’

It is depressing that the fact he is a black man should even count as an issue at all but in a country so divided by race with a history of racial oppression it counts for a lot. A recent poll in some states has shown that a fifth of white Democrats will not vote for Obama ‘simply on the basis of colour’. The racism behind this statistic is highlighted by Ian Bell when he describes some of the ‘sensationally offensive mail’ he received over an article he wrote about Obama, mostly by Americans from Southern states, for whom Obama’s ‘complexion is the only relevant issue.’ Although the social significance of his ‘complexion’ has to be acknowledged for many, myself included, the ‘only relevant issue’ is what Obama stands for.

First and foremost there is the continued illegal occupation of Iraq and Obama’s pledge to pull American troops out ‘gradually and responsibly’ within the first sixteen months of his presidency. In the Blueprint for Change there is an emphasis on finding a diplomatic solution to not just Iraq but also the perceived threat of Iran; a clear shift from the ‘sabre-rattling’ style of Bush and Cheney. Furthermore, he is clear in his opposition to the underhand use of torture used by the US military and has vowed to close the infamous Guantanamo compound.

All this sounds promising yet over recent weeks Obama has been guilty of political manoeuvring regarding his sixteen month pledge stating that he would ‘refine his position as necessary’. Despite calling a second press conference to reiterate his opposition Republicans jumped on the chance to label him as indecisive. I hesitate to support an argument the Republicans use so cynically as it does seem reasonable that a ‘commander-in-chief’ needs to continually review any timetable placed on a situation as fluid and volatile as warfare. The central fact still remains that if elected Obama will end the war in Iraq. The question that remains, however, is will he hand Iraq – and its oil wealth - back to its people?

His sixteen month timetable is belied by the fact that he has pledged to keep a contingent of US troops in the country to ‘protect US interests’ and conduct targeted ‘counter-terrorist operations’. Despite pledging troop withdrawal in Iraq during his war zone tour he has simultaneously made it clear that he ‘supports expanding troop strength’ in Afghanistan to combat the resurgent Taliban. This effectively means that many of the troops who would be taken out of Iraq will simply be redeployed in occupied Afghanistan. In addition to this in his Blueprint he commits himself to further expanding the US military budget – which currently stands at a staggering $700 billion per annum – calling for the recruitment of 65,000 more soldiers and 27, 000 more marines. Those of us who were expecting a gradual wind down of US militarism under Obama will be sorely disappointed.

Obama’s criticisms of the war have rarely focused on the war’s illegality. Although he has accused the current administration of using the war to distract voters from domestic issues he has never called into question the administration’s use of the ‘war on terror’ to further solidify US hegemony in the Middle East. Rather he seems to see the war as a strategic mistake in the global ‘war on terror’ committing the US to a war of ‘undetermined cost’ and of ‘undetermined length’. Under an Obama led administration, although strategy may change, the ‘war on terror’ is likely to continue and therefore so is the continued repression of the populations of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the domestic front, Obama and his follower’s mantra about change for America seem rather vague and at times reminiscent of the early Tony B.liar. On the other hand, many of Obama’s speeches see him take a definitively left wing stance. For example, he has linked the rising “price at the pump” to rising profits at Exxon and has railed against trade agreements that have “shipped jobs abroad” and “forced parents to compete with their teenagers for minimum wage at Wal-Mart”. In a speech in Wisconsin during the primaries he promised to be a president “who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a president that will stand by workers not just when it is easy, but when it’s hard”.

He has also demonstrated - to some extent – a class consciousness. In a speech in San Francisco he described to the dismay and outrage of many of the political elite that “some of the US working class, embittered by their harsh economic reality, sought solace in religion, guns and the comforting distrust of those who look different.” This realistic portrait of some aspects of working class America stands in stark contrast to the regularly espoused myth of the US as a classless society burgeoning with opportunity and upward mobility.

How does this rhetoric translate into concrete policies? In regards to health care Obama has vowed to give everyone the opportunity to gain adequate medical insurance guaranteeing ‘eligibility to all’. No American would be turned away due to pre-existing health conditions and health insurance for children would become mandatory. It is not quite the NHS but in a country where 47 million remain uninsured, of which 9 million are children, this seems, if not a leap, at least a step in the right direction.

In regards to taxation and the economy he would implement a ‘heavily progressive tax system’ which would see an end to the Bush tax cuts for the super rich and see many working families and low-paid workers receive tax relief. He has vowed to increase the minimum wage in line with inflation, protect striking workers from dismissal and invest $150 billion over ten years in green technologies. The Blueprint also pledges to create a Global Energy Forum which will encourage countries producing the largest share of green house gasses to cooperate in solving climate change.

All this seems commendable and it is understandable that such progressively liberal policies combined with powerful rhetoric have seen many pin their flag to his cause. In fact a significant part of his campaign has been run effectively on the 1.5 million who have donated on average $200 each. It is undeniable that he has given hope to many millions of working class people, environmentalists, war protesters and civil rights campaigners across the states. However, following the same pattern as his rhetoric on the war Obama has progressively manoeuvred himself into the middle ground politically whilst courting the sponsorship of the supremely rich.

His political manoeuvres have seen him vote in favour of an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is an amendment which allows phone companies to assist the Bush administration’s warrantless wire-tapping programme with immunity; a bill which he had previously promised to block. Civil rights campaigners have stated that not only does this bill breach the constitution but also licenses government spying on normal citizens in the name of the ‘war on terror.’ Many core Obama supporters have felt betrayed by this about-turn, and it may ultimately cost him votes.

As Purcell has reported in the Herald this is by no means an isolated occurrence. Obama has watered down his talk of wealth redistributive tax and has softened his early criticisms of free trade agreements (those same agreements which have “shipped jobs abroad”). He has condoned a US Supreme Court decision to veto a hand gun ban in Washington DC and is committed to continue the Republican policy of funding community services through faith based programmes. Clearly Obama is guarding himself against the criticism that he is ‘dangerously’ liberal aiming to portray himself as a bipartisan central candidate at the risk of losing his core support. It is no surprise that a Democratic candidate moves to the middle ground after the primaries are over. It is however striking that Obama, a man who has said he will not play the same old political games, should also follow this trajectory.

There is also the question of funding. Whilst Obama espouses left wing policies in public behind the scenes relations have been forged with leading corporate figures. In fact the Centre for Responsive Politics estimated that 80% of donations to the Obama campaign in 2007 came from ‘donors affiliated to business.’ These donors include Robert Wolf CEO of UBS America and Warren Buffet, the second wealthiest individual in the US. As the right-wing pundit Larry Kudlow has pointed out the most notable of these endorsements is from Paul Volcker, who was head of the US Central Bank for seven years under Reagan - a man whose fiscal policies saw high interest rates and the closing of large sections of US industry. It is reasonable to suppose that big money men such as these would not support Obama if they thought he would be bad for corporate America, or if they thought for one second that they would actually be paying considerably more in tax under his administration.

Such facts and considerations serve as a sober reminder that Obama – despite his charisma, oratory, and breakthrough appeal as the first realistic black contender for the presidency - is a member of the Democrat Party, a big business party that has acted as an accomplice to the Bush administration’s neo-liberal policies and Orwellian ‘war on terror.’ Both parties embody essentially the same economic ideology and both parties share responsibility for the huge inequalities that exist in the US today. Furthermore, we must also remember that Obama will inherit a $400 billion deficit from the Bush administration which, given his commitment to reducing national debt, may lead to an essentially conservative fiscal programme. Like in the UK, many Americans are living off credit and already 1.5 million homes have been repossessed with two million more estimated to follow in the next year. As Van Auken speculates, there may be ‘times of austerity’ ahead - and who better to demand further sacrifices from the working class in the name of national unity and change than the first African-American president.

In the absence of a mass left wing labour/socialist/social democratic party US socialist blogs on the web oscillate from proposing either critical support or positive opposition for Obama. A comparison can be made to the choice faced by many socialists in Scotland in the last election. With no socialist party standing in the first ballot many voted for the SNP to oust the Lib Lab coalition from power and take Scotland a step further to independence. In this regard I feel if I were an American citizen critical support would be the preferred option as there are still many good policies in Obama’s Blueprint for Change; policies which could genuinely improve the lives of many Americans if followed through.

Obama has clearly galvanized many who have never been adequately represented before and it is the duty of socialists in the US and internationally to engage with these supporters and demonstrate to them the need for a serious alternative. As Martin Luther King said in a speech to his staff in 1966:

“You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry... Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong... with capitalism... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."

Obama is caught in a bind. On the one hand he wants to appease his big business backers and on the other offer the hope of change to the people who so desperately need it. In comparison to what has gone before there is cause for cautious optimism, but Obama is a team player, a unifier, and in his wish to reach out to both ‘red’ and ‘blue’ America he may make tragic compromises - and find his own distinctive colours become just another shade of corporate grey.