-------
Thanks for breaking the ice. I've been chewing on these themes for months. I've been trying to somehow locate Obama.
I followed similar lines of thought. I made every possible argument, every excuse in my mind for Obama. I waited and waited. All through the so-called health care debates. Nada. Then recently Eric Holder announced virtually the same Justice Department polices as Gonzales had installed over releasing government documents in several on-going lawsuits brought Guantanamo prisoners and their families. I couldn't figure out why. I mulled over Dwayne's mention of the rising tide of neoconservatism. I mulled over the revelation that David Brooks said something to the effect he approved of about 95% of Obama's decisions. Finally, I became convinced Obama was some brand of neoconservative.
Adolph Reed labeled Obama a neoliberal. That could be also, but I decided there is less liberal about Obama than neoliberal implies. I think a lot of neoliberals probably find these wars unnecessary. On the other hand it is the neoconservatives who justify the wars and claim they are necessary components of the free market politics of empire.
Once I decided Obama was a neoconservative, then most of his policies began to make a lot more sense. He can't be pulled to the left liberal side. His appeals to the Republicans are based on the idea that their best face is the moderate neoconservative one, and not the weirdo partisan one shown in its congressional leadership. He only appears liberal if you imagine him from the war mongering neocons like Chaney, Bush, Abrams, et al.
His support for Lieberman (in a primary a couple of years ago), his war policies, his financial policies, his appointment of Geithner, his retention of Gates at DoD, his ambiguous hints in the health care debate, his continuance and enhancements of Bush's education policies through Duncan, talk of individual responsibility, and on and on...
All of that depicts a neoconservative who is attempting to lure traditional liberals into his sphere of influence and support. I consider the progressive caucus more like traditional liberals. I suspect they are getting pretty fed up. They have been stone walled, ignored, and probably chastised behind closed doors on just about every front.
Obama is reflecting more or less the consensus politics of the power elite. They have moved from a traditional conservativism to a neoconservativism in terms of foreign and domestic politics, while insisting on free market neoliberalism for the political economy.
I think Obama's calculation is that as long as the Republicans are dominated by the looney tunes, he can afford disaffection from liberals. In other words the looney tunes enabled Obama to ignore his popular base.
My next real question was where did Obama get all these ideas? The usual suspects I think are the Uni Chicago and Harvard law schools, the foundations and think tank industries. These ideas and politics are effectively the professional business class fare. They have nothing to do with any kind of traditional liberalism at all.
I suspect what has become some modified form of neoconservative has embedded itself into the professional class curriculum in most of the elite universities, especially the private ones. The clue here is that John Yoo teaches constitutional law at Boalt, in Berkeley. Behind Yoo's memos, was the legal theory of an all powerful executive branch under a president who could at his/her own determination and judgement and without review or limits from the other branches, make policy in foreign and domestic affairs during times national emergency. This basic neocon theory is where Obama sits, and how he justifies his economic and war policies. The neocon interest in Lincoln and FDR have nothing to do with liberalism, but rather in this theory of a strong hierarchical form of governance. This interpretation fits very well with the private CEO corporate ideal. So we have a complete mesh between the public and private systems of power and wealth.
What do I mean by traditional liberalism? On the popular side there are Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Moyers. These examples also help explain why Obama found it easy to throw Wright under the train, and why Bill Moyers and Juan Cole still attempt to appeal to the Obama administration.
Jim F. brings up an important point.
``Frankly, I am less inclined to blame Obama for the illusions that so many progressives had in him as I am to blame the progressives themselves for their self-deceptions.''
I count myself among the semi-deluded. I didn't expect much, but I was sure disparate to get out of the grip of the Bush regime. I did expect Obama to close Guantanamo and reverse the dissolution of civil and human rights. I expected him to reverse the neocon ideals about government. I expected him to set up some kind of mechanism to investigate the tremendous amount of wrong doing during the Bush years. I expected him to clamp down on the financial sector. I expected all that because it would make good politics to discredit the right. Instead, Obama has done next to nothing on any of those fronts and I suspect behind the scenes, he discouraged any moves in any of those directions.
Further, I suspect Obama manages through Pelosi to keep the liberals in the House at bay through various rule maneuvering. I can only hope this system of dodging an open confrontation with Obama will break down sooner or later.
So how come I feel deceived? It comes from living for years with local black political figures who have been to the progressive side of the Democrats on just about everything, including the environment.
I think Obama used this public perception of the basic liberalism of black voters to deceive both black and white voters. This sort of political tactic has been standard fare for years. I felt the same deception going on with John Kerry when he ignored Abu Ghraib during his campaign. Kerry was trading on his reputation as a liberal Kennedy type who testified against the war in Vietnam. And then there are the Clintons with their own version of bait and switch or triangulation or whatever you want to call it.
These deceptions are vastly aided in the US by the un-hinged right. Compared to them, Obama looks a lot more liberal than he is. Mad dogs like Dick Chaney and Elliot Abrams also help mask Obama's affinities with a more toned down neoconservatives like Brooks. Wojtek is right to point out that Obama's refuses to use mud and fear. He looks great in a suit. As superficial as that might seem, it's great to see him on the international stage. I just wish he acted more like his appearance as a smooth urbane liberal. He seems to be coated with as much teflon as Reagan and he projects much the same `good guy' persona.
This brings up another problem. How can I call Obama a neoconservative, when the Weekly Standard and its allies are on a constant drone over Iran, Israel, and Obama has been moderately ambiguous over both? A quick glance at one of their November issues makes it sound like Obama is a weak kneed, bleeding heart liberal.
Well, they are delusional. Look at Obama's boycott of the UN Human Rights conference where the report on Gaza was presented. Look at Obama's silence on Gaza when he first took office. If you ignore neocon ideological blather and watch what Obama actually does at junctures important to most neoconservatives, then he follows, much as Brooks grades him, 95%.
It actually sickens me to write about this.
CG