
Flickr photo by Steve Rhodes
A week or two ago I began to think about the reality that it had been about a year since Obama won the election. And, about a week or two ago, I began to see and read the first conversations about how the 2012 Election is set to begin in the spring of 2010.
I do not know how many Americans can handle the beginning of another election right now. It's too early. We aren't done with the man who currently occupies the White House.
Too many of us have failed to make him create the change we need, too many of us are still willing to buy into this idea that he could go to the root of many of our problems and make things better for a broad swath of America.
At least half of the country still believes in the power of Barack Obama.
I do not know what they believe or have faith in as they cling to these beliefs but my guess is these beliefs in are compartmentalized---separated from the oncoming expansion and escalation of the Afghanistan War, separated from the permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq, separated from Obama's cozying up to Big Banks like Goldman Sachs which placed risky bets on the housing market that heavily contributed to the economic collapse in 2008, separated from the bailout to health insurance companies that will be cloaked in a so-called public option.
A year on, Americans still wear cheaply made commercial merchandise they bought that night when Obama claimed victory (or that day when Obama was inaugurated). They wear hats that say “President of the United States of America” or “HOPE” or “CHANGE.”
The hats and shirts people wear with Obama's name on them say it all. They say despite my hardship, despite my poverty I push on because you made me believe this country could do better for me and other people some day.
I do not think they know when that will happen. It probably will not happen before Obama's Hope and Change Reunion Tour kicks off in the Spring of 2010 as he fights to maintain the support of those who were die-hard supporters in the spring, summer, and fall of 2008.
They don't know when they will get Medicare for All and have their health care bills significantly reduced, they don't know when they will be able to live a life without fear of having their home foreclosed on, they don't know when they will be sure that their union won't be forced to make concessions which result in a pay cut, they don't know when they can be sure that they will have enough money to help get their sons and daughters through college, they don't know when the next week or the week after they will know if they can afford to pay for all the groceries they need to feed their family--- But the vast majority continue to live knowing the alternatives, giving up or dying, to be worse than the trials and tribulations they are experiencing.
Some turn to communities they live in for support ---churches, neighborhood groups, schools, unions, clubs, family, etc. Some have the courage and wherewithal to point the finger and consider why they live like this ---- why anyone in the world has to live like this.
Why does anyone have to live like that?
How do you sum up this past year and why the answer to one's prayers has taken so long to do what was necessary?
Do you pinpoint American democracy as an utter failure? Do you put the blame on Obama and say he has not been the transformative leader necessary for real change and failed to take on corporate power? Or do you address the psychology of America, the systems that run rampant in America and suck human goodness, kindness, caring, and decency like a leech?
We have been brainwashed to believe we must get change through the system and any action for change outside the system will go nowhere and so our actions for the change we believe in prevent from happening what leaders and politicians don't want us to believe in.
The idea of “change we can believe in” prevents creative action which could blow open a whole set of possibilities for radical reforms and systemic change if a mass majority participated in it. It shrewdly deludes us all into thinking, instead, that incremental change is what's possible and what's only possible.
It leads us to the current point in history when “Yes We Can” and “Change We Can Believe In” has transformed into phrases like “Change is hard,” “Change isn't supposed to be easy,” and “Change doesn't happen overnight.” Such phrases put a damper on all populism across America.
So, finally, the disappointment of Obama's first year is that several opportunities presented themselves for real change.
-Health care reform could have been single payer
-“Financial reforms” could have been created to include a worker's bill of rights
-The PATRIOT Act and its expansions could have been repealed
-The economic crisis could have kickstarted a radical restructuring of our national economy in favor of Main Street not Wall Street
-A bloated military budget could have been cut significantly so that more money could go toward education, jobs, housing, etc
-Foreign policy could have been created to end the wars in the Middle East
-Much more could have been done to deal with the impending environmental destruction that will occur as a result of global warming.
All of these changes could have been put into motion, but these changes were deemed changes we we could believe in but never see take shape.
Change we can believe in was never anything more than a figment of our imagination, a largely undefined belief to keep us all in check and allow for a president to tap in to the political energy and frustrations of the time.
"Change is hard” is not an acceptable outlook for the future. "Yes we've failed" is much more appropriate for summing up the past year since Obama's election.


Salon.com
Comments
I still have hope. But excellent piece, as always Kevin. R
Thanks, John
I agree with you overall analysis here. The squandered opportunities have been one of the most frustrating things I’ve witnessed since the results of the 2000 non-election of George Bush. I fully recognize Obama’s complicity in every squandering of those opportunities. The thing is, none of it should have come as a surprise; NONE of it. Obama’s corporatism and Republican-lite approach was easy to see well ahead of when he was elected. In fact, the two Democratic Primary front-runners were basically differently wrapped versions of the same package.
It is true, of course, that perhaps the major obstacle we face is not Obama, himself, as much as our Congress and the fearful response of voters that continue to place the same package in office every election cycle. The fear of change is what I see, and anyone who comes forth actually talking about the REALITY of what change means will be ignored, or worse. The reasons are manifold, not singular, as you point out in your post, but one of the major problems is the fact that too many ignorant people have right to vote.
IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY are something we cannot overcome with an election. Perhaps if enough time were given and some proper representatives could be placed in office, we could start to whittle away the ignorance and stupidity that currently reigns so supreme, but not in our lifetimes will it happen. There exists in America a high level of reverence for ignorance, lack of education, gut reactions without reason, faith-based beliefs and religious dogma and national patriotism, and all of the things that have put us here. How do we eliminate or counter that?
You comment regularly on my posts and I want to take this moment to appreciate your regular comments. Thank you.
On the last part of your comment ---
"IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY are something we cannot overcome with an election. Perhaps if enough time were given and some proper representatives could be placed in office, we could start to whittle away the ignorance and stupidity that currently reigns so supreme, but not in our lifetimes will it happen. There exists in America a high level of reverence for ignorance, lack of education, gut reactions without reason, faith-based beliefs and religious dogma and national patriotism, and all of the things that have put us here. How do we eliminate or counter that?"
I imagine we begin to eliminate or counter ignorance, lack of education, gut reactions without reason, faith-based beliefs and religious dogma and nationalism by shining a light on it. We begin to win by not being afraid of pointing it out to the very people who are perpetuating this ignorance, lack of education, gut reactions without reason, etc etc.
Unavoidably, I am told to be realistic.
Unavoidably, I am told that Obama has done some good things (this is not directed at John Blumenthal) and so to suggest that he has failed in many respects is negating how much he has done for America since being inaugurated in January.
Unavoidably, people point out that Democrats are what we got. No third party candidates can win. We don't have open, free, and fair elections. The two-party system has a stranglehold on our democracy and the lesser of two evils is the best we can do because third, fourth, fifth party candidates "spoil" elections.
Democrats are better than Republicans---so I'm told.
We have to take this on and really talk about society's safe and inadequate conceptions of change, politics, and grassroots organizing. We have to talk about how change does not come from presidents or from the top down---It doesn't come from this system.
And we ---especially my generation--- have got to shift the consciousness to make more radical changes possible or else the America we live in today is surely going to go the way of Rome. I believe our failure today brings the end of America closer and closer to actually happening.
I like a lot of the points that you make. However, one of the disadvantages of sweeping/immediate change has is that there can often be a backlash. Reagan/Bush era might one day be seen essentially as a "backlash" against the sweeping changes of the sixties era. I'm not saying that the sixties era changes weren't worth it...we (progressives) accomplished a lot that needed to be accomplished (civil rights, rights for women, etc).
But I disagree with you that Obama has failed simply because he's taken smaller steps than we would have wished him to take. I support the single payer system, however, the insurance companies currently account for a large segment of the economy. Most economists, even progressives ones, have stated that the cost/backlash of wiping out insurance companies with a single would be harsh without taking some provisions first, particularly hard since although a majority of americans support the public option, I've not heard of a study that says a majority of americans support the single payer system. (yet).
Or another way to say what I'm getting at is that fast change that doesn't last (because it ushers in a return of the opposing party) isn't what I'm hoping for either. It's funny but obama is a progressive with the cautious approach of a (old-style at least) conservative.
I'm not sure that one year is enough for me to know whether I consider that he's failed in what I elected him to do. Anyone who read his voting records in the senate (or even read the fine print in his speeches) cannot be surprised that incremental change was all Obama ever offered. So I can't pretend to have been bamboozled or anything. If Paul Wellstone would have been alive I would have voted for him. But in the absence of Wellstone, Obama is the change we have to work with. Whether or not this small step approach works not only in introducing change...but introducing change that stays long term is still what I'm interested to see.
I'm beginning to see the 'Obama revolution' as little more than a retrenchment of the same actors and activities that have always occupied Americans: conservatives versus liberals, the critics versus the self-satisfied. We need to start ignoring these death-shows and head off in radically new directions. We need positive concepts, like a 'terrifying new materialism' which sees reality as 'nothing more than a series of catastrophes' (Zizek), or a radical ethical choice between allowing a child to drown or ruining a nice pair of shoes to wade in and save her (Singer), or better yet, a world of zombies ready to suck out your brains if you're not quick enough on the draw ('Zombieland').
And then we can return to this matter and start asking truly radical questions like, 'What does consumerism really offer anyone anymore?' Or, 'If the terrorists seem set on attacking rich people in this country, why should I care, what does that have to do with me?' And as for the crises of global capitalism, it seems to me that we need to make them even bigger, even deeper, and even more destructive. Then maybe finally we will begin to see that the best thing to do with the 'system' is to push it right over a cliff.
It's not a good thing that, like a cancer, health insurance companies are such a big part of our economy.
When public services are privatized (as they have been throughout the past century), it raises the questions: Why? Who benefits? Do they perform better for people because they are run by private interests instead of public interests?
The answers to these questions then (depending on what answers you come up with) should compel a person and society to push for the cleansing of a sickness in America. For-profit healthcare is a sickness.
It has spread malignant cells through our economy and killed off good healthy cells.
We are now trying to recover with those malignant cells alive and well in our economy.
We cannot recover without fully killing off the malignant rot in our economy. It will only spread if we do not take care of it (and to some degree we have, as you pointed out, let it take over far too much of our economy, which means we will initially suffer but in the short term our economy will recalibrate itself and we will be on a much better path than we previously were if we rid ourselves of commodified health care).
We are all miserable. We have been miserable our whole lives. That will not change until this thing that 'owns' us is destroyed. Do you really believe that the economic crash was not an expression of this? Society is not a body, but it is a consciousness. And our subconscious knows the truth. We tried to do it in, we just didn't go far enough...this time. We'll have to let someone come up with some virus worse than derivatives, and we will, if we're lucky.
We are all miserable about what? Where am I supposed to go with this comment? Should this compel me to do something? Think something?
I'm not trying to compel you to do anything. On the contrary, I would say that the most radical act sometimes is to do nothing. Just let it happen. Let the 'system' kill itself. We're getting pretty good at that, we almost did it in completely this last time. It's the best thing we can 'do' for the world, and ourselves. Then at least our misery, and our happiness, will be our own. This isn't cynicism either. Screw Diogenes. He didn't go far enough.
As for the little girl, what difference does it make if she's saved right now? For what kind of world? And if she's American, and rich, isn't the rest of the world better off if she drowns?
For instance?
delores typed: "fast change that doesn't last (because it ushers in a return of the opposing party) isn't what I'm hoping for"
There is no reason to think that single payer insurance, or ending the wars, or giving LGBT people civil rights that the Constitution supports (see the 14th Amendment) would cause a backlash. The 2006 takeover of Congress by the Dems was a direct result of people wanting the wars to end. Obama's victory was predicated, at least partially on the premise that he would institute single payer, or, at least, sweeping health care reform, not the vile attack on women's rights and windfall for the health-industrial complex that just passed the House.
The American public is, and has been, significantly to the left of its government for years. Check the polling.
Do you think a health care system like Canada's or England's or Switzerland's would cause a backlash? Why?
Here are the comparative costs for the US, Europe and Japan. If we got anywhere close to the European average, or even the highest cost one in Norway, do you think people would be unhappy?
SALON (9/8/09):
National per capita spending on healthcare, 2007
United States: $7,290
Norway: $4,763
Switzerland: $4,417
Luxembourg: $4,162
Canada: $3,895
Austria: $3,761
France: $3,601
Germany: $3,588
Netherlands: $3,527
Belgium: $3,462
OECD average: $2,964
1) He needs to fire his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who did NOT create the Democratic majority in 2006 and did NOT expand the Dem majority and get Obama elected in 2008 - but DID claim credit for it. His one move - to fire Van Jones - to placate the right instead energised it. Emanuel's only talent is self-promotion: he is a master at taking credit for other people's successes.
Maybe he can hire the man who actually DID bring about the "miracle" of 2006: Howard Dean.
2) He needs to get Harry Reid dropped as Senate Majority Leader. He has more than proved that he can't lead. Perhaps when Reid fails to get the Health Care Bill passed through the Senate.
I have no idea if the Senate Dems are leaders. I only hope he doesn't hand the role over to Joe Lieberman.