A Sort of Statement of Belief: On Obama, Change, and Elite Consensus

[Political Heretic]

I posted this originally somewhere else, but this being one of the sites I mainly frequent I also wanted to put it here to open it up to more discussion. In the coming months we are going to have a lot more debate between people who don't feel that the Obama administration is doing enough and those who feel the administration is going great. One of the news reports of this week are already sparking this debate (ACLU's unhappiness with administration transparency, White House seeking to get pay cap legislation changed, White House seeking a delay on the enforcement of Roves Contempt Citation, etc.) Here's what I believe:

Let me try to explain something again, just so as we go forward there's no confusion. As far as my ideas about how political power in our society works, I pretty much agree with your most strident of leftists. I only ever disagree about the conclusions we should make based off the information (i.e. what we should do about it).

This includes looking at Obama. Two Americas (DU Poster as well) made that post I keep praising over and over, Moving to the Center of Elite Consensus. One of the best things I've ever read and I agree fully. The elite will tolerate some ambiguity and some change in various areas. It's important to me to remember that when Obama speaks of "change" he is speaking as part of the elite political establishment and that he is invested in by the powers of the broader ruling class, the corporate business elite. Obama can bring "change" and a lot of it is change that I deeply want and that the people in my community desperately need. This is change within the range of what the elite will allow without putting their foot down.

What Obama cannot bring is institutional change or change in any areas that would remotely threaten the establishment. The closest we could possibly come to seeing any of this would be if economic conditions continued to deteriorate and popular outrage drove a sort of populist uprising that rearranged the balance of what the elite would tolerate - by that I mean, fearing the chaos of a true uprising (work stoppage, rioting in the streets, potential violence) they "grant" a bit more room for challenges to their traditional stranglehold on power in order to hopefully placate the masses.

This is where some of the folks on the left make criticism of people who understand these things but elected to vote for Obama anyway. They argue that supporting someone like Obama because one believes he will bring some change that they see as minor is like fighting over table scraps rather than killing your captors and sitting down at the table yourself. They would argue that nothing can truly get better as long as we keep allowing the same water-carrying politicians to reinforce the establishment's positions in the hopes that we'll see modest improvements in specific social areas from one "boss" to another.

This is not an argument to scoff at. It's a critically important argument that may in fact turn out to be right.

But what I chose to do during this last election cycle was prioritize some immediate gains that I believe Obama would provide in the domain of domestic social issues, over the ideal of supporting the more complete dismantling of the system (in whatever way one might do that, by rejecting the voting process, and working instead strictly on worker organizing, protesting, civil disobedience and mobilization, or by the third party candidate option, new party building, etc.) After eight years of Bush, having Obama elected was more important to me than "supporting the revolution" because first and foremost I felt that some of the immediate, short term reversals that could be implemented even by Obama, even operating under the specter of elite consensus, would be too important to real individuals and families. This feeling only intensified as the economic crisis took shape.

The idea of John McCain being president during this mess was just too much for me to accept. What I wanted from Obama is kind of what I am getting in things like this spending bill, which is more targeted to the needs of individuals and families around me than anything to come out of congress in a long time. Obama seems to see labor as a strong part of the solution to the economic crisis (given his four very pro-union executive orders, his statement of intent to back employee free choice act and his nomination of Hilda Solis for labor secretary). This may put him slightly at odds with elite consensus, but I believe in this climate, it will be tolerated and that will be incredibly good for the American worker.

Again, this brings us back to the main question - is it better to fight for small changes but have little hope of institutional reform from the top down? Or is it better to fight for institutional reform from the top down but potentially make things much worse in the short run for no guaranteed outcome in the future? A great question - I wish we were all discussing it rigorously here, and I don't know why its so hard for some to do so without attacking everyone else.

My position is that the kind of institutional change we need isn't going to come from the top down, and so electing better leaders into that establishment doesn't do anything to hurt goals of organizing the people for revolutionary change of the entire establishment. I don't believe the right "leader" is going to suddenly become President of this establishment and completely transform everything. If John Edwards had been elected for example (my first choice), he would have done a lot of things much better. I think he might have carried a serious burden for Poverty a lot like Johnson did in the beginning, and we may have seen a serious return to an effort to genuinely address that. But he would have been playing within the framework of elite consensus just like anyone else - possibly bringing a little bit more "change" being a little bit more of a black sheep of the elite family, but that's it.

Revolutionary change has nothing to do with what goes in in the elite establishment. Revolutionary change, I believe, starts from the ground up. It starts as workers and those left out by the system begin to build community together, and as the start to organize and mobilize. That mobilization can take a couple different forms. One form would be mass revolt - work stoppage, protest, civil disobedience, shutting down "the machine." The other would would be the infiltration approach - where masses of people united around some shared goals get themselves elected to city councils and school boards all around the country, and then statehouses and then to Washington and finally to the White House - this would be the sort of "virus" method of bring the old system down.

Here's the important thing: both of these would take time, and neither of them are negatively effected by one's choice to vote for the lesser of two evils in the meantime! This has always been my point. While we're all about the revolution, there is nothing that says we can't go ahead and support a Barack Obama over a John McCain just because we know that Obama will do at least some things differently - doing that does nothing to prevent us from accomplishing our bigger goals of organizing and mobilization.

However when one opts to do this, like I did, one has to be prepared to dish out as much criticism of a representative of the elite establishment as one does praise. I praise the Obama administration for its stimulus bill spending, which I feels goes right where it needs to go better than any spending bill of the last thirty years. And let there be no mistake, when I say praise I mean cheering!

But I strongly condemn - though I am not surprised - the backpedaling of the administration on things like civil rights, the sidestepping of issues such as the prosecution of criminals from the previous administration, the continuation of US foreign policy on the "war on terror" and so on. We need to be prepared, I believe, to both criticize and praise this administration as warranted, and accept that our "salvation" is not going to be found in the white house but on the streets of our own home towns and the marches we make across this country.

[OHdem10]

1. And backpedaling on Trade Policy( when, if the truth be told a lot of

problems we are witnessing, have their roots in Trade.

[Honeycombe8]

2. Small changes? I think you assume that what you want changed is what everyone wants changed.

Or at least you assume that others' priorities are yours, and vice versa.

One of my top issues is global warming (and the environment, and species extinction). Obama was the strongest candidate in this area. He's already, not even a month into his presidency, made progress in this area.

Another of my top issues is the economy. I thought Obama was the strongest candidate in this area, too. Again, he's making progress in this area. I am disappointed at the supposed compromises the Dems made in the stimulus bill, but most of what the Dems wanted got left in. And some things, I agreed with the moderates that they could be addressed in regular budgeting bills. So I'm glad Obama signed Congress' bill and got things underway.

Another of my top issues is health care. I agreed with Obama that his plan was the strongest and most likely to succeed and the most likely to be fair in benefiting everyone. They have not really gotten going on this yet because of the economy, but we'll see if they do. It's a top priority of his, and it will be tough to hammer out the details. But if he gets a bill passed on this, it will be an historical change.

Another of my top issues is, generally, change. The country was headed to the right, further and further, except for spending and deficits. I voted for change. Obama was hands down the best hope for change. I am disappointed that the change hasn't been as stark as I'd hoped, or as sharp a turn. We'll see if it gets clearer as time goes on, and he gets his land legs in his new position. Still, there's already a stark contrast in the White House's ideology and priorities in the areas I mentioned above.

So I don't know what "small changes" you're referring to. But Obama is making strides in some very big ways. I didn't compromise. From what I can tell, I voted for the right person to make big changes (according to my priorities), and he is delivering. So far.

[Political Heretic]

3. All of those are "small" in that they are subsets within the same basic socio-political institution

as opposed to the complete dismantling and replacement of that institution - that's what I meant wherever I said "small" changes.

Honestly I'm not even sure exactly where you're getting the "small changes" line - but in the way you're using it, I feel like you should read my post again - carefully - and see if you still think I'm saying what you think I'm saying.

Sounds like you skimmed and admittedly long post and came to some not quite on the mark conclusions about my point.

[Honeycombe8]

4. Your post WAS a tad long, but I did more than skim. I read. Here's

what stuck out to me:

"Again, this brings us back to the main question - is it better to fight for small changes but have little hope of institutional reform from the top down? Or is it better to fight for institutional reform from the top down but potentially make things much worse in the short run for no guaranteed outcome in the future? A great question - I wish we were all discussing it rigorously here, and I don't know why its so hard for some to do so without attacking everyone else."

I just disagreed that what we have been seeing are "small changes." I don't know what type of institutional reform from the top down you're talking about, but I have no dreams of that politicians or politics will change. It never has, that I know of.

I think our institutions are good, if good people run them. The EPA? Good idea. Good institution in theory. It's done some pretty good things. But bad people have been running it the last 8 years. Now hopefully good people will run it, and it will be good again. It doesn't need reform from the top down, as far as I'm concerned (unless you call replacing the top dog there as reform...I just call that change, not reforming the institution).

That's what I meant. I'm not harboring any notions that Washington D.C. will be reformed. I AM hoping for a change in direction in this changing of the guard, and a return more to way things used to be.

I DO hope the health care industry will be reformed. But that is already one of those changes that Obama campaigned on, and was elected in part on.