Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiKeeping Track of Change (It Takes More Than Hope)
For anyone seeking real reform of America's foreign and defense policies in the years ahead, Obama's introduction of his national security team was a mixed bag. Set against an increasingly worrisome national security environment -- from the mounting tensions in India/Pakistan to Sunday's New York Times front-page story about epidemic U.S. military-industrial corruption to this week's Washington Post story about Pentagon plans to station 20,000 U.S. troops on the American homeland by 2011 -- it was at least refreshing to see a new row of faces to replace those who have brought us the tragic missteps of recent years. Yet what these appointments really suggest about Obama's broader prospects for reform requires vigilant public attention.
As someone who seeks fundamental reform of so much of the American system, I've been heartened to see a growing number of voices on the airwaves and blogosphere express concern at certain choices made by the Obama transition team that are hard to reconcile with the public's hopes for change. This kind of unrelenting pressure for reform is vital and has already provoked an entirely healthy discourse even among Obama's most ardent supporters, between those who seek far-reaching change and those who see themselves as more pragmatic. Since Obama has not yet even been inaugurated, these voices can only speculate on what his governance might look like, and there's a danger of being either prematurely critical or overly complacent. Still, it's never too early to be vigilant. Let us not forget that it was Obama himself who invited each of us to fulfill our end of the contract between citizen and president in an historic effort to bring about change.
For my part, I like making lists. So rather than over-interpret any single decision, I thought it would be a good idea to catalog some key appointments and policy statements thus far - the promising alongside the worrisome - to take stock of and prepare for the bigger picture the transition has begun to paint of what lies ahead.
First, the good news:
- Continuing Inspiration for Change. Obama continues to inspire millions to believe that change is both necessary and possible. His transition team reports having received 200,000 applications for jobs in his administration.
- Economic Crisis Leadership. Obama has swiftly made key appointments and policy statements to fill a "leadership vacuum" to calm domestic and global economic jitters.
- Expanding U.S. Employment. In an echo of the New Deal, 2.5 million jobs will be created to improve U.S. infrastructure.
- Revoking Unconstitutional Bush Policies. It's been suggested that work is already under way to reverse politically-motivated executive orders ranging from climate change and reproductive rights to stem cell research.
- Ethical Hiring Practices. The transition team is said to be subjecting candidates for administration posts to unprecedented ethical scrutiny.
- Improving International Relations. Reciprocating the world's resounding approval of his election, Obama is expected to appoint ambassadors who are experienced diplomats rather than follow his predecessor's example of awarding ambassadorships to big campaign donors.
- Guantanamo Closure. Obama has stood by his campaign promise to close Guantanamo and end U.S. torture practices.
- Transparent Governance. The announcement of Obama's plan to give weekly updates on YouTube - a high-tech echo of FDR's fireside chats - is inspiring.
- Restoring Cabinet Level Status for U.N. Ambassador. Signaling real change in America's approach to foreign affairs, the appointment of a new and improved Dr. Rice to the role of U.N. Ambassador was compounded by the announcement that the position will also be restored to cabinet rank.
Now, the developments that are, at minimum, twists on the spirit and pledges of the campaign and, at maximum, a troubling departure from them:
- Protracted Iraq Timetable. Though opposition to the Iraq War was a defining feature of Obama's early candidacy, his position on a timetable for withdrawal has grown elastic with time. Though he had already begun to retreat from his original 16-month troop withdrawal commitment long before last week's the Status of Forces Agreement arrangement was struck with Iraq, this agreement, which makes December 31, 2011 a date certain for withdrawal, may spare Obama the awkward work of having to explain a softening of his originally firm commitment.
- Gates and Lieberman. To further dilute his once-impassioned antiwar position, Obama's decisions to have kept Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, an opponent of any date-certain withdrawal from Iraq, and to have come to the defense of Joe Lieberman maintaining his senate chairmanships, may be politically shrewd but are dissonant with the antiwar spirit of his campaign.
- FISA and Wiretapping. Obama dismayed many supporters when he voted for last summer's FISA legislation, granting telecom companies legal immunity from prosecution for wiretapping. More broadly, there has to date been no evidence of any movement to redress his predecessor's far-reaching assaults on civil liberties.
- War Crimes Accountability. The new Obama Justice Department is not expected to launch criminal probes of forged intelligence, torture, and other unlawful practices undertaken by the Bush administration. But without real accountability for these trespasses, what motivation will there be in Washington for reform?
- Continued Tax Cuts for Wealthy? There have now been indications from Obama's advisors that may allow a Bush tax cut for the wealthy to expire on schedule in 2011 rather than repealing it sooner, as previously promised.
- Lobbyists Appointed to Transition and Cabinet Positions. Despite his lauded vetting practices and his campaign pledge that "no political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years," Obama has selected a number of people for his transition team and cabinet (including Tom Daschle) who have served as lobbyists or worked for lobbying firms in the fields in which they will be involved.
- Clinton Era Appointees. Without speculating on the pros or cons of any single cabinet appointee, the number of Clinton-era cabinet appointments so far, from Hillary Clinton to Rahm Emmanuel to Eric Holder to Robert Rubin protégé Timothy Geithner, is surprising and begs the question: how much change is likely to come from an abundance of representatives of an old guard?
- Misplaced Rhetoric Toward Russia. During the late phases of his campaign, Obama escalated his rhetoric toward Russia in the wake of its five-day war with Georgia in August 2008. Given the now growing evidence that Georgia initiated the conflict and that the Bush administration concealed this from the American public, Obama's anti-Russian rhetoric represents both a non-change from the belligerence of the Bush years and seems to betray the undue influence of longstanding Cold War strategists among his advisors.
- A Nuclear Double Standard Toward Iran. When, just days after his election, Obama declared it "unacceptable" for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon in a world where other nations (including Israel) have nuclear weapons, he sent a signal that echoes the position taken by the Bush administration over the past eight years. Right or wrong, this position is read around the world as a double- standard on nuclear policy. Had Obama instead spoken of the need for global nuclear disarmament (Iran, Israel, and the U.S. included), this message would have been a departure from the posture of the Bush years.
- Surging in Afghanistan. While the matter of the worsening situation in Afghanistan is a sensitive one, Obama's late campaign call for a surge in the war-torn country was a departure from the antiwar platform on which he first appealed to the American people. It seemed instead to suggest a shifting of certain troops from Iraq, where Obama had opposed such a surge, to Afghanistan, rather than simply bringing those troops home. Another model for implementing a peacekeeping presence in Afghanistan might have been more compatible with the spirit of Obama's original commitments to reducing unilateral U.S. military activity overseas.
- Saber-Rattling at Bin Laden. While a police action to capture al Qaeda leadership should have been America's first priority after 9/11 and it remains a stain on the Bush administration that it knowingly distracted the nation with other pursuits, pursuing Bin Laden, who is believed to be in Pakistan, implies expansion of U.S. military activity into the territory of this increasingly unstable nuclear power. Though it is hard to argue with the need to capture Bin Laden and hold him accountable, Obama's sweeping statements toward killing the leader beg the question: at what cost?
(Note to reader: If, while reading the above list, you feel I have omitted something, positive or negative, please post a comment to that effect so we can begin to build a comprehensive "change checklist" as the new administration gets under way)
On a host of other issues from the drug war to the death penalty to the Patriot Act to military-industrial and other corporate corruption to gay marriage to reproductive rights to gun control to gays in the military, it is not yet clear to what extent Obama will defy or fulfill the hopes expressed by his supporters during the campaign. But broadly speaking, what the various cabinet appointments and statements of policy above illustrate is an administration and worldview that are simply more centrist than change-oriented. To those who are critical of this, it represents a retreat from the inspiring passions of the campaign. To those who support it, the choices simply reflect the necessary pragmatism to get things done in Washington. They see Obama as avoiding the error of Clinton's first term, in which his early struggles were attributed to an overabundance of inexperienced Washington players on his team. This may be a smart lessons-learned strategy, but when there have been virtually no reform-oriented or progressive candidates appointed or even floated as names for cabinet-level posts, one has to wonder whether the pragmatism argument isn't perhaps being overplayed.
To his credit, Obama addressed this in a two-part answer when asked about the impression of centrism in his appointments at last Monday's press conference. First, he recognized the need to balance the impulse for change with a measure of pragmatism, stating that his administration would "combine experience with fresh thinking." That's reassuring. But he then went further, making the bolder statement that, notwithstanding his cabinet appointments, "the vision for change...comes from me. That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing it." After eight years of vaulting executive power exercised by a "decider" in the White House to whom Congress and the public gave so much power, being told by a leader basically to trust him is uncomfortably familiar. Worse still, it contradicts the crowning message of the Obama campaign.
"I am asking you to believe," candidate Obama rousingly told us, "not just in my ability to bring about a real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours."
Well, there's the rub. For what Obama correctly recognized as a candidate he -- and we -- must now remember: that no person, no matter how talented, inspiring, or well-intended, can single-handedly bring about the kind of far-reaching reforms that our deeply wounded society needs. It will instead require unrelenting vigilance from all of us - including making ourselves heard when Obama's path appears more inclined toward conciliation than reform. When in recent weeks comparisons to Lincoln were drawn to explain some of Obama's counter-intuitive cabinet appointments, Congressman John Conyers offered the wonderful retort, "it tells me I'm going to have to be Frederick Douglass to his Abraham Lincoln." Recalling the pressure Douglass exerted on the 16th president's policymaking, Conyers did us the great service of speaking to the much-needed Frederick Douglass inside each of us, underscoring that we the public must be prepared to commit ourselves - beyond any level of civic engagement we've known before -- to exert pressure on our political leadership to make the changes we seek. For it was Douglass, after all, who noted that "power concedes nothing without demand."
29 Comments so far
Show AllThank you, Mr Jarecki, for your continued insightful and diligent work. I have given numerous copies of Why We Fight ( http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/ ) to family, friends and others and will continue to do so. How humorous it was for me to see the extraordinarily concise portrayal of John McCain encapsulating himself for us in this doc.
..."power concedes nothing without demand." - Now there you have it!
Obama didn't get where he is now by disrespecting the truly powerful. With a basically congenial media on his behalf, the general public was sufficiently won by his appeal during the campaign. The honeymoon was great but he is about to cross the threshold of many new positions.
And here we are asking ourselves, where does he really reside?
We are now asked by him to believe in our own ability to bring about real change in Washington by trusting in the vision he will provide and implement, which does not necessarily openly connect with or support the real change we say we want. Those above statements are crossing over the election threshold, before and after. As well, those statements are also before and after Obama's pre-election intelligence briefing, when his rhetorical stance began to significantly shift.
Still fresh--not over the White House threshold yet--we are yet on the heels of Biden's campaign warning: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/joe_biden_seattle_fund_raiser.html - [Please read, as it is just over the word limit for cut & paste blog entry here but critically essential to the point being made. Biden's remarks were more comprehensive than is easily recalled.]
Obviously, there is the power of privileged intelligence at work, all beyond our ken. The CIA says Bin Laden is alive but Bush gave up on him at just the time he was to have died. That the Bin Laden line is even in use as opposed to the more readily certain fact of al Qaeda activity and expansion is something I can't seem to get past. Is 'Bin Laden' simply just a colloquial stereotype for rhetorical use on the general public?
Trust.
My long point: before they were even elected, Biden told us Obama is going to be tested and that we have to blindly trust him. How can Obama be tested and not us?
Now, we can also understand that power will continue to concede nothing without demand, even when that power is our own. We are going to have to demand of ourselves to a point of inertia if the momentum for change is ever going to materialize. Only then may we direct momentum towards the real change we demand.
Power to the people. Otherwise, we concede our freedom to the authors of intelligence.
So how do we become Frederick Douglas to this Abe Lincoln? Seriously, I'm trying to figure out how to begin organizing for real change.
I like the idea of following the promises of change. Perhaps you could add the issues of energy, global scorching (George Carlin's word for climate change), and environmental issues. For the blog's purpuoses,I don't know if these issues should be looked at separately or bundled together. Very interesting read and comments. Thanks.
The man proclaimed himself as the final "decider". His cabinet and advisors are his first major decision. Now all of a sudden he's going to decide in a progressive manner? He seems to be a "go along to get along" decider. I started to have my doubts when he threw Jeremiah Wright under the bus. Do you think an agent for change is going to kick a good friend and mentor to the curb to "get along"? His Illinois legislator and U.S. senatorship voting record seems to indicate a "no decision" decider approach; "go along to get along" again!
I guess after eight years of corruption and incompetence, mediocrity is an improvement. Isn't that exciting? :(
I think it is wise to have very limited expectations of the Obama administration. Else you will be very disappointed. I think (hope) we can count on two things: an exit from Iraq (but not for 16 months) and the closing of Gitmo. If anything else happens of a positive nature, it will be cream. Nothing short of a grassroots uprising by most of the people would cause any real change to happen in Washington. And, I think most of us will be patting ourselves on the back in self-congratulatory neglect for the next four years because we elected the African American dude. As a people, we do not have the perseverance nor the persistence to force substantive change.
I never had ANY expectations of him, at least not any that I was giddy and starry-eyed about. I knew from day one that this guy was just another corporate lackey, a product of the Chicago Democratic Party machine (hardly a hotbed of selfless altruism). So far most of his cabinet picks have done little to make me thinnk otherwise. After 8 years of Bush this country needed a President who would take us in an ENTIRELY different direction. So far all I've seen is a slight change of course. To those expecting substantive change, my heart goes out to you. Next time don't let your expectations be kindled by pretty speeches.
"Expectation is a prison."
--Robert Fripp
Mr. Jarecki:
Thanks for your wonderful film, "Why We Fight." I understand your point and the point of progressives who would like to "Move the Center" instead of watching Obama seem to cater to the right. But here's the rub:
- If you look at it in a purely partisan way, we had a Bush-Cheney-Rove administration that locked out the Democrats, and even brought ugly pressure to bear on his own party, to the point that if he didn't get key votes for his Medicare reform bill, for example, the Bush-Cheney-Rove admninistration had surrogates tell at least one (retiring?) Republican legislator (from Michigan) that they would not support the legislator's son's bid for his father's seat (by funding the opponent), or bribed him with promises of election funds. For Obama to select certain hawks or economic conservatives seems too much of the Right when we've already had enough.
- Yet too much of the Left, and too much group-think, won't do either. It would seem that Obama may have already diverged from Bush's path because there is far more ideological diversity in his own staff and cabinet selections than there ever was in the Bush-Cheney administration.
- For now, some in the press are comparing this to Abraham Lincoln's famous inclination toward selecting some cabinet members who disagreed with him, but who later came to respect him.
- Is Obama doing this because he wants to keep the Right happy and guarantee his own reelection after four years, and therefore perhaps setting himself up to be a grand disappointment to the left, and an opportunist? Or is this part of the very change that may be needed?
It may be too early to tell. You're asking many of the right questions about hot spots and areas of concern, but to some extent, we may have to wait and see, while continuing to voice our hopes and expectations.
If I were in his shoes, I have to say that, until inauguration, I'd want to be careful with my words. The last thing I'd do is talk about prosecuting Bush administration members for war crimes, or for not keeping their oaths to the constitution. A lame duck can still act like a cornered, wounded, wild animal on his way out the door. Then once in office, I'd appoint folks like Bruce Fein, Ron Paul and Bob Barr (and other Bush critics from the right) to play key roles in any investigations of constitutional violations. I'd also strengthen whistleblower protection so that folks who knew what went on in secret could come forward without fear of retribution.
" Given the now growing evidence that Georgia initiated the conflict and that the Bush administration concealed this from the American public?"
Growing evidence??? Recent??? Was this guy living on the moon? Hell we knew that when the attack was taking place. Add CBC news to your cable package.
A life lived in hope is a life half lived.
-Joan Grant.
A life without hope is no life at all. Life without hope is impossible.
Thomas Gilbert
Start with George HW Bush and his "New World Order", then go to Bill Clinton and
the "Nafta", that he gave us, then go to George W Bush, and the Iraq War with
"Weapons of Mass Destruction", we have been lied to and bamboozeld by all three
of these Ivy league graduates. They have with their Scams and Ponzi schemes
ruined our industrial base, and our economy that was the strongest in the world.
Here we are having to borrow money from China to simply exist. Businesses are
going bankrupt all over the country, it's a depression out there, even is they
don't want to admit it.
Harvard and Yale, should concentrate on educating their students
on dedicating themselves for the common good of the country istead of this
Greedy, selfish, self serving, attitude that has prevailed and taken over the
country and ruined our standing in the world in a manner that we may never
recover. Obama's selection of Bush and Clinton cadre leaves much to be desired.
It is a good article. It shows that Obama needs to be put under pressure if change is to occur! Each American must become a vigilante, must be prepared to saddle up and ride into town and do what has to be done!
Obama's speech when he introduced his security team gave some indication of what he's thinking. What he's thinking is the usual muck that American leaders dish up to their gullible peasants.
If you want to see what an American outsider thinks of Obama and his speech check:
www.dangerouscreation.com
P.S. You may not be pleased!
The order in which one arranges one's words can be very insightful. I have noticed that Obama and those around him almost ALWAYS mention military solutions BEFORE they mention diplomacy.
Frederick Douglass in his West India Emancipation speech, delivered in New York on August 3, 1857: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
From The Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
ezeflyer semms to feel "We are literally screaming, but no one is listening." The only screaming that I hear are sheeple yelling into their cell phones. As long as we are numbed by our technological comfort zones, and as long as we endure the oppression of bogus Wars on Terror, Big Pharma, Industrial Agriculture, Organized Religion, the Personal Automobile Industry, pathetic excuses called Educational Systems, and pathetic excuses called Government Watchdogs (EPA, OSHA, etc.), etc., - we will continue to be abused and dumbed-down.
An extremely small group of radicals will never be enough to effect any real change. (And I don't give a damn what Margaret Mead had to say about it.)
Centrists calling themselves Progressives and mindless Obama-maniacs are part of the problem - not part of the solution.
"Centrists calling themselves Progressives and mindless Obama-maniacs are part of the problem - not part of the solution."
You have that right, Magarulian. Some of our local peace and justice working lists have almost shut down just when we really need to get into it. And why? Because people are prey to vague but professional marketing of "hope". It makes things so easy.
Obama hasn't "betrayed" progressives. This is the man who said he could see no basis for impeachment of Bush (although mistakes had been made.) Together with his FISA vote and continuing silence on other aspects of civil liberties and his out-Reaganing Reagan in the (very disgusting) introduction of his "security team", we can safely assume he considers the program of the MIC to be paramount. I think "hope" genuinely means to him hope that he can prolong U.S. "dominance" under the guise of moral prerogative...the fantastic notion that has been the primary destructive force in the world for a long time.
Civil liberties, sustainability, and decentralization are progressive concerns and they are antithetical to the concerns and methods of the MIC. We can't have it both ways.
As to NYCartist's question, my activities are still (as they have been for a number of years) mainly concerned with building a counterforce to the erosion (or is it a landslide?) of civil liberties and to the corporate invasion of the economy and culture. They mainly concern empowerment of citizens and the ability to manage their own lives as part of communities, which I see as essential to confronting a future which is coming into focus and is, at any rate, a much better - indeed for many - the only possible way to live with meaning.
Will the real progressives stand up?
We screamed loud enough to get him elected.
.I wonder at the role played by progressives in that election . I believe that, after eight years of the worst Presidency in American history, anyone could have defeated any Republican candidate. Just look at the numbers of Republicans defeated for all offices.
Perhaps your screaming might have been counterproductive actually.Had you listened rather than yelled you might have noticed your candidate moving steadily rightward.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Had you listened rather than yelled you might have noticed your candidate moving steadily rightward."
That's what we were yelling about. His voting record demonstrated his rightward leanings nobody should be surprised at the direction he's heading. What I don't understand, but it doesn't surprise me none, is the number of citizens who favor his decisions he's making about his inner circle.
Rickster
just wondering if anyone can elaborate on this "Given the now growing evidence that Georgia initiated the conflict and that the Bush administration concealed this from the American public." i hadn't heard or read this before and now i'm curious
Global Research ( www.globalresearch.ca ) in Canada has had several articles on this when the incident was just happening. Here is a link to an article where the Georgian President admits it started the whole affair. This was obvious and well known internationally except to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who chose to blame Russia for the entire incident.
Georgian President Saakashvili: "we started the war"
Global Research, November 30, 2008
Russia Today - 2008-11-28
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11211
BTW- Global Research is an excellent resource for independent news analysis of current affairs. Information and analysis simply not available on corporate controlled mass media.
123 December 3rd:DemocracyNow covered it a few times. www.democracynow.org and do a search. Transcripts of segments/shows are online.
thanks guys
.When the people lead the leaders must follow. I reject out of hand this "cult of Obama" that has sprung up, especially when it seems to ignore the trend rightward that he has made since gaining the nomination.
My good posting friend, NYCa, a strong member of the cult of Barack, bemoans the contrasting size of two lists. I would rather note the accuracy of much of the negative.
NYCa, I was only kidding ma'am, honest.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee: "a strong member of of the cult of Barack"....them's bait words, sir. Prove it. I'm strong, that is true. Rest is "baiting". Naughty. "Ma'am"?. Oy. (My spouse has just laughed.)
.Just trying to avoid the bludgeon my criticism ( tongue in cheek) deserved. I am happy to amuse your spouse.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee:my spouse was laughing at my reaction as much as your "We see things,not as they are, but as we are.". Still scratching my head over why you said it?
.Because, dear lady ( is that better), I cannot resist poking a bit of good natured fun at your support of Barack Obama. I have a certainty that this support will wane as his admninistration takes over....No evil intent meant.
I love digging holes for myself....really I do.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Conyers did us the great service of speaking to the much-needed Frederick Douglass inside each of us, underscoring that we the public must be prepared to commit ourselves - beyond any level of civic engagement we've known before -"
We are literally screaming, but no one is listening.
I like this article: I like lists, I like easy to read article that are minus jargon. I am sad that the "uh uh" list is longer than the somewhat vague "good news" list. I voted for Obama. I think it's nice that there will be weekly videos (I'm getting them),but my suggestion for an accompanying transcript, cc (close captioning)for the deaf and/or an interpreter of ASL, American Sign Language has not been "noted" at the other end. There are a lot of deaf readers online........yes, it's my job to state the obvious. We all have our lists for what we'd like to change. We're all getting busy. Been working on my next art.....I didn't expect a progressive Obama, since I've thought since his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004:too centrist. But I voted for him. To work all. Pick your issues and work on it/them. Some already are. Care to talk about what your're working on fellow/sister CD readers/commentors?