Obama has an unenviable job on hand—Will he be different really? | Nilotpal Basu

Published on 14-11-2008 In General

Viewed 639 times

Obama has an unenviable job on hand—Will he be different really?

The election of Barack Obama as the 44th US President has evoked a widespread sense of celebration. And doubtlessly, this indeed is a historic occasion. In spite of the enfranchisement of the African Americans in the mid-sixties, it had not led to a sense of empowerment for many years. The earlier attempts by political leaders of the community had not produced tangible results. Now tons of material is coming out in outlining the crux of the diversity policy for mainstreaming the blacks with elaborate details about affirmative actions in all walks of life. But nevertheless, serious doubts were expressed about the capacity of the American electorate to bring down the glass wall of racial prejudice. In spite of firm trends projected by pre-poll surveys in favour of Senator Obama, experts kept talking about the Bradley syndrome. So, the final result has definitely turned out to be historic. And the sense of celebration is emphatic. The spectacle of tears rolling down the cheeks of Reverend Jesse Jackson in Obama's victory rally in Chicago captured the eloquent poignancy of the moment of reckoning.

But notwithstanding the historical nature of this verdict, there are more prosaic questions which cannot be pushed under the carpet. Of course, that is not to deflect from the importance of the sense of racial justice which seems to overshadow all other aspects of the electoral outcome. It will be altogether churlish to attribute the results in terms of the American electorate's sense of justice to overpower what the African American community has gone through over the years.

And to start with- the response of the electorate to the record of Bush presidency. Here in India, we talk of anti-incumbency factor in elections. And in United States, this time around we had mother of all anti-incumbency votes. Prof. Paul A Samuelson – now a nonagenarian – the revered 1970 Nobel laureate in economics- has exclaimed that George Bush had been the worst president that United States had got in the last 200 years. Some description, really! If the Bush presidency had managed to provoke somebody as gentle as Prof. Samuelson to such a degree, what would have been going on in the minds of the average American voter?

It is clear that the fall out of the financial crisis and collapse of major US financial behemoths across the sector was the final nail in the republican electoral coffin. Why would it be otherwise? The Bush administration for its entire period had unabashedly encouraged credit driven consumption which now appears as patently unsustainable and then using the money of those very tax payers to bail out the top brass of financial corporations was something which was bound to produce outrage among the average Americans. Apart from the bail out for all those who dealt in `toxic mortgages' – the crisis has inevitably led to a liquidity crunch triggering off a full-fledged economic recession. And recession has intensified the conditions where more than two million house owners will be left without housing not to speak of the highest rate of unemployment in so many years. About $2 trillion of pension fund savings have been sucked up by the crisis. Almost three and a half decades of speculation driven economic paradigm which powered the policy parameters which reached a crescendo during the Bush years have ultimately come crashing down.

Neo-liberalism is definitely in its deepest crisis. What alternative will emerge is yet to unfold in its entirety; but government and regulations are very much back in fashion.

While neo-liberalism has suffered a severe setback, politics of neo-conservatism is not doing any better either. The invasion of Iraq, the quagmire of Afghanistan and the continued flashpoint in Middle East are all exploding in the face of the only super power. That the developments in international relations and diplomacy which the neocons had embarked upon obviously stand in tatters. There are definite signs of chink with allies of the yesteryears. Medvedev and Putin not to name others assert in a manner which underline the increasing imminence of multi-polarity and death to neo-conservative unilateralism.

It is in this background of reverses for neo-liberalism in economics and neo-conservatism in foreign policy that president elect Barack Obama will enter the White House after January 20. The historic nature of the verdict notwithstanding, this background will test Obama's mettle in making a clean break with the Bush legacy.

Those who are prone to be swayed by emotions are so elated by these two positive features of the presidential elections – the ascendancy of an African American and the exit of the nightmarish Bush presidency – are inclined to presume that this legacy stands automatically relinquished. But can history be so simplistic?

Nadine Gordimer – another Nobel laureate – a South African who won the award in 1991 for literature is a white- but has been one of the most celebrated crusaders against the hated apartheid in her native country. Here in India this week, she passionately observed that the colour of the skin cannot obscure the limitations of Obama's new office- the principal of a global hegemon. The question, therefore, is whether the new president will be able to rethink the role of his country with respect to the whole world? Will United States cease to be the empire that it has been for all of us particularly those in the developing countries?

The manner in which the first few steps that he has taken -trying to piece together the bits and pieces from his campaign trail- the answer appears to be negative. Will Obama's US be interested in multilateralism? Not in the formal sense where the super power have tried to impose its own views and enforce a consensus on that basis , but in a genuine engagement towards evolving a unanimity of views of nations of their free will. If it is to be, then people will surely watch out what will be the view of the administration under the new president towards United Nations which was abused as never before by his predecessor. In any case, the choice of Rahm Emmanuel, with his Zionist connection, as the Chief of Staff, has not inspired the confidence of all those who expected a push forward to the Middle- East peace process.

One can afford not to be judgmental right now. But the hope that has been kindled imposes a heavy burden on President Obama-a disjunction with the immediate past. One cannot envy the new incumbent of the White House; historic nature of his victory, notwithstanding.

2 Comments

Blog

Print