Recently a number of FOS readers active in the peace movement asked for my comment on postings by an assortment of Canadian and US “left” commentators attacking President elect Barack Obama. Here is my response…
Dear Friends
Thank you for asking for my opinion on this important debate. I apologize for the length of my reply but you have caused me to think how best to answer. I am not good at sound bites and believe we need the time to think and discuss things at greater length. The cause of peace deserves careful analysis and comment.
First of all I do not subscribe to the view of COAT on this matter at this time. They do good and useful work for peace but for a Canadian peace organization to mobilize Canadian public opinion against the outcome of a US election and its President elect is presumptuous and not useful to our cause right now. I think we need a deeper analysis and a more considered and sober approach. What do I mean by that?
The US election was more about the movement that brought Barack Obama to power than the President-elect himself.
There was a powerful element of popular, grass roots support for the candidates of the Democratic Party Presidential nomination that Obama during the campaign succeeded in uniting behind his candidacy. He did that by speaking more directly to the real problems caused by war and economic depression confronting the people of the USA and their deep conviction that matters had to change. Those were genuine issues and contrast sharply with the Bush era and its open advocacy of the US Century and its drive for unilateral control of the world under the bogus "war on terrorism".
Has Obama abandoned the cause of US imperialism and global domination? That is unlikely and it is unrealistic to expect him to do that or frame our discussion around whether he will or he won't.
What is completely reasonable to consider is that given internal US politics and the unfolding world economic crisis he will find it impossible to completely ignore the peace movement and the expectations of the people of the USA for a withdrawal from Iraq. It is one thing to have no illusions about Obama as COAT advises. It is quite another to predict and actually work for a negative outcome of his Presidency before he has assumed office.
It would be more useful to conduct a campaign to bring pressure on Obama to honor his election promises, not predict he won't even before he has taken office.
What Obama will do with his presidency is not completely predictable and not even entirely in his hands. We need to keep in mind that US voters still accorded the Republican Candidate John McCain 48% of the popular vote. The Republican Party will not remain idle and they will be campaigning hard to erase the expectations of the people of the USA for peace and progress in their country.
What are some of the obvious things we in the Canadian peace movement may want to say and that should be said soberly and without hyperbole about the US election?
It is reasonable to observe that it is impossible given the political and economic reality of the US class, electoral and governmental system for anyone who isn't well integrated in that system at the highest levels and extremely rich or have access to wealth to become president. That by the way is true of our country as well.
Obama comes to the Presidency with baggage. The matter cannot be left at that and be considered the last word. What US president hasn't arrived on the scene without baggage and that goes for Canadian Prime Ministers as well?
It is remarkable considering endemic racism in the USA that a well placed African American candidate, with or without baggage, was elected president of the USA.
It is not so important what COAT thinks about that outcome as what the African American citizens of the USA think about that outcome.
We in Canada need to think carefully about expressing views and mobilizing campaigns that would be viewed by African Americans as questioning their wisdom and support for Obama. They are quite capable of deciding whether or not he will measure up to their expectations.
We in Canada have experienced US interference in our elections and we didn't like it and neither will Americans.
As a retired worker I take a slightly different view of the election of Obama which I do not disparage in its importance to the struggle against racism in the USA.
As a worker I await the day when a worker, man or woman, and I have known many that qualify, can aspire to become Prime Minister of Canada or President of the USA.. The closest the US ever came to taking seriously a genuine labour-peace candidate for President and who by the way had an unblemished record of struggle for the common people, was the great socialist Eugene Debs. He ran for President on a labour ticket and garnered a million votes at the turn of the century. Henry Wallace another impassioned labour peace candidate after WW2 put up a serious battle for the common people but fell far short of election. That is something for the future.
It is also a reality of US politics that once elected it is difficult for any president to completely ignore the movement (electoral base) that brought him or her to power.
US Presidencies are always establishment presidencies but given certain conditions it sometimes becomes possible depending on the real balance of political forces in the country to make some headway on peace and on behalf of workers and the poor. That possibility cannot be discounted by serious activists for peace.
Such was the case in the 1930's with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who defied some of the wealthiest and most powerful financial capitalist interests of the USA and enacted some badly needed economic reforms for labour and the poor. That possibility cannot be ruled out with Obama in power. Neither is it a guarantee.
When it happened in the USA in the 1930's it resulted from the mass struggles of the people led by labour against the terrible conditions brought on by the Great Depression. The great merit of FDR is that he had the courage to actually do something. That era needs to be restudied in the light of today's economic depression.
George Bush II on the other hand was in power during a long period of economic expansion in the USA. He was openly beholden to the neo-con religious right and on a deeper level to the powerful oil interests and the military industrial complex and all of those who parasitically were making billions out of war and preparations for war.
It is regrettable that US citizens, including some workers, saw their economic interests tied to militarism and unbridled capitalist speculation. They voted for Republican Presidents for a long time, disguising their support with patriotic flag waving but with a definite economic interest in doing so.That is regrettable but that fact can't be ignored. That by the way is also true of our country where many mask their economic interest with patriotic fervor.
Obama has been brought to power by a different electoral base, and under a different set of objective circumstances. Most of his electoral base is amongst those who have been excluded from benefitting from war and suffer directly the economic hardships it has brought to the American people and in particular the youth both African American and white, who have been its special victims. There is strong expression of the desire for peace in the election of Obama.
What prevents any President in the USA from acting swiftly on the question of peace is an overarching reality of the US economy. We need to keep in mind that there is evidence that 40% of the US economy is directly or indirectly dependent on militarism and active wars. It is by far the main cause of the lack of public funds for basic governmental needs that has created a dire situation for many US states and municipalities that can't pay for state and local services as basic as public education, health care and infrastructure. The State of California, one of the richest in the union, has gone to the federal treasury for a state loan to fund its obligations. Military spending is also a major if not the major contributor to environmental damage and certainly a major factor in global warming. That fact is not spoken of enough by the environmental movement.
Whether Obama will have the courage to cut arms spending, withdraw from Iraq, shut down some of the 800 US military bases world wide, withdraw its military to its own borders and live within its own means is an open question. I count myself among those that are skeptical and consider it unlikely for that to happen quickly during the Obama Presidency. That outcome will take time and a maturity of political and economic factors that will result in another big upsurge of popular pressure from the people of the USA.
Another reality is the fact that the Democratic Party is far from united. Within the Democratic electoral base are also well to do and some very rich US interests who have been excluded from power by the Republican insiders and who now want in. These interests have not prospered as they would have liked out of US wars, foreign investments like the small group of Republican insiders. They were not the main beneficiaries of the sub-prime bubble. They are more interested in making up for lost time than solving the great issues of peace and economic reform on the minds of the millions who voted for Obama.
There is already a struggle underway inside the Democratic Party for positions of influence. I did not see a single prominent civil rights or labour leader on the platform at Obama's first press conference. That is a portent. There is not doubt that there is movement inside the Democratic Party to subvert its peace and reform wing. How Obama will cope with that is not known at this time. If the people of the USA want his Presidency to live up to their expectations they will have to fight for it, and we should do nothing that will make their struggle more difficult.
Any US Presidency is a hot bed of patronage. It cannot be forgotten that President Bush elevated political cronyism to unprecedented heights. It still is the main feature of US politics. Bush in the dying days of his Presidency continues that practice.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and The Federal Reserve Board Chair Ben Bernanke and before him Allen Greenspan were the Republican architects of deregulation and neo-liberalism that enabled insider cronies to use derivatives and hedge funds (betting with stocks they don't own and money they don't have) to cause trading in these bogus instruments to reach the astronomical amounts, many times global GDP.
What upheld the whole system were US working people using their hard earned incomes to pay their mortgages. When the economy declined and millions defaulted the whole system of sub-prime instruments collapsed causing a world wide global recession. It caused a world wide recession because banks around the world were buying and selling these worthless securities on the advice of US investment houses and of course on the advice of Allan Greenspan.
I was alarmed to read today in the Globe and Mail that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was heavily involved in backing hedge fund trading which may yet, seriously harm our public pensions. CPP is the money of Canadian working people deposited there in trust, since 1966 in the belief that it was secure and not to be used for speculation. The creation of the CPP Investment Board changed all that and now a cloud hangs over our pensions.
Does all of this mean that nothing can be achieved during the Obama Presidency? No I don't subscribe to such an extreme view. I believe much can be achieved but it will involve unrelenting popular democratic pressure to ensure that it happens. Next weekend the G20 will meet in Washington at Bush's invitation. Harper and Flaherty are going there and all bets are off as to what they will do at the meeting. I will be so bold as to predict they will continue to ally themselves with the US administration believing that Canada's destiny is tied to the USA.
Harper will now try and re-invent himself and he will cause great embarrassment to us all as he obsequiously ingratiates himself with Obama hoping we will all forget his past admirations and support for Bush.
Canadian peace demands something better than that from our Government. It demands that we distance our country from US-NATO wars, from militarism, the $482 billion arms budget to be squandered in the next twenty years. It means getting out of NAFTA and SPP. That is what we should demand be discussed with the new President of the USA.
We do not need to rely solely on the US market to prosper. Other countries are finding new markets in a new world. We have everything we need in Canada, resources capital, a productive and well educated workforce and the world is waiting to trade with us. That is why we need to consider an entirely new relationship with the world, not dependent on what is happening in the USA.
Harper is so implicated in submissive behavior to the USA he is not the Prime Minister that can be trusted to do it. That is why it is important for the peace movement to take an interest in federal politics and advance our own program for peaceful development of our country. The preoccupation with US politics is unavoidable but our destiny is in Canada and its future. That is my concept of what peace means.
There is much more to be said, and thank you for asking. Please feel free to share this discussion with anyone you may think would be interested.
Dear Friends
Thank you for asking for my opinion on this important debate. I apologize for the length of my reply but you have caused me to think how best to answer. I am not good at sound bites and believe we need the time to think and discuss things at greater length. The cause of peace deserves careful analysis and comment.
First of all I do not subscribe to the view of COAT on this matter at this time. They do good and useful work for peace but for a Canadian peace organization to mobilize Canadian public opinion against the outcome of a US election and its President elect is presumptuous and not useful to our cause right now. I think we need a deeper analysis and a more considered and sober approach. What do I mean by that?
The US election was more about the movement that brought Barack Obama to power than the President-elect himself.
There was a powerful element of popular, grass roots support for the candidates of the Democratic Party Presidential nomination that Obama during the campaign succeeded in uniting behind his candidacy. He did that by speaking more directly to the real problems caused by war and economic depression confronting the people of the USA and their deep conviction that matters had to change. Those were genuine issues and contrast sharply with the Bush era and its open advocacy of the US Century and its drive for unilateral control of the world under the bogus "war on terrorism".
Has Obama abandoned the cause of US imperialism and global domination? That is unlikely and it is unrealistic to expect him to do that or frame our discussion around whether he will or he won't.
What is completely reasonable to consider is that given internal US politics and the unfolding world economic crisis he will find it impossible to completely ignore the peace movement and the expectations of the people of the USA for a withdrawal from Iraq. It is one thing to have no illusions about Obama as COAT advises. It is quite another to predict and actually work for a negative outcome of his Presidency before he has assumed office.
It would be more useful to conduct a campaign to bring pressure on Obama to honor his election promises, not predict he won't even before he has taken office.
What Obama will do with his presidency is not completely predictable and not even entirely in his hands. We need to keep in mind that US voters still accorded the Republican Candidate John McCain 48% of the popular vote. The Republican Party will not remain idle and they will be campaigning hard to erase the expectations of the people of the USA for peace and progress in their country.
What are some of the obvious things we in the Canadian peace movement may want to say and that should be said soberly and without hyperbole about the US election?
It is reasonable to observe that it is impossible given the political and economic reality of the US class, electoral and governmental system for anyone who isn't well integrated in that system at the highest levels and extremely rich or have access to wealth to become president. That by the way is true of our country as well.
Obama comes to the Presidency with baggage. The matter cannot be left at that and be considered the last word. What US president hasn't arrived on the scene without baggage and that goes for Canadian Prime Ministers as well?
It is remarkable considering endemic racism in the USA that a well placed African American candidate, with or without baggage, was elected president of the USA.
It is not so important what COAT thinks about that outcome as what the African American citizens of the USA think about that outcome.
We in Canada need to think carefully about expressing views and mobilizing campaigns that would be viewed by African Americans as questioning their wisdom and support for Obama. They are quite capable of deciding whether or not he will measure up to their expectations.
We in Canada have experienced US interference in our elections and we didn't like it and neither will Americans.
As a retired worker I take a slightly different view of the election of Obama which I do not disparage in its importance to the struggle against racism in the USA.
As a worker I await the day when a worker, man or woman, and I have known many that qualify, can aspire to become Prime Minister of Canada or President of the USA.. The closest the US ever came to taking seriously a genuine labour-peace candidate for President and who by the way had an unblemished record of struggle for the common people, was the great socialist Eugene Debs. He ran for President on a labour ticket and garnered a million votes at the turn of the century. Henry Wallace another impassioned labour peace candidate after WW2 put up a serious battle for the common people but fell far short of election. That is something for the future.
It is also a reality of US politics that once elected it is difficult for any president to completely ignore the movement (electoral base) that brought him or her to power.
US Presidencies are always establishment presidencies but given certain conditions it sometimes becomes possible depending on the real balance of political forces in the country to make some headway on peace and on behalf of workers and the poor. That possibility cannot be discounted by serious activists for peace.
Such was the case in the 1930's with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who defied some of the wealthiest and most powerful financial capitalist interests of the USA and enacted some badly needed economic reforms for labour and the poor. That possibility cannot be ruled out with Obama in power. Neither is it a guarantee.
When it happened in the USA in the 1930's it resulted from the mass struggles of the people led by labour against the terrible conditions brought on by the Great Depression. The great merit of FDR is that he had the courage to actually do something. That era needs to be restudied in the light of today's economic depression.
George Bush II on the other hand was in power during a long period of economic expansion in the USA. He was openly beholden to the neo-con religious right and on a deeper level to the powerful oil interests and the military industrial complex and all of those who parasitically were making billions out of war and preparations for war.
It is regrettable that US citizens, including some workers, saw their economic interests tied to militarism and unbridled capitalist speculation. They voted for Republican Presidents for a long time, disguising their support with patriotic flag waving but with a definite economic interest in doing so.That is regrettable but that fact can't be ignored. That by the way is also true of our country where many mask their economic interest with patriotic fervor.
Obama has been brought to power by a different electoral base, and under a different set of objective circumstances. Most of his electoral base is amongst those who have been excluded from benefitting from war and suffer directly the economic hardships it has brought to the American people and in particular the youth both African American and white, who have been its special victims. There is strong expression of the desire for peace in the election of Obama.
What prevents any President in the USA from acting swiftly on the question of peace is an overarching reality of the US economy. We need to keep in mind that there is evidence that 40% of the US economy is directly or indirectly dependent on militarism and active wars. It is by far the main cause of the lack of public funds for basic governmental needs that has created a dire situation for many US states and municipalities that can't pay for state and local services as basic as public education, health care and infrastructure. The State of California, one of the richest in the union, has gone to the federal treasury for a state loan to fund its obligations. Military spending is also a major if not the major contributor to environmental damage and certainly a major factor in global warming. That fact is not spoken of enough by the environmental movement.
Whether Obama will have the courage to cut arms spending, withdraw from Iraq, shut down some of the 800 US military bases world wide, withdraw its military to its own borders and live within its own means is an open question. I count myself among those that are skeptical and consider it unlikely for that to happen quickly during the Obama Presidency. That outcome will take time and a maturity of political and economic factors that will result in another big upsurge of popular pressure from the people of the USA.
Another reality is the fact that the Democratic Party is far from united. Within the Democratic electoral base are also well to do and some very rich US interests who have been excluded from power by the Republican insiders and who now want in. These interests have not prospered as they would have liked out of US wars, foreign investments like the small group of Republican insiders. They were not the main beneficiaries of the sub-prime bubble. They are more interested in making up for lost time than solving the great issues of peace and economic reform on the minds of the millions who voted for Obama.
There is already a struggle underway inside the Democratic Party for positions of influence. I did not see a single prominent civil rights or labour leader on the platform at Obama's first press conference. That is a portent. There is not doubt that there is movement inside the Democratic Party to subvert its peace and reform wing. How Obama will cope with that is not known at this time. If the people of the USA want his Presidency to live up to their expectations they will have to fight for it, and we should do nothing that will make their struggle more difficult.
Any US Presidency is a hot bed of patronage. It cannot be forgotten that President Bush elevated political cronyism to unprecedented heights. It still is the main feature of US politics. Bush in the dying days of his Presidency continues that practice.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and The Federal Reserve Board Chair Ben Bernanke and before him Allen Greenspan were the Republican architects of deregulation and neo-liberalism that enabled insider cronies to use derivatives and hedge funds (betting with stocks they don't own and money they don't have) to cause trading in these bogus instruments to reach the astronomical amounts, many times global GDP.
What upheld the whole system were US working people using their hard earned incomes to pay their mortgages. When the economy declined and millions defaulted the whole system of sub-prime instruments collapsed causing a world wide global recession. It caused a world wide recession because banks around the world were buying and selling these worthless securities on the advice of US investment houses and of course on the advice of Allan Greenspan.
I was alarmed to read today in the Globe and Mail that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was heavily involved in backing hedge fund trading which may yet, seriously harm our public pensions. CPP is the money of Canadian working people deposited there in trust, since 1966 in the belief that it was secure and not to be used for speculation. The creation of the CPP Investment Board changed all that and now a cloud hangs over our pensions.
Does all of this mean that nothing can be achieved during the Obama Presidency? No I don't subscribe to such an extreme view. I believe much can be achieved but it will involve unrelenting popular democratic pressure to ensure that it happens. Next weekend the G20 will meet in Washington at Bush's invitation. Harper and Flaherty are going there and all bets are off as to what they will do at the meeting. I will be so bold as to predict they will continue to ally themselves with the US administration believing that Canada's destiny is tied to the USA.
Harper will now try and re-invent himself and he will cause great embarrassment to us all as he obsequiously ingratiates himself with Obama hoping we will all forget his past admirations and support for Bush.
Canadian peace demands something better than that from our Government. It demands that we distance our country from US-NATO wars, from militarism, the $482 billion arms budget to be squandered in the next twenty years. It means getting out of NAFTA and SPP. That is what we should demand be discussed with the new President of the USA.
We do not need to rely solely on the US market to prosper. Other countries are finding new markets in a new world. We have everything we need in Canada, resources capital, a productive and well educated workforce and the world is waiting to trade with us. That is why we need to consider an entirely new relationship with the world, not dependent on what is happening in the USA.
Harper is so implicated in submissive behavior to the USA he is not the Prime Minister that can be trusted to do it. That is why it is important for the peace movement to take an interest in federal politics and advance our own program for peaceful development of our country. The preoccupation with US politics is unavoidable but our destiny is in Canada and its future. That is my concept of what peace means.
There is much more to be said, and thank you for asking. Please feel free to share this discussion with anyone you may think would be interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment