That Giant Sucking Sound

hope

…would be all that hope rushing out of the room.  Rahm Emanuel is a good pick for many reasons, but he’s also a neocon who shepherded NAFTA through congress back in ‘93.  You remember NAFTA right?   It was the first great betrayal of the Clinton Administration, the free trade bill that made moving jobs to Mexico a national past time.  He also engineered the bait-and-switch 2006 midterm campaign for the Democrats, where millions voted for an end to the war, only to see Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid capitulate to Bush and keep the war going.

Now Obama will put him at the head of his legislative machine, showing that he wants to have the type of free reign to do as he pleases, promises be damned, that Clinton had way back in 92.  (not that he made that many promises)  He represents the return of the New World Order with a happy face that Clinton tried to pull over in his two terms, and forecasts an unhappy relationship with the aspirational left that brought Obama to power.

Hope and ‘Message Discipline’

pardon all property crime! from optikal.'s flickr

My greatest concern coming out of the election is how Obama and his supports will respond to criticisms from the left. This was a well-run campaign with a strong unifying central message of hope, that prided itself on ‘message discipline,’ even going so far as to ask that independent left-leaning organizations stay out of the race, and not try any 527-style swiftboatings.

In doing this, Obama effectively eliminated any organized capacity for criticism of his campaign. He shut down independent organizations and funneled all of their energy into his campaign-machine, one of his great success stories. He left very little in his wake that might be able to hold him accountable.

Remember FISA? The losing battle to keep Obama from endorsing the new wiretapping bill worked through My.BarackObama.com, not through a group with an independent voice or support. They failed to leverage any real pressure, because all of their organizing energy funneled into the incredible force of the Obama organizing machine.

Also: Hope. I mentioned before how ‘hope’ and ‘positivity’ can become a straightjacket, and that’s a genuine concern. I’ve already been chastised for trying to introduce criticisms of the police and prisons into discussions about what the election means, largely on the grounds of wanting to remain ‘positive.’ I don’t believe ‘hope’ or ‘change’ is the exclusive domain of someone who ultimately represents the lesser of two evils, and I’m really worried that these words will become the new “Support our troops” of the left. And that’s bullshit.

What Does this Mean?

I want more. from teamstickergiant's flickr

And I ask in the most concrete sense possible: what does this mean for our future? I believe in the importance of rhetoric and symbols, so I’m not going to go so far as to say Obama’s election means nothing – in fact it means a lot, I’m just not sure about what.  It was heartening to see so many people happy – the group of people in Union Square last night was the largest unpermitted public gathering I’ve ever seen in New York, and the atmosphere was great.  Obama did a lot to make people feel a sense of ownership over their government, and I think that matters more than anything – that’s the energy that can and should be translated into what the President-Elect already acknowledges will be a long series of battles to change the world.

I believe the anti-war movement faltered by and large on the question of hope: people stopped thinking they had the power to change the outcome of the war.  The sense of being entitled to control the decisions of government, of being able to overcome ‘the system’ or the GOP machine has changed.

My reservations abound.  Here’s the scene from from outside Downtown Community TV last night immediately after Obama’s acceptance speech.  6 cop cars (12 officers) gathered around to arrest two black men who apparently got into some kind of fight.  As they were putting the second man into the car, a cop told the man “Obama hasn’t even been confirmed yet and you’re fucking up.”  The message was: you got your black man, now shut up and listen to the cops.

Total buzzkill.

That’s why I’m happy, but not overjoyed.  ‘Hope’ can also be a straightjacket for criticism, and we need to avoid shutting down the necessary critiques of our new President in the name of a new day.

Obama the Anyman

in just what exactly? from artbymags' flickr photostream

Just stumbled upon this New York Times blog post about Obama as John Milton’s Jesus – the key observation is that Obama’s rhetorical success this campaign came from his ability to present a unified message front to the public, without really saying anything.  And by that, I don’t mean ‘empty words,’ but rather saying nothing – I remember reading after the third debate that McCain’s campaign sent out 8 different memos to the press the evening after the debate, while Obama sent none.  He just left McCain to talk himself in and out of news cycles.

Obama’s stoic blankness is the cornerstone of his campaign, because it allows people to read into him whatever they want.  The campaign in fact embraced this, and made the whole election about what other people want out of Obama, pitching the whole affair as a ‘movement’ for people to make the change they need.

The terrific uplifting vagueness of it all has the benefit of activating unheard of numbers of people into politics, the problem is what to do with them when they come down from the high.  I previously suggested avoiding the Obama subject, and I still believe that keeping him out of the picture might be useful, but I’d like to suggest another strategy, of ‘identity correction.’  Rather than calling out Obama for being ‘false change,’ I think folks should extend the sense of ownership people feel for him, and point out the nasty stuff he does (it will come) and call it Hope.

Still in Iraq 2 years from now?  Well, that’s what Obama folks were hoping for right?  (better if addressed in the 2nd person)  Obama has always been more center than left, even if he doesn’t volunteer the information.  When he does, stick it back on the people that supported him as one of them.

Obama = Bush

look familiar? from e20ci's flickr

…at least in how the ‘opposition party’ treats them.  The “epic frenzy of hate” digby describes resembles at least in passing the manic anti-Bush rhetoric of many folks on the left-of-center-but-still-center. (Just like Tom DeLay is anti-Socialist but ran a big-government GOP, these folks are anti-war but vote Democratic)

Just think of the fervor poured into Bush bashing for the past 8 years: making fun of his way of speak, his relationship to Dick Cheney, his intelligence, his cowboy persona, his weird interpersonal relationships with foreign leaders – all of it mirrors back the right’s escalating obsession with Obama.

Both sides of the Manichean two party system accuse the other of treason in different forms, both are probably wrong, or at least seriously misled into thinking that in a choice between the lesser of two evils, the other side really truly was evil. The crypto-racial dynamics of the current GOP backlash should not be ignored, but for the most part it follows the same script as the Democratic reaction to Bush, trying to pigeonhole the other side’s identity politics strategy.

If the liberal left’s experience the past four years is any guide, folks on the Right better find a new strategy quick if they want to get anywhere. For folks on the left, they need to find a new way to talk about change that doesn’t walk right into Obama’s half-hearted liberal trap for the optimistic.