Obama: What Does an Illusion Look Like?

By Mike Ely
Tellnolies writes:

“When every white supremacist in the country crawls out from under their rocks to smear Obama will we go to the Black community and say he doesn’t deserve their support because he voted for CAFA? When every dirty trick is used to suppress the Black vote across the country are we going to stand outside polling stations with toilets urging people to cast their votes there? Not if we don’t want to earn the special place in peoples hearts that has been previously reserved for the Spartacist League.”

Lemme start with some questions: Can’t we oppose the racist outpouring (that has already started) without supporting the imperialist politician it is aimed at? Can’t we acknowledge that “an important debate has been triggered by the election process (and underlying contradictions)” without needing to support the politician who was forced into the center of it?

I tried in my post “Obama: Truth and Denial in Modern Amerikkka” to oppose the attack on Rev. Wright and the correct side of his ideas…. without feeling any need to uphold Obama (who is/was clearly a target of that attack).

It is one thing to say, as Tellnolies does, “We should have no illusions about what he will do in office…” But how do we make that real? How do we know we are not having (or promoting) illusions? As we forcefully dig into the questions of where racism comes from and how it ends — do we really need to urge people to vote? Do we really need to go vote ourselves — and give legitimacy to all this represents

To put it another way: I believe that quite a bit of illusion has been represented here on various threads concerning Obama.

For example: Will Obama in the White House be better than McCain for revolutionary hopes? And how would anyone know?

Or the belief that being “moved” by his speech suggests there is something different about this man (and his candidacy).

Here is my view: Black politicians (in general) are more “moving” for progressive people — because of their framework, experience and even their language. Jesse Jackson was more “moving” (obviously) than Fritz Mondale (yawn). Farakhan is more “moving” than Falwell (since he exposes racism a lot, and often powerfully). RedFlags gave the example of Mayor Washington of Chicago (who was wonderful to hear).

But to say that Black figures on the social democratic fringe of liberal politics are more “moving” (because they more openly try to connect with the sentiments of progressive and oppressed people) — what does that measure or show? That they are better demagogues? That people (including several on this site) are excited MERELY TO HAVE SUCH ISSUES BROACHED?

It is historic that a Black man is close to being nominated for president. And we all suspect it will (inevitably) become a focus of the electoral contest. But does that dictate that we must support him? What about a Black man become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (like Colin Powell) or a Black woman becoming Secretary of State (like Condoleezza Rice), or a Black man nominated for the Supreme Court (like Clarence Thomas)?

When Amiri Baraka asked “Who knows what kind of skeeza is Condoleezza?” couldn’t we reject that, without upholding her?
[Smaller point to Tellnolies: Do you really think that anyone is arguing that the reason Obama should not be supported is because he voted for CAFA (against class action law suits)? Or that we should make athat argument among Black people? Gonzales raised the CAFA as an issue — why step over Gonzales substantive points, and pick a petty ones to wave around? And even there, while I don’t think people care about CAFA — what does it show about his class nature and loyalties when Obama voted that way?

An Example from another Time and Place:

Let me step out of the moment: I went with a close friend for two nights to see the incredible 1969 documentary on the French Vichy Nazi-collaborationist government in WW2 (called The Sorrow and the Pity, a four hour film of interviews and footage). Among the people interviewed were the socialist French politicians of that generation. When the sister saw the interview with the Socialist Party leader Pierre Mendes-France she was particularly blown away: He was urbane, witty, clever on his feet. He had taken some risks in the fight against the Nazis, and could speak about the historical issues of fascism and socialism and so on… she said “I have never seen a politician like that in the U.S.” And it was all true.

But this guy was also a leading reactionary of his generation: the man who negotiated Bretton-woods agreement for DeGaulle, who played a key role in fighting the Algerian independence movement, a global spokesman for French imperialism against the Vietnamese revolutionaries and so on. He expressed “sympathy” for the uprisings of 1968 (at a time when his party’s youth supporters were in the streets) — but precisely in order to contain and corral the movement as a whole, and to channel it into the politics he represented. He was (in fact) a thorough and sly representative of this system. And every piece of his slickness, sparkling wit and sophistication was crucial in successfully playing that role (especially WITH THE MORE CONSCIOUS AND WORLDLY SECTIONS OF THE french population (and the world at large). European social democrats (and not just of that generation) are often slick, urbane, sophisticated, worldly. They can pose their programs and worldviews in terms of the aspirations and experiences of the oppressed (or, in the case of the German Greens, in terms of a break with old politics etc.).

All this is more rare in the U.S. But when it appears, when such a politician emerges (as a Mayor Washington, or a Jesse Jackson, or even a Black man poised to run for president) what should our approach and standards be?

A New Discussion on Race in America? Framed How?

And I have to say, speaking for myself, this was not moving. It opened with mountains of patriotic bullshit about this country, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the perfectability and “hope” of the U.S. It moved to a rather self serving argument that his “story” is proof of American superiority… and so on.

And then it moved on to its main patriotic point (and its derivative program). In the liberal view, racism is “bad ideas in peoples heads” within a perfectable system based on noble principles. Racism is mistrust and misunderstanding. It is a culture of meanness and mutual intolerance of the “other.” And it is resolved (according to liberal gospel, theory and politics) by embracing each other, by looking beyond the past, by embracing our common Americanness and making America a place we can finally be “proud of.” The oppression of Black people is not foundational in the U.S. (past and present) — it is (in this liberal view) a nagging countercurrent to the real nature of the American idea. The resolution (in this view) is rooted in viewing each person as an individual (getting beyond “stereotypes”) and putting the prejudices of the past (Obama’s grandmother saying n*gger, or Rev. Wright distrusting white people) behind us. Structural roots of Black oppression (the original sins of slavery and legally-enforced segregations) are seen as being largely part of the past — while in the present, an Obama must proclaim “only in America could I be here.” (An undeniable original sin but a constant progress toward a “more perfect union” — that is the myth about America embedded in liberal patriotism.)

And to promote that liberal view, it is possible to speak “movingly” about the past. To tap into people’s real experiences and their REAL desire for change (especially painless change). And so the solution is “two into one” — the overcoming of “differences,” in our own minds, in our social life etc.

Now, how do we revolutionaries respond to such an argument? To a discussion of race “framed” in such a way? When the “solution” is framed in such a way? When Michelle Obama says she was not proud of America in her adult life, but now that her husband has white support coming in, she feels she can be…?

Where do we see the problem of African American oppression residing? How do we see it being overcome? What does it mean to see STRUCTURAL roots of this oppression deep in the nature of modern capitalism (not just in a distant and fading history of America) — in a capitalism that constantly has to reconstruct and enforce a bottom desperate exploited tier in the proletariat using a color line (or using an undocumented status). What is the MATERIALITY of this oppression (in the workings of capitalism, in the structure of ownership, in the vast profits from unpaid and underpaid labor, in the need for a propertyless and desperate class, in the ways this system causes humanity to confront each other as competitors and as sources of wealth).

Why was it such a bitter joke when Rodney King naively and sincerely asked the world, “Can’t we just get along?” Why ISN’T that the answer? What turns this world (and the minds of people within it) toward the dog-eat-dog?

Let me end by saying some basic things:

1) I am not impressed when a politician makes a “moving speech” — or when he says things no one has said before.

2) I believe we need to deeply connect with people’s aspirations for a non-racist society, and for real multi-racial (multinational) unity in that fight.

3) I think we have to find ways to “go through the process” of real life with people — to be both “connected” to them (in our tone and through our work) without giving up our distinctive revolutionary character and identity and message. In fact we have to grow our distinctive pole — not grow the political habits, views and assumptions that reinforce this system.

In Letter 2 we wrote:

“…the people of the world need a radically reconceived communist project. They need revolutionary internationalists in the U.S. to do our part well, here and now. We have something worthy to bring to this passage of history. And for that we must emulate Lenin’s hunger to win and his focus on grabbing the chance within the maelstrom.”

4) I can’t see how we can electorally “support” Obama WITHOUT promoting illusions about who he is and what he represents and what this country’s elections and government represent.

5) I think we can (and should!) oppose the white racist madness without “supporting” him electorally (with ALL that this means, regardless of what we tell ourselves). I think we can oppose and expose it, in ways the liberals can’t — in ways that could “go viral” (far beyond our reach) because of their clarity and explanatory power.

6) I believe it is likely Obama will be savaged in truly relentless and shameful ways– dirtied and torn down in public relentlessly until he is “damaged goods.” If Obama is savaged before the Democratic convention (and the nomination is stolen from him) — millions of people will be bitter at the Democratic Party. If Obama is savaged after the nomination (and the general election is seized from him that way) — millions of people will be very bitter at this society (and at the white people who were stampeded to McCain).

I think we can speak to these moods and events (powerfully) without supporting Obama — precisely because that non-support for the Democrats, for electoralism, for all the assumptions of capitalist permanence helps us bring forward the need for revolution and for socialism (and a new political system).

7) I think many (perhaps most) progressive people will support Obama (in various degrees of enthusiasm and excitement). But in general I don’t believe his core cadre and activists (who Tellnolies wants to network with) are generally the “advanced.” I think they are generally the intermediate, and not the material out of which we will build our movement. I think the more conscious folks will be among the most stand-offish, the most ambivolent, the most quick to move on. The revolutionaries of the 1960s did not come from the King-Lowenstein-Alinsky camp, but from those “at the grassroots” who were always more skeptical.

I don’t think we should be whipped around by the moods of “most progressive people” — though i think we should have connection with them.I think our revolutionary movement need backbone, and a provocative independence that dares to “go against the tide” (without falling into the ugly game of accusing people of “complicity” as if these issues are already obvious — which they are not.)

Put another way: In 1968 if you were enamored with Robert Kennedy you were far from the advanced forces in the U.S. Any attempts to portray his candidacy as a “a passion to imagine the world anew” is to romanticize rather bull-headed illusions (and even backwardness) in a time of rising consciousness.

What did we think (in SDS or the early RU, or the Black Panthers or the radicalizing ranks of SNCC) about Tom Hayden going and weeping at the 1968 funeral of Bobby Kennedy — the man who directed the bugging and blackmail of civil rights leaders? The participant in the Bay of Pigs and the nuclear showdown with Cuba? Puleez! Robert Kennedy was trying to play the role of a Mendes-France… His campaign was the antithesis of the upsurge. It was (on Kennedy’s part) a move of conscious cooptation as the hated Johnson staggered from the scene. We are not now in a time of such upsurge… so alignments are different. But still, let’s not be confused what it means when a Tom Hayden talks about “not since” Robert-fucking-Kennedy!

8) Since I don’t believe in predicting results, and don’t because I know better to assume that McCain will win: I want to add that if Obama were to win the election (a possible outcome, but in my opinion a less likely one) — I don’t think being “within that tent” will help us (i.e. help congeal the revolutionary pole). And I think we all will quickly see what it means for humanity to have a popular face for U.S. imperialism in their quest for hegemony (and what it means in the U.S., to have another liberal president demonized and paralyzed on the most reactionary basis imaginable.)

We are in for a period of real politics, with many unpredictable twists and turns. But I believe this is a period where we should forge a new revolutionary trend, not follow anyone into the Democratic Party.