Blame Obama?

From every corner of the world there is interest in the forthcoming presidential elections in the United States. Behind the media story-line of a contest between two “very different” and “sharply polarized” parties and candidates, Obama and Romney agree to the wishes of capital. The $6 billion media spectacle of a presidential contest is the biggest Hollywood epic of them all. In their theatrical debates both cadidates avow their allegience to “the free enterprise system” (capitalism) despite the profits system’s long and ongoing record of savage, murderous history.  Barack Obama has said very clearly that he believes "that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known.”

Obama despite the propaganda is a hard-right, a neo-con, warrior president, a corporatist pursuing anti-populist policies who favors wealth and privilege, not social justice. He’s a fraud, an elitist, chosen years ago, and then put on a fast track to power. Big monied interests love him. So do war profiteers and members of America’s aristocracy. He’s one of them. Obama has repeatedly shown his allegiance to the wealthy plutocracy.



Obama’s 2008 election organisation secured $640 million (more than McCain) and the great bulk of the financial support came from Wall Street and the US corporate elite. The US power elite bank-rolled the Obama campaign and for no other reason than that they know he will have to repay their loyalty. The outcome of US elections carries one truth: namely that whichever candidate becomes president, he has but one remit once in office – to further the interests of the US corporate elite.

Obama makes no secret during his campaign of his “moderate” political outlook. A central theme of his campaigns, in fact, was the need for bipartisanism and his offer of the grand bargain deal to Republicans. Those who now criticize Obama for being yet another spineless Democrat were not paying sufficient attention to the statements he has made in the past. Obama has boasted of his deeply-held principle of never sticking to any principle. He has never claimed to be anything but a “pragmatist”, which is a nice way of saying “opportunist”. The idea that Obama has broken his promises is only seem valid to those who – against all the evidence – fashioned an image of him as a progressive saviour. How can Obama be blamed for those false expectations? Obama has not budged from his belief that the solutions to the problems plaguing the United States can be found lying in the middle of the political road. This is the belief he wrote about back in 2006, and his policies in office have been based on it. Obama may not have any objection to public sector unions, but he’ll do nothing to help them; and that while he may not favor increasing inequality, he’ll do nothing to reverse it.

Obama appeared at a fortunate time, when much of the population was desperate to believe that the country could change for the better. Millions were sick of Bush and the Republicans and it was indeed “time for a change”. This was the basis for the foolish hope that Obama could, almost single-handedly, set things right. People went from the naïve view that Bush was the root of all evil to the equally simplistic idea that Obama could uproot that evil. It is pointless to transform Obama into a scapegoat.

Yet the idea that Obama has betrayed us all is based on the initial illusion that he could rescue us from problems that are deeply rooted in capitalism itself. Only when people give up the illusion that capitalism can be fundamentally reformed to somehow create a more humane world will we be on the road to real social change. It is good that so many of Obama’s followers are disillusioned. But they are not half as disillusioned as they need to be.

There is a recognizable political cycle. We have been through it before, over and over again in the United States and in many other countries. It is the cycle of lesser evil. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Obama was a significantly lesser evil. For instance, it is argued, isn’t it worthwhile just to reduce (for the sake of debate, remember) the probability of an attack on Iran to get him into office does ward off a greater evil. But once in office, Obama comes under irresistible pressure from his capitalist masters to break his “populist” promises, to disappoint, disillusion and betray the working people who placed their trust and hope in him. Some supporters sink back into apathy and despair, while others fall prey to the Tea-Party type backlash. These reactions give the Republicans their chance to return to political power through Romney's slogans to portray himself as the new candidate of change. Those who support the lesser evil play an essential role in constantly reproducing the cycle. They share the responsibility for its persistence.

Some capitalist politicians are 100% subservient to the oil, gas, and coal corporations and oblivious to the danger of climate change. In their hands we are doomed. Other capitalist politicians are a little less subservient and try to do something to mitigate it. That something, always being much less than what’s absolutely essential and necessary. Obama takes a less confrontational approach, but he still has to bat for US capitalist industry. In his hands we are still doomed.