[Marxism] Cuban writer: world's view of Obama to be determined by deeds, not words

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Obama: Change or continuity? (Part III)

By Elíades Acosta Matos
http://progreso-weekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=800&Ite
mid=\1


The election of Barack Obama as the United States' 44th president and his
inauguration on Jan. 20 have placed on the table of public opinion the topic
of symbols and their possible readings. If anyone is fully aware of the
enormous cultural and political weight of symbols, it's Obama.

The figure and discourse of the new president, his charisma, brilliance,
composure, boldness, charm, cold blood and intelligence return, on a
symbolic level, a leadership its country lost due to the clumsiness and
mediocrity of George W. Bush. The alliances have renewed themselves
automatically, and an almost unanimous applause greets him at all his public
appearances. With notable exceptions, among them one of Fidel Castro's
reflections, titled "Against the current," and an article by Ignacio Ramonet
that analyzed, with fair concern, the composition of Obama's Cabinet, few
have stopped to scrutinize with a critical eye the first measures taken by
his administration.

In the specific case of the Israeli aggression against the Palestine people
of Gaza, Obama defended his silence alleging political reasons and explained
that the country should have only one authoritative voice. But he forgot two
essential principles: one, that it is legitimate and excusable to raise
one's voice against crime, because it is a matter of ethical principles,
rather than political principles. Two, that if the voice of the nation had
to be the voice of the departing president, the world would prefer that he
would keep his mouth shut.

This lack of rigorous and objective analyses of the projections and
decisions of the new U.S. president remind us that few things are as
dangerous in the contemporary world and in world politics than to write a
blank check to the president of the world's most powerful nation. This was
dramatically demonstrated after the events of Sept.11, 2001.

On a symbolic level, Obama's rhetoric operates with arguments and concepts
taken from some "left lite" close to social-democracy.
Categories such as "social justice" and "change" were never before wielded
with such force by any U.S. politician of Obama's level.
Independently from the fact that in his public speeches he has never fully
explained where social injustice emerges from and how it reproduces itself
(and consequently against what economic and political forces we must
struggle to fully uproot it), it remains to be seen how the president of the
most overwhelming capitalist and imperialist nation wants to carry out such
concepts -- or can do so.

The constant repetition of such concepts in his speeches clarifies nothing
but leave a cloud of ambiguities and confusions, especially among the
less-informed and less-militant sectors of the left itself.
We are reminded of the actions of the cultural war, so appreciated by
today's neoconservatives, who were toppled and are now in flight.

Obama's statements that in his presidency and under his leadership the
differences between Democrats and Republicans, between left and right, will
be erased are subtle and very adequate to introduce elements of confusion
from capitalism, because they constitute a deceitful call to halt the
political and ideological struggle for the sake of a false and impossible
reconciliation of things that are opposed by their nature. This involves, in
the first place, social classes that were counter to each other ever since
the genesis of capital.

To accept this affirmation without a challenge is the equivalent of
jettisoning all the revolutionary theory and practice of the past 150 years,
especially the theory that began with Marx and Engels'
"Communist Manifesto." That document made its debut in the field of ideas by
speaking out loudly and clearly and not being ashamed to point out the true
causes of poverty, exploitation and social injustice.

Another symbolic element to bear in mind with regard to Obama is his
biography, cleverly exploited by the hagiographers and political pundits. It
matters little that he lived with his Kenyan father only until the age of 2
and that he met with him again only once, just before the father's death.
This element has been trotted out to gain the support of the most humiliated
and offended citizens of his country and the Third World. On the other hand,
the image of the American white mother with a history of counter-cultural
rebellion and affinity with the left has also been widely used.

It is unimportant if a man with this background is today part of power elite
or if he was yesterday a student at Columbia University, an institution in
the aristocratic and selective Ivy League. We have been oversold the idea
that, through elections, the discriminated and progressive groups have
finally achieved power in the United States through this new president. He
has carried out, we are told, something similar to a peaceful and democratic
revolution that (oh, what a
coincidence) leaves a feeling in the air that it is a superior and mature
system, because it respects the people's will and is capable of rectifying a
long history of errors.

This young man (barely 47) has proclaimed himself the representative of a
different and innovative way of doing politics, even though the novelty is
not only that he sends personalized messages to the cell phones of millions
of Americans. For generational reasons, he is not related to the major
confrontations of the 20th Century, among them the Cold War and the Vietnam
war, so therefore he is seen as much more capable of understanding
post-modern sensitivities and the challenges and opportunities of our times.

His ambiguous anecdotes about his moderate consumption of alcohol and drugs
during his student years humanized him in the eyes of the public, converted
him in an example of self-improvement and publicized the facilities his
country provides for people to succeed and reinsert themselves into society.
And his archetypical image -- which reflects and represents almost every
social class, race and profession -- is enhanced when he publicly describes
himself as an educated, well-informed man who is not ashamed of being an
intellectual and being familiar with the new technologies, as happens with
the younger generations, because much of his success is due to the fact that
he understands that today's politics and ideas cannot succeed without the
Internet.

What I've said so far is intended to activate the rational and analytical
thinking of people who face new times, times that are coming with this new
administration and will force a rethinking of many previous certainties and
discourses. The days of the Cold War, when a handful of creative youngsters
working for U.S. government agencies could transform the perception of
reality through cartoons, radio broadcasts, the spreading of rumors and the
distribution of magazines, today seem like the days of a prehistoric past.

Today, everything is more complex and at the same time simpler.
However, the certainty remains that the cultural tools are most useful to
advance, promote, impose and defend the interests of a superpower such as
the United States. Tools of ideological and cultural struggle are the
concepts of the "soft and intelligent power" that back the international
projections of Barack Obama's administration. The ideological challenges
this implies for countries like Cuba and Venezuela, for example, are
enormous.

For the Cuban Revolution, for its people, its artists and intellectuals,
moments of testing are at hand. The battle of ideas will enter a brand-new
phase. The self-preservation instincts of a system like capitalism, which is
being flogged by a crisis of an unprecedented magnitude, will impose itself
over its imperial dreams, which have foundered on the streets of Baghdad or
the Afghan mountains. Imperialism knows that if it doesn't evolve it will
disappear. That is why we are witnessing and well-thought-out rescue
operation, not only in the field of finance but also in the fields of ideas
and symbols.

Barack Obama's presidency, aside from its positive or negative results,
shows that the system is willing to transform anything that does not alter
its essence, willing to articulate its habitual hegemonic methods, so long
as they remain untouchable.

But in the field of ideas and culture, which is where the real extent of the
promised changes will be measured, there is no infallible or invincible
formula. The proposals of soft and smart power are neither infallible nor
invincible, either. An interesting article by Josef Joffe, published in The
New York Times on May 14, 2006, under the headline "The perils of soft
power," is illustrative.

"Soft power does not necessarily increase the world's love for America. It
is still power, and it can still make enemies. [...] Hundreds of millions of
people around the world wear, listen, eat, drink, watch and dance American,
but they do not identify these accouterments of their daily lives with
America [...] These American products shape images, not sympathies, and
there is little, if any, relationship between artifact and affection." (1)

Certainly, what will prompt humanity to believe in the United States under
the government of Barack Obama, and to believe in Obama himself, will not be
the rhetoric of a soft and intelligent power, well-packaged though it may be
or pacifying though it may be, compared with the apocalyptic statements of
the previous administration. What will be essential will be the practical
policies that the current administration will enact; they need to be
sufficiently honest, effective, fair and timely, so they may help remedy the
huge ills that corrode the planet.

If the United States under the new presidency insists on continuing to be
what it has been until now -- an imperialist and hegemonic power -- then the
vote of confidence given by the American voters and the rest of the world to
that young, black, brillian and charismatic man who entered history by
wielding the word "change" was worthless, simply because it changed nothing.

In the days of Rome, especially for the Gauls, Jews and Germans, Rome was
Rome, no matter who sat on the imperial throne -- Caesar, Nero or
Constantine.

The time has come to find out if the man who holds in his hands the reins of
the world's most powerful nation symbolizes continuity or change.

Let's hope it's change. April 30 will mark the first 100 days of the new
mandate of the United State's 44th president.

As our grandmothers used to say: "Works are love." Let's hope that the black
lady who lived on the shores of Lake Victoria, or the white lady in Kansas,
taught the same to their grandson, Barack Hussein Obama.

1. Josef Joffe: "The perils of soft power", The New York Times, May 14,
2006.

Elíades Acosta Matos is a Cuban writer and essayist. He has written numerous
essays and books, among them "Apocalypse according to St.
George," "From Valencia to Baghdad." His latest book, "21st Century
imperialism; The cultural wars," will be launched at the 2009 Havana Book
Fair. Acosta was chief of the Department of Culture of the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of Cuba.






________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu