Why bother writing about the first hundred days of Obama or a new presidency, for that matter? What is one hundred days in a four-year presidency, half of which is traditionally preoccupied with getting re-elected (polling, fundraising, partisan appearances, aligning everything with the “party”, not the country, people and best interests of whatever). One hundred days is less than one semester of university education, less than a hockey/baseball/football/basketball season, less than a whole lot of stuff. Three months and a couple of days is really not that long at all, especially when one considers the years, decades and even centuries of conflict, well, we’re no longer sure what we’re fighting for, over yonder. So why bother profiling the first one hundred days of Obama. The answer is simple.

I have been asked to speak at my university’s Black faculty and employee association discussion forum at the end of April entitled (and this should not be a surprise by now)... Obama’s first hundred days in office.

So let me dive right into it. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? (probably the former) Is a hundred days enough to understand what will unfold in the next four years? (probably not) Is it possible to splice the content from the style? (this will be difficult) Is it possible to be critical without being labelled a kill-joy? (here again, it is not easy to be critical of Obama; we all like him, his heart is in the right place, and we need more goodwill gestures and not more “us and them” salvos).

Let’s start with the good stuff.

As referenced above, Obama is likable. He is intelligent. Although the fact that he was a constitutional law professor for several years was never really mentioned in favour of emphasizing his experience as a “community organizer,” it is clear that he is bright, congenial, thoughtful and very adept at handling several questions, files, issues and problems simultaneously. Simply compare a press conference between Obama and Bush, and you will quickly conclude that a new era has been ushered in. Obama represents a lot of things to a lot of people, and although he does not very often speak to the core issues underpinning inequity, disadvantage and marginalization, it is clear that he has people in mind, and he does resonate with people all over the world. In fact, it might be argued that he resonates much more resolutely with people around the world than he does with the majority White population in the US. If one listens to talk-radio in the US, as I do (I know, I will need years of therapy and shock-treatment and de-programming workshops to overcome this), one can hear an angry, unfettered, rage-induced assault on everything Obama is and stands for. The problem is that the airwaves are almost one-hundred percent controlled by radical fringes of the extreme ring-wing (Limbaugh, Levine, Savage, Hannity, Beck, etc.), and they have huge audiences. Listening to working-class folks call in calling for the proverbial head of the head of state, as they quite often do, is disturbing, especially when one tries to understand why poor people would be against... universal health care, better public education, a redistribution of government funding, etc.. Obama has made some important concrete and symbolic gestures: for stem-cell research, for funding contraception, for meeting with Aboriginal groups, for saying that Muslims are human-beings (this wouldn’t be that odd but it had not been said by the previous US president), for showing outrage against greed and corruption, and for being decent, at many levels. Obama is a force for good, he is the best man for the job, and there is hope that he will bring change.

And, on the flip-side, it should be acknowledged that Obama has essentially put in place a group of economic technocrats and banking finaglers who brought the system to its knees in the first place. Obama appears to want to reconstruct the US system of supposed trickle-down that has essentially impoverished generations of the working class. Bailing out bankers, automobile companies and insurance conglomerates, which failed the American people, not to mention the world’s people, is suspect. Why does Obama continue to claim that the US is the “greatest country on earth,” and fail to attack the very things that have brought it crumbling down? The US borrows billions from China to pay for a senseless demolition of Iraq, and, soon, Afghanistan, while the average American is concerned about school tuition, health care, paying the mortgage, getting a job, and living beyond the month to month cycle. This is where it would be interesting for Obama to play it straight, and to inform the American public, many of whom would be very surprised to learn, that maintaining 750 military bases in a hundred countries, in addition to a trillion $ investment in Iraq that turning the world against the US, that militarization is not good for the common, decent, working person. Spending trillions on arms, selling them to countries that use them in endless conflicts involving children and devastating cultures, groups and land for generations, is not the answer. As unrealistic as it may seem, I believe that Obama would gain a lot of currency by saying and then moving the US out of the war business, certainly out of Iraq, and most definitely out of Afghanistan, and withdrawing arms sales everywhere. It makes the world unsafe, it makes America hated, it is immoral, it sows the seeds of “permanent war,” as Peter McLaren calls it, and going into war de-tox would allow the US to focus on building a education system (enter Paulo Freire) where students could critique, could become critically engaged, could work together, rather than in segregated isolation (visit any Amercian city), and, importantly, the premise of the American dream would no longer be the vilification of the “other” but rather a mutually advantageous relationship with the world.

So my critique of the first hundred days has less to do with Obama the man, a person I like very much, than it does with the US as a hegemonic power, an economic system that seems to be oblivious to the needs of the majority, and a very thin, thimble and weak democracy. Should Obama denounce the “two-party system”? (I would hope so but unlikely) Should Obama cease the quest for “bi-particanship,” meaning Republicans and Democrats? (ibid)There are so many other interests outside of the corporately-funded and organized Republicans and Democrats so why do we pretend that they do not exist? But can Obama manoeuvre differently than he already has? (here, surely, I will be critiqued that the man has no choice, and there is probably some truth to that proposition)

It is difficult to separate the man from the position. We want him to succeed, and, yet, the first hundred days seem to offer little evidence that the working people and minorities will experience a change in the predominant inequitable power relations that rein over the US landscape. With regard to education, little is known but Obama has argued in favour of merit pay for teachers and charter schools, two permanent planks of any conservative ideology.

So what do I really think? Well, that Obama is in a favourable position to enact change, and that he should do it quickly without delay (one big mistake that progressives make when in power, I believe, is to consult too much, wait too long, and then roll out policy change just before the next election, just in time to get everyone into a hornet’s nest of rage), that he should not worry about re-election, that he should drop all of the trappings of being a Democrat versus a Republican, and that he should continue to embrace the world, and consider it to be the only option. What else? Show courage by lifting the ridiculous, foolish, immoral blockage against Cuba? (as desirable as this would be, and as much mileage as he would get from the international community from such a move, he has not indicated anything to inspire hope here) He should help Haiti, period. It is shameful how the US has treated most of the world’s countries, favouring militarization over development and humanity. He could make education more focused on social justice, inter-/multi-/trans-cultural learning, critical pedagogy, and a lot less on neoliberal learning, standards and business orders. He could stop referring to the US as the “greatest”; it is a country that has contributed enormously to humanity, as have lots of other places; emphasizing how great Americans are is not only misleading but it also creates a nefarious and blind patriotism. He could remove guns from the most murderous society in the “free world”; 30,000 murders a year is unconscionable. He could critique neoliberal capitalism as the one and only economic model? The stock-market should not be the only barometer of human decency. Paying the AIG folks millions in bonuses is pathetic but the system has been doing that for generations.  Should Obama bring the previous president up on war crimes against humanity? (no one believes that he will but... wow, would that be an unprecedented milestone for freedom).

To return to our half-empty or half–full glass. One hundred days is only a start. Once the Dow Jones is once again purring, will we be thinking that there is still an air of change breezing through the awning? Will Obama truly seek to change the substance of the office or merely the style? If it is the latter, than he has created change, and he deserves full marks for injecting a more ethical, dynamic, engaging and respectful leadership into the White House. If it is the former, there is little evidence, after this very short period, that he has altered the balance of power. The reality that Obama’s message of change never really addressed neoliberalism should be underscored so perhaps my inclination to think that that may be part of the equation is inappropriate. Regardless, on an upbeat note, the potential for change under Obama is greater than the potential for change in the same structure without Obama.

Peace!

Paul