I agree (with Ozlem) that it is not hard to beat the catastrophe known as the Bush regime. What is interesting is how everyone, including myself,  is a little relieved  to see, what I would call, "a moderate, comfortable centrism," which is what Obama has certainly carved out for himself. Of course, I would prefer a less moderate, less comfortable, less centrist centrism, as the center has moved so far the right that the center does not feel that comfortable, nor moderate, anymore.

One could argue if that is where he wants to be or where that is the only place he can be, given the neoliberal underpinning of the American political order. Many of us are torn between supporting Obama because he is Obama and not Bush, and, as I`ve argued before, critiquing Obama because of the militaristic, neoliberal hegemony that the US continues to be, something that is not negligible. How much can he do? Is it better that he at least moves the political agenda a little toward the centre? Or should progressives and the left, in general, continue to push for a new political order, knowing that Obama is probably a lot more favourable to moderate change than anyone else?

The Cuba file is a good litmus test in my mind. It is astounding that Hilary Clinton can say, with a straight face, that there is no consensus to having Cuba join the Organization of American States (of course, she capitulated shortly afterwards when she saw that every country in the Americas supporting Cuba does, indeed, represent a “consensus”). I guess the annual UN vote condemning the US blockade/embargo, in which 190 countries vote against the US policy, for lack of a better term, and 3 countries vote in favour (the US, Israel and usually a country like the Marshall Islands or Kazakhstan, whichever one receives the bankroll for that year’s manoeuvres), does not represent a consensus. Or the reality that every OAS meeting in memory has brought to the fore the issue of the immoral exclusion of Cuba. Added to this is the fixation that the US has with human rights in Cuba. Does anyone in the US government see the irony in saying that Cuba must uphold human rights while, at the same time, the world has condemned the US for torture and a range of other unsavoury activities in Guantanamo, which, by chance, happens to be in a part of Cuba that the US extracted, in a very unflattering way, from an American-backed Cuban dictator in 1930. The human rights situation in Cuba is a red herring: if human rights were such a concern, should the US not impose an embargo/blockade against China, Pakistan, Egypt, and dozens of other allied countries?

This may not be entirely original but will Obama take a stand, and announce that the US will no longer be an exporter of landmines, bombs, guns and other devices used to kill and maim? This would indicate meaningful change.  Shaking hands with Mubarack, the President of Egypt, shortly after receiving several kilos of gold bullion in the form of a necklace from the head of Saudi Arabia, without questioning human rights raises a range of questions about the realpolitic of the current US government. If there are two governments in the middle-East with close to no support from their populace, it would be difficult to not put these two at the top of the list.

As everyone has been saying, the style is most welcome, and even necessary, yet the actual substance of real change in policy has not fully resonated. Chomsky and many others have provided an interesting critique on how policy in the middle-East has not fundamentally changed. Of course, Afghanistan, which now interestingly includes Pakistan, is increasingly becoming a problematic option. This will sound overly simplistic but: peace is the only option, and killing people will not achieve peace. The amount that the US gives annually to Egypt and Israel in arms is a staggering and sorrowful embarrassment.

Another concern I have is that, notwithstanding the tremendous appeal that Obama has, and also that he can motivate, which, again, should not be under-estimated, especially after the Bush fiasco, is that it does not appear that Obama will be seeking to transform the political system in the US, something that I would characterize as increasingly pathologically dysfunctional. Obama seems to be comfortable with, or again perhaps he has no choice, the two-party oligopoly. Will he seek to open up the political system to put an end to infinite fundraising, backroom deals, polling for the sake of polling, focus groups to manipulate the agenda, an endless foray of media bantering/manipulation, backroom deals, and, in general, the fundamental quagmire that the two party system has been disastrous for most Americans.

At a time when it seems unfair to critique the first African-American president, as there is so much hope around the world for his success, should we not encourage Obama to push forward to re-establish democracy? How? Or should we work outside of the formal Republican-Democratic paradigm?

Let me end with a few things that Obama has done to make us believe that some change at a centrist-moderate level can be achieved: 1) it`s good news that he has nominated an African-American male to head NASA (although what NASA does in relation to the militarization of space is extremely criticisable), and a Latina woman to the supreme court; 2) his rhetoric, although it is really only a few small baby-steps, is positive in light of the ten presidents before him; 3) he`s talking about healthcare, and it looks like something might happen but it is extremely doubtful if it will be single-payer, universal, insurance-company-free, like the rest of the developed world; 4) he continues to handle the media in a brilliant manner, and is an extremely effective communicator; 5) the mass media are replete with report cards indicating all of the positive changes, some of which I believe are bone fide, others are more style than content, and others are just plain common sense, but what is common sense anyway?

Education, apart from the foreign policy agenda, is the key, and this has been a very silent part of the overall agenda. More on that later.

Your comments are most welcome.

Peace!

Paul