Obama: the anti-Fidel

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

As I wrote back in April when progressive pundits in D.C. were so deeply baffled by Obama’s supposed “tactical mistake” in not insisting on a clean debt ceiling increase, Obama’s so-called “bad negotiating” or “weakness” is actually “shrewd negotiation” because he’s getting what he actually wants (which, shockingly, is not always the same as what he publicly says he wants).

Arguing, one way or another, about Obama’s possible motivations misses the point — I think.  Regardless of Obama’s intentions, his presidency is already a tragic episode in U.S. and world history.

All analogies are faulty, but the best I can think of right now is that of Russia’s provisional government in March 1917, after the czar was bumped out of power, leaving a big mess for Kerensky’s government to deal with.  With Russia being bled by the war, landless peasants aggravated by debts, and the specter of famine in cities and country, Russia needed the urgent and forceful use of power to extricate itself from the situation.  Kerensky, a pathetic figure without the fortitude to take any decisive action, always tiptoeing around the powers that be, squandered his chance in petty political maneuvering, allowing the monarchists to regroup (and Kornilov, their leader, to conspire overtly against the government and the emerging soviets).  Kerensky was only bold and aggressive against those on his left flank.  Effective political paralysis in the face of catastrophic social inertia of the kind — paralysis not by reference to the intentions of leaders, but by reference to actual social needs — tends to lead to greater suffering and upheaval than it vainly tries to avoid.

Prominent Bolshevik leaders (let alone the rest of the left) were lulled by the impasse.  “Perhaps the news from the war front will improve.”  “Perhaps we’ll get lucky and the monarchists will accept their fate and abandon their plots.”  Lenin, a man not so different from the rest of us, saw the writing on the wall and escaped to Finland — just to barely avoid capture and an almost certain assassination.  Exiled in Finland, Lenin prepared his return, campaigning to persuade his Bolshevik comrades — incapable of visualizing themselves in power — to take decisive action and preempt the “catastrophe that threatens us.”

We are not in Lenin’s position.  The organizations of the U.S. left are in no way tested and ready like the Bolshevik party was in the fall of 1917.  (And please note that this is mutatis mutandis!)  But, in many ways, we are in a better position than the Bolsheviks were back then, and we certainly can do much more than we think — and do more we must.   Although we are not facing tragedy on the scale afflicting Russia at the time, economic dislocation, unemployment, poverty, and mass suffering are at intolerable levels and on the rise.  We are involved in three bloody wars, none of which is getting better.

I can imagine some writers at the time arguing heatedly that Kerensky was not a pathetic figure, that he was decisive and clear-minded, because he was advancing his own agenda, even if at the expense of the mass of Russia’s working people.  As if that mattered.  Who the hell cared what Kerensky truly wanted in his heart of hearts?  The fact of the matter was that Kerensky’s actions did not measure up to what Russia, as a society avoiding disintegration in the summer and fall of 1917, truly needed — peace, bread, and land.  More importantly, it was precisely the chasm between the social needs as felt by the Russian people and the pitiful inaction of the Kerensky government, a chasm that exhausted their tolerance and forced them to take matters in their own hands, that propelled the October insurrection.

I am absolutely convinced that voting for Obama, and calling people to vote for Obama, was the right thing to do in 2008.  It wasn’t — I argued then — about Obama personally, but about disenfranchised sectors of the working people —  Blacks and Hispanics, the youth, in the U.S. and abroad — who, as anybody with eyes could see, felt the fervent need to have a Black man in the White House, and got deeply vested in the campaign.  It wasn’t about a self-infatuated individual making it big time, but about groups of people crushed by the social order who needed to expand the scope of what they deemed possible.  Even Fidel Castro, from a distance, could tell what Obama represented for them.  The left can suck its own thumb, basking at the purity of its radical goals, or view itself as a political instrument of concrete working people in motion.  It is not the business of the left to foster the illusions and prejudices of working people.  On the contrary, the left is in the business of helping people dispel those illusions and overcome those prejudices.  But how to do it is of the essence.  Mechanically, there’s little difference between rape and consensual romantic sex.  Yet, humanly, they are two polar opposites.  The process of helping people dispel their illusions requires, not righteous detachment and admonishment, but respectful engagement with them.  Helping them achieve and sharpen their goals is the starting point; not because their goals are the ultimate goals we can envision, but because their goals are theirs.  The opposite of alienation is appropriation.  For working people at the bottom, overcoming alienation — without which no human liberation whatsoever will be possible — means making the world out there their world.

This morning, as I often do, I was thinking about what made the Cuban revolution stick against all odds, about what turned Fidel into such an effective leader.  I thought of how he treats people.  A few weeks ago, the man — a man who many thought to be terminally ill — probably saved Hugo Chávez’s life for the second time!  The first time, he personally directed the diplomatic isolation of the coup in 2002, preventing Chávez’s assassination, and then assisting in the organization of his release by the presidential guard.  The second time, early in June, by noticing Chávez’s illness and persuading him to undergo a medical examination that detected a potentially deadly tumor in his belly.  This way of treating people, caring about their needs, is not something that Fidel limits to people of Chávez’s official stature.  I will illustrate this with a personal anecdote: Back in 1983 or 1984 (I can’t remember now exactly when this happened), as the Caribbean sea threatened to swallow those of us living on the northern low edges of Havana City (a phenomenon the Cubans called “ras de mar” — a tidal penetration that flooded several blocks adjacent to the Havana Malecón), I saw at an arm’s distance, the man himself, directing our rescue, asking questions and issuing orders, comforting children and elders, physically pulling people out of basements and shuttling them on boats to safe places.  Vast material damages, but not one single human casualty!  Unthinkable in any other Latin American country.  Unthinkable in Louisiana under Bush.  The message he and his Communist Party sent to us was loud and clear — “We’ve got your back.  We’ll spare no effort to protect your lives.  Your needs are our needs.”

Obama is the anti-Fidel.  The needs of Wall Street, the needs of the establishment, the needs of insurance companies, the needs of the military-industrial complex are his needs.  Our needs, the needs of working people, are alien to him.  Those of us who supported and celebrated his ascent to the White House have good reasons to be disappointed and angry.  He escalated the war in Afghanistan (it doesn’t matter if, during his campaign, he said he’d escalate that war).  His economic choices are devastating the lives of working people.  I wouldn’t change my 2008 vote if I could.  But, that is past now.  Given the chance, Obama refused to grow as a leader and do what the times demanded from him.  He will join Kerensky in some fitting niche of Dante’s inferno.  We must draw the right lessons from our experience and fight.



  1. Well done. Yet, Greenwald negates the illusion of Obama the Savior, not because he wants a better one, but to drive another stake into the illusion. Obama the good man, Obama the clairvoyant, etc. were all hawked to deflect attention to the systemic agenda. And hawked by supposedly clairvoyant liberals. The dying myth of Obama the good man is now generating the opposite of hope.

    As the deception and betrayal flood out, Obama’s con is obvious in retrospect. And this justification is too early to evaluate:

    I am absolutely convinced that voting for Obama […] was the right thing [… because] Blacks and Hispanics, the youth, in the U.S. and abroad […] felt the fervent need to have a Black man in the White House

    In light of Obama’s performance this is a form of politique du pire. As if it was necessary to have a mass betrayal to wake the youth up. That’s a little more cynical than it appears on the surface. Perhaps it was necessary.

    But those who now are recognized as prescient get the credibility. It would have been much better to have multiplied the numbers of the prescient than the deluded.

    Pessimism was a better investment. Must hope bear alienation? No, but it probably always will when it’s sold.

  2. My involvement in 2008 never included a promise that Obama would fulfill the hopes that he raised. I was in no position to assure people about Obama. I just never told the people who got politically involved for the first time prompted by Obama’s candidacy that they were making a mistake by getting politically involved. Perhaps Obama would fail, but their getting politically involved was part of the solution to whatever problems existed and might arise. I didn’t know ahead of time whether Obama would betray the hopes he raised. There were mixed signals and I had no crystal ball. So there was no cynicism or deceit on my part. It was about taking chances in the face of uncertainty and doing it with people who were in motion for the right reasons. If you had lived in Bed Stuy, Brooklyn at the time, and seen people engaged as they were, you’d have perhaps thought differently.

    I don’t think that, necessarily, the people who, in 2008, were metaphysically certain that Obama would betray the hopes he raised have suddenly become credible in the eyes of the rest of us. It depends less on their prescience and more on what they are currently doing. Say you are a salesman offering me a new computer system and telling me that my computer is too antiquated. You can bet that I will take my time before I discard my current computer and buy what you’re trying to sell me. If you come and help me troubleshoot my existing computer (rather than keep pushing your new spiffy one), I may then trust you enough to come around to your views. In my experience, this is not how the righteous pseudo-radical left behaves though. Their approach is hopelessly sectarian. “Here’s the truth. We know what will happen. Discard your illusions and join us.” Sheer BS. (I’m not saying this is the case with you. I’m just telling you what I think it’s the usual “radical” stance.)

  3. Let me borrow an image that Chávez recently drew from Les Miserables. A character in Victor Hugo’s novel says (more or less): “With the revolution, we thought we had changed the world. We demolish the old mills, but the wind that moved them remained intact. We now realize that we need to change the wind itself.”

    The left can certainly help working people realize that we need to change the wind itself. But, at this point, it is not wise for the left to get in the way of people when they are trying to demolish the mills. Yes, tell them that they are only demolishing mills, and that the task ahead remains to change the wind itself. But start by giving them a hand to better smash those mills.

  4. Greenwald doesn’t fit that category. And the prevalence of desperation and alienation may make it difficult to believe a righteous lefty, but it is still necessary to see more clearly.

    The conman relies on the mark’s embarrassment to admit he has been taken. Greenwald demonstrates the conman is to blame. That is essential work.

    Metaphysically certain? You’re being hyperbolic. Of course they weren’t so; no thinking necessary. The question is, why were those people aware and what were their plans? The crisis is beyond Obama, and his like will not be used again in our lifetimes. So, all the more important to understand how those who saw through him did so. They saw him coming and maybe they’ll see the next one.

    Are you resigned to a politique du pire?

  5. Curious that you mention a politique du pire? Let’s go back to 11/2008: What were the concrete options back then? One, vote for Obama. Two, vote for McCain. Three, vote Independent or do not vote. One may say that the hyper-radical left combined option three with propaganda against the bipartisan kabuki, capitalism, etc. But it was all (and could only be) in a political vacuum. So, which was the actual politique du pire?

  6. Hugo’s image is mocking. But I don’t think he meant that they really needed to be smashed.

    And we already know we have to change the wind itself.

  7. I don’t begrudge your choice then. I’m asking whether you approve of the betrayal of those innocents in order to educate them. And whether you think that is the way of progress.

  8. I saw the emergence of Obama-person-of-color as candidate as a serious danger-signal; a possible Trojan horse for the corporado/militaroids. I knew that less-discriminating blacks, Chicanos and white Liberals (guilt-ridden or not), would propel him to power. Sure enough his early speeches were clearly vapid and empty rhetoric, and included ageist and offensive characterizations of my generation’s standing up for justice for labor and people of color, and against war as “divisive”, wrong and passé, a strong hint. I recall the media informing that a Congressman (or Senator) ingratiatingly praised his speech-making, to which he responded “I have a gift.” (Oh please!). Wayne Madsens revealing picture of his murderous CIA/USAID parents and coddled grooming for a power-post I did not encounter until after his election, but assured me that I had been on the right track (I see a certain poverty in his up-bringing, an important consideration to us Latinos, which both Fidel and Chavez would understand). His serial-caving in to Republicans left me gasping (and cursing), but not surprised. I had long-ago gotten over the “if you don’t vote, don’t complain” mantra (I blog and I publish–and therefor vote with my feet). I offer here a not particularly shrewd or sophisticated assessment, but all off this and more kept me from later regretting having cast my vote for him, an important personal distinction. I now see him as Bush-squared. My intelligent, hardworking and honest partner, a “preacher’s kid”, no less, refers to Obama as a “Swine.” Obama’s policies aside, I see his personal politica as a mess, he is clever, but Hillary is way smarter. Her foreign policy would have likely been as murderous, but my guess is that she would have more closely hewed to promises about domestic change for the better, correct me if I am wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s