An Ordinary Person

Obama and Red-Baiting

In my meanderings in the Internet and in political discussions in the mainstream media I often encounter the argument that Obama will be no good as President of the U.S. because he is a Socialist.

I Googled the keywords “Obama” and “Socialist” and I got this link to Yahoo Answers which posed the question to the public. While many of the responders believed Obama to be Socialist, not everyone elaborated on why they thought so.

One responder, I thought, clarified the issue quite well by citing what real Socialists have said about Obama from the World Socialist Web Site (article 1 and article 2).

Obama is a conventional bourgeois politician, dependent, like his rivals, on lavish financial support from corporate interests and the wealthy. He is not the product of any sort of genuine movement from below in American society, but rather the latest in a long line of demagogues employed to foster illusions that the big business-controlled political system can serve the interests of ordinary people.

The Socialist Worker says:

At first glance, Obama may seem to be one of the so-called “good Democrats.” But Obama is more Bill Clinton than Cynthia McKinney–an operator with his sights set on the “real politick” of the Democratic Party establishment, who has increasingly jettisoned whatever progressive ideas he may have once held.

As Chicago-based Palestinian rights activist Ali Abunimah recently recalled of Obama, “he was often very progressive about Israel-Palestine” as a state senator, even attending fundraisers in the Palestinian community. But as Abunimah concluded, “it all went out the window when he started his climb up the greasy pole.”

That “greasy pole” is the only way to the top of the Democratic Party–and what’s true about Obama on Palestine is true about Obama on Iraq and on immigrant and workers’ rights.

Another article says:

There’s no doubt that Obama’s campaign–or at least its incarnation during the Democratic primaries–mobilized first-time voters and raised hopes for “change” among millions of people. But declaring Obama’s campaign a social movement is an exercise in sophistry at best, and self-delusion at worst.

A discussion of social movements is beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that the mobilization of millions in militant struggle in the union movement of the 1930s or in the civil rights movement of the 1950s/60s–against the forces of the state and employers–is a different phenomenon than voting in a bourgeois political primary. To confuse the two is to lose any realistic way to assess what is actually needed to win the type of social change the Progressives for Obama seek.

Any effort to tailor demands for progressive reforms to what is acceptable to an Obama administration’s assessment of the politics of “the possible” risks settling for a lot less than could be won with an independent mobilization that forces all Washington politicians to address the movement’s agenda.

That settles it for me about the “Is Obama a Socialist?” question. If actual Socialists disavow any connections to him and view him with great suspicion more likely than not he is not a Socialist. If you are going to use that argument to sway people from voting for Obama you are most likely fear-mongering and red-baiting, using “Socialist” as a pejorative boogeyman than you are actually discussing the merits of Obama as a candidate.

Red-Baiting and Movement-Building

Now a more interesting question for me is if an avowed centrist like Obama can be mercilessly red-baited in this fashion what are the chances of an actual, grassroots-from-below, citizen’s movement led by actual Socialists of succeeding in contemporary American society?

Political scientist Adolph Reed comes the closest to articulating what I believe needs to be said regarding the prospects of an actual, grassroots, Progressive movement.

It’s a mistake to focus so much on the election cycle; we didn’t vote ourselves into this mess, and we’re not going to vote ourselves out of it. Electoral politics is an arena for consolidating majorities that have been created on the plane of social movement organizing. It’s not an alternative or a shortcut to building those movements, and building them takes time and concerted effort. Not only can that process not be compressed to fit the election cycle; it also doesn’t happen through mass actions. It happens through cultivating one-on-one relationships with people who have standing and influence in their neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, families, and organizations. It happens through struggling with people over time for things they’re concerned about and linking those concerns to a broader political vision and program. This is how the populist movement grew in the late nineteenth century, the CIO in the 1930s and 1940s, and the civil rights movement after World War II. It is how we’ve won all our victories. And it is also how the right came to power.

What is interesting to me is that such a movement, if it ever becomes a reality, will be thoroughly and mercilessly red-baited. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you think the red-baiting and slander that Obama (who is no radical) has gotten is bad, just wait when an actual radical social movement which truly threatens to upset the status quo comes around the corner.

When that happens, will support wilt for this movement? Will people associated with this movement be considered pariahs and be effectively marginalized to irrelevance? Can a genuine, people-powered movement based on Socialist (or any Populist) principles gain sufficient traction based on a sound analysis of social and economic issues and genuine advocacy for ordinary and working peoples’ interests? Will the general public recognize the movement as truly representing their interests?

You must first define what it means to “succeed” as a social and political movement. Is it to run candidates in electoral politics and win elections and offices on the local level all the way to the state and national levels? Is it to sway public opinion on certain issues so they will vote for certain candidates over others hence, applying pressure on elected officials? Is it to build an actual, working movement, attract members and raise the consciousness of the American populace?

Can these goals be met in an atmosphere of hostile red-baiting?

---