A Change Deferred

on
Every day we witness the stunning disaster of the Trump administration. How it has escalated the worse absurdities of the American Empire, of the Plutocracy, of Nativism, and hatred of the Other (Yet, one must remember that though Trump acts terribly on a host of issues, Bush was far worse for an illegal, region-destabilizing war which killed millions of people for still obscure purpose, for which the architects will never have to answer). And while President Obama was a significantly superior than either of these men, he failed to alter the course of the American Experiment for the better. He failed to rein in, not only the excesses, but cease the injustices of domestic and international policy.

Is it too much to ask of this man? No, because he campaigned on nothing less than a grand, trans-formative change, an idealism for securing peace for the people of the world, and economic security for every citizen of the United States. In retiring, he received such accolades, that he must have earned them. Coates makes a case which contains serious errors, because it ignores the president's failures. Others have tried to shift these defects onto the Republican party. While there is blame to be laid upon the Republican party for blocking the President at every turn, for no other reason than to limit the length of his administration, no one can't condemn the Republican party for the policies examined here. Everything included in the last three articles was done unilaterally or at the direction of the President.

The prior articles examined how the following policies begun by Bush (or earlier) were allowed to continue under Obama, and how many have found their abominable fruition in the Trump administration.

Escalated drone strikes
Killed United States citizens without trial
Imprisoned journalists and whistle-blowers
Failed to condemn brutal dictators
Afghanistan soldier surge
Overthrew Qaddafi and created chaos in Libya
Failed to prosecute torturers
Initiated a one trillion dollar nuclear weapon modernization
Increased secret surveillance
Bailed out banks not homeowners

The most frightening aspect of this list, was how Republicans continually trashed President Obama, but for none of the policies listed above. They imagined massive conspiracy theories to discredit him, criticized his plan to expand health care for the poor, ranted about his deal to curtail Iran's search for nuclear weapons, seethed over his decision to extend citizenship to immigrants brought to the United States as children, mocked his attempt to foster a environmentally sustainable economy, and halted his decision to end the illegal imprisonment in Guantanamo.

Every attempt Obama made to aid the poor, or to seek peace world wide, was criticized. But Republicans never denounced the policies that would curtail freedom or foster death and destruction. These policies were accepted by the majority of politicians because they were conventional, they followed the line of precedent. Obama didn't alter that. America as usual.

In the 2020 election, the primary for which has already begun, Democrats can choose to elect another charismatic center (left-ish) politician who speaks for change, but offers more of the same. They can select another politician who has no background in progressive policies, but is making all the right noises at the right time. America as usual.

Is there any other alternative? No one can know until a candidate is elected, but is it possible for even a candidate with a history of progressive policies to adhere to them? Can the United States voluntarily alter the short-term trend it established two decades (and the long-term policies it established decades or a century before)? It's possible there is no consensus within the country to reform, and the change will one day be inflicted on the United States. Maybe even the most idealistic candidates would be corrupted irrevocably upon attaining power, incapable of incubating a substantial national metamorphosis.

If one were to construct a manifesto for this change it would be: Peace, Transparency, Economic and Civil Equality, Democracy, Life.

As a voter who doesn't identify as a party member, and feels no loyalty for one over the other (they're there to serve us, not the other way around), I need to see the right policies, to support the politician. I am idealist, as maybe you are too. Look at this list (or whichever one you can find), and decide which candidates have a history of policies you want. Which of them can reform the United States in such a manner?

I wish there were younger candidates I trusted. I'd like to see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's political history in eight years, because could be a candidate of interest with some experience (she is too young to be a Presidential candidate according to the Constitution until the 2028 election). For 2020, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren seem like two of the few candidates who would embrace the broad positions outlined above. Aside from these two, few of the potential Democratic candidates can be trusted to end the endless war against terrorism, to scale back surveillance, to create an economy (and tax code) which benefits the poor and the middle over the extravagantly wealthy, or to condemn brutal regimes (and foster with budding democracies worldwide). Maybe even they will continue America as usual.

The Democrats need a candidate capable of healing the wounds of the Untied States, not with the faux-populism of cultural grievance of the President, but with aid to those in poverty and minorities. They also need to seek a dismantling of the military state which exports death overseas. Some critics may say these policies are too naive, too idealistic. That the two topics being discussed are not connected. In reply, The United States can not have a just domestic policy, while simultaneously maintaining a barbaric, inhuman foreign policy. In reply again, “[America's soul] can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over."
 
I worry that almost all the potential Democratic candidates for the 2020 election will copies of President Obama, an uplifting candidate situated in the center/center left position, exporting death abroad, while enhancing secrecy and inequality at home.

I can't begin to fathom why a candidacy of this, resulted in a mediocre presidency. Perhaps it was the best the United States could achieve. Maybe America can't produce a president capable of satisfying the need for a revolutionary change.

Yet there was a monumental alteration in the nation's character on November 4th, 2008, when a nation founded with slavery, bound in slavery, bled of slavery but still clinging to its remnants, elected a man who would have been a slave a century and a half earlier. The historical relevance of the election of Barrack Hussein Obama is one which can not be understated. A man whose election was a culmination (so far) of an intellectual and political movement of African Americans from Sojourner Truth, to Richard Allen, to D.E.B. Dubois, to Thurgood Marshall, and Martin Luther King Jr. A nation-long quest for freedom, justice, and equality for all people. But a leader who mostly changed the country through his existence, rather than his policies. A President who crafted fear and death abroad, and allowed too many injustices to be unreckoned with at home. I'm still grappling with these two facets.

Hopefully Barack Obama's failures, as the first African American President (whose mistakes are less than many who have come before or will come after), will be recognized as such, not so he can be reviled, but so succeeding generations of citizens can advance the cause of peace, justice, and equality.

Recent:

Comments

Post a Comment