As a rule, we do not post on weekends. But because of the rapidly approaching hurricane and the likelihood of a power outage, I offer today these thoughts inspired by Michael Corey’s last Deliberately Considered post, celebrating the new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on the Washington Mall, and by Cornel West’s op.ed. piece criticizing the Memorial and Barack Obama in yesterday’s New York Times. -Jeff
I am not a big fan of Cornel West. I liked and learned from his book The American Evasion of Philosophy, but most of his other books and articles involve, in my judgment, little more then posturing and preaching to the converted (I in the main am one of them). He does not take seriously the challenges political life presents. As he shouts slogans, cheers and denounces, I am not sure that he persuades. His and Travis Smiley’s ongoing criticism of President Obama seem to me to be first personal, then political, more the work of celebrity critics than critical intellectuals. That said, I think West’s op.ed. piece has a point, though not as it is directed against Obama and against the importance of symbolism.
“The age of Obama has fallen tragically short of fulfilling King’s prophetic legacy…
As the talk show host Tavis Smiley and I have said in our national tour against poverty, the recent budget deal is only the latest phase of a 30-year, top-down, one-sided war against the poor and working people in the name of a morally bankrupt policy of deregulating markets, lowering taxes and cutting spending for those already socially neglected and economically abandoned. Our two main political parties, each beholden to big money, offer merely alternative versions of oligarchic rule.”
This is unserious. The two parties are very different, and Obama has clearly been trying to address the needs of the socially and economically abandoned in his battle against the Republicans and so called moderate Democrats in Congress: on healthcare policy, financial regulation and jobs. A debt default would not only have hurt Wall Street and Main Street businesses. It would have profoundly affected the poor and working people for whom West and Smiley claim to be speaking. Perhaps, Obama doesn’t negotiate in the most effective way. Perhaps, he has given in more than was required. But to assert that the two parties “offer merely alternative versions of oligarchic rule,” is to ignore crucial realistic differences.
Certainly Obama is not a revolutionary, as West imagines he should be, following his particular vision of the King legacy. But, the office of the President is not where social revolutionaries are likely to be found. Revolutions and their revolutionaries, as West, Obama, King and I would agree, are usually elsewhere, particularly in the sustained actions of social movements. They push Presidents, as Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement pushed Lyndon Baines Johnson, and President Kennedy before him.
West blames Obama for one important social movement, The Tea Party. The most eloquent of politicians, in West’s judgment, has failed in his primary story telling responsibility.
“The absence of a King-worthy narrative to reinvigorate poor and working people has enabled right-wing populists to seize the moment with credible claims about government corruption and ridiculous claims about tax cuts’ stimulating growth. This right-wing threat is a catastrophic response to King’s four catastrophes; its agenda would lead to hellish conditions for most Americans.”
Yet, the Tea Party is a radical response to the narrative of inclusion and opportunity that Obama forcefully has presented in his campaign and during his Presidency. The consequential fight against the Tea Party narrative cannot come primarily from the President, as I have analyzed in an earlier post. The fight has had to come from a social movement. Strong opponents of the Tea Party, like West, need to take the movement seriously and need to go beyond the leftist sentiment that whines about Obama’s failings. A movement has to directly oppose the Tea Party and push for different social values, a movement such as the one that seems to be developing since the pro worker confrontations in Madison, Wisconsin and beyond.
Here I agree with West that “extensive community and media organizing; civil disobedience; and life and death confrontations with the powers that be” are necessary. I just don’t understand why he imagines this as being something directed against Obama. It should, rather, push him on specific issues, and work against his significant opponents. Clearly, he is likely to bend in favorable ways, while the Republican alternative political leaders will likely continue to resist social change with all the power of the Tea Party behind them.
I also don’t get West’s concern about the symbolism of the new King memorial in DC. He seems to think that there is a choice between symbolism and substance and thinks that King was on substance’s side.
“King weeps from his grave. He never confused substance with symbolism. He never conflated a flesh and blood sacrifice with a stone and mortar edifice. We rightly celebrate his substance and sacrifice because he loved us all so deeply. Let us not remain satisfied with symbolism because we too often fear the challenge he embraced.”
Yet, King used symbols brilliantly, especially in his speeches, to achieve substantial goals. The monument doesn’t stand against substance, but contributes to the vocabulary of the alternative narrative that West calls for.
Words etched in stone, on the Washington Mall, at the symbolic center of the American Republic, as Michael Corey describes in his last post, provide the opportunity and inspiration for critical discussion such as West’s. He uses the symbolism of the inauguration of the monument to present his criticisms, but denies the importance of the symbol, revealing a limited self-awareness.
In the future, I am rather certain, there will be demonstrations, moving from the Lincoln Memorial, to the King Memorial, perhaps with activity as well at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Indeed, a walk around these places and discussion about the walk will enact and describe the alterative narrative to the Tea Party, as it most certainly will be inspired by King’s vision. And when President Obama takes part in the hurricane postponed official dedication of the monument in a few weeks, I won’t be surprised if he presents a compelling version of this narrative.
Let me try here— I am not sure that we do not live in a corporate oligarchy, but it seems that if that is the case, Obama has even less room for movement than these thinkers note. If he is —- in some ways, I hate to say it, by virtue of the system, in the pockets of Wall Street (and if this is the case there is strong argument against it b/c Wall Street does not like him, so there are already too many problems with their sweeping generalizations for me to take them too seriously).
And as far as the notion that there has been an unbroken sort of orchestrated war against the poor is really to lose sight of reality and its’ particulars. Clinton was not unfriendly to the poor (although many of the jobs he created, to pump up his numbers were minimum wage and go nowhere), he did create many other jobs and he did do a good job at growing middle class jobs and opportunity— he talked intelligently about a global economy and preparing American workers for it. Bush and Cheney, well they merit the rage.
As far as the subprime mortgage debacle— yes, I agree that this was basically the exploitation of the poor (for the most part)—- but it is not really something that works as (or is suited to the imagery of war on anyone) conspiracy either. You have to be woefully ignorant of bond markets, rating agencies, the way people are compensated and the extent to which your average trader understands his job past fluctuating values on a screen to say what they are saying.
I know you are talking about symbols v. substance but I just plain agree with you that King dealt like a king in symbols and so does Obama—
I also add— in these scattered thoughts— that Obama is not a king. He cannot act unilaterally. He cannot be a king or a revolutionary in that sense— he has to deal with congress and the senate minority— it is a damned shame and I wish he would find any and every loophole he can to bypass them and I agree with Jeff that he needs to be more forceful— but he created the tea-party. Crazy shit. The tea party is the religious right by another name and they have been gaining in force for about 30 years—- Obama is not responsible for them. We need to start by blaming Nixon and go from there–
“Wall Street does not like him (Obama)?” If so, then why are they his biggest contributors to his campaign? The despoilers that occupy Wall Street are a lot of things, but half witted with the investment of their capital for political purposes is not one of them. They expect, nay, demand return on that and Obama has fallen in lockstep. A summary review of the financial reform bill (and I employ that term lightly) clearly indicates even to the educated laymen that true reformation of the financial system is not going to occur under his presidency.
I’m not sure which Clinton policy measures you are researching but his “welfare reform” gutted the social net that served to prevent many from living in degradation. Clinton’s “job creation” was a farce as well as the “economic growth” that the country supposedly experienced during his presidency as evidenced by the financial “bubbles” that festered during his second term in office. Lest we forget the final repeal of Glass-Steagall, the full deregulation of financial markets at the behest of the three headed monster known as the Committee to save the world (Greenspan, Summers, Rubin [am I the only one who read Obama’s biography and appalled at the praise he feted to Rubin?] ), all of which was directed by the Clinton administration. Most of the financial advisers during the Clinton years have been utilized by the Obama administration. So much for the theory about “symbols v. substance.” Obama possesses neither the fortitude to implement a logical policy nor, in my opinion, wants to. He is nothing more than a Bush II redux with a more floral syntax.
Finally, as for dealing “Congress and the Senate minority,” let’s not forget that at the commencement of his presidency, Obama did possess a Democratic majority but failed to capitalize on it. Considering how simple minded the tea party’s positions with regards to policy are, they should be an after thought as with the religious right. However, and this goes to the very nucleus of the issue at hand, conservatives do not mind engaging in cut and run policy measures and because of the universality in which they are conveyed, it is very comforting for stupid people to hear and recite and further regurgitate said stupidity within their ranks. One cannot reason with these people so why bother; they should be relegated to the arena of conspiratorialists and similar half wits.