One Year Later, What Is Left Of The Hope For Change?

Almost a year ago, on November 4th 2008, an euphoria of hope was spreading in America and around the world. The wind of change that Barack Obama personified was expected, by some in America and elsewhere, to bring with it a peaceful revolution. With the election of the first African-American President the world was dreaming of a less arrogant America, an America open to international dialogue and consensus. One year later, the lofty, and quite frankly, unrealistic expectations have been replaced, at least on the left, by a growing sense of frustration and disappointment.

Some people  truly believed that Barack Obama would be a transformational President. It was based on his personal charisma, his soaring rhetoric and the electoral promises of candidate Obama. But it was also anchored in some kind of naive magical thinking that Barack Obama could change a complete society and system. For some, it was as if the newly elected President had the ability to walk on water.

It is turning out that President Obama is not the transformational President some people were hoping for, but instead a cautious and pragmatic manager on domestic and foreign policy issues alike. To be fair, Barack Obama inherited a mess of historical proportion from George W. Bush: A near collapse of the global financial system followed by a global recession; the quagmires of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; new tensions in the Middle-East from the war in Gaza; and dealing with Iran nuclear program. It is a sad historic irony that the first elected African-American had to become Janitor in Chief  in charge of cleaning up after a white man.

However, a deeper question remains unanswered. Was Barack Obama sincere about his great promises or did he just tell American voters what they wanted to hear?

The promises were countless: Americans would have universal health care; the US would take the lead on climate change; Wall Street and the banks would be regulated with a cap put on salaries and bonuses paid to executives; Guantanamo would be shut down by January 20010; most US troops would be out of Iraq within 16 months; the strategy in Afghanistan would be reviewed; the new administration would provide transparency and accountability unlike the practice of systematic secrecy from the Bush-era.

The reality and results are quite different: Americans will be lucky if they get a water-down version of public option in the health care bill; the climate change bill is unlikely to have a strong enough carbon tax; Wall Street and the banks are doing well, getting ready to paid huge bonuses to executive while Main Street is still in shamble from the recession; Guantanamo will not be shut down by January 2010; Iraq is still volatile, and US troops are likely to be there for at least 5 years; the president is still pondering on workable solutions for the unsolvable puzzle that is Afghanistan; some progress were made on the secrecy issue, but the Patriot Act will be renewed and the President blocked the release of torture documents involving the CIA.

Some Americans thought they were electing a man that would make deep structural change to a broken system, and of course they are disappointed. A temperament of boldness and passion can serve a political leader well; Winston Churchill and FDR had such a character. However, President Obama’s temperament is not bold, but instead cautious and analytical. The upside of it is that President Obama will avoid the catastrophic mistakes of someone as impulsive and impatient as Bush, but the downside is that if you don’t get forceful and blunt with your policy agenda, the inertia of  Washington always prevails.

The frustration of the progressives is linked to the fact that they thought President Obama would be a transformational president, and it is not the case. President Obama is a very intelligent man, and an able manager but not a bold visionary. Most progressives feel that  he is running a “business as usual” presidency by maintaining the status quo on most issues. At some point the liberal democrats will have to take on to the streets in order to make their voices heard, otherwise the corporate Democrats, Wall Street, and the industrial-military complex will keep the upper hand and privilege access to the ear of the President.