Early Interpretation of Obama Phenomenon

The Obama phenomenon has already become a topic of discussion in American academic circles, in spite of the fact that “Obamaism” has yet to be vividly portrayed. Professor Adolph Reed of the University of Pennsylvania, in his February 20th dialogue with renowned expert on black issues Cathy Cohen from the University of Chicago, thought that this issue, despite having received widespread attention, is quite a complex one that could not be accurately analyzed and assessed at the moment.

This article, however, seeks to discuss an “Obama phenomenon” in a broader sense than what Professor Reed has assumed, and to find the answers to three questions:

1. Exactly what power’s interest is being represented by the Obama administration that came into power on Jan 20th of this year?

2. Will the Obama administration bring about qualitative change to the American socio-political system?

3. Is the Obama phenomenon transient, or will it bring about renewal and transformation to the U.S. and the rest of the world?

Conflicts of interest between “Big Government” and the “Corporate State”

Let us take a look at the first question. Obama’s ballot bank has pulled in mainly the investments of a young generation of voters that comprised the open-minded intelligentsia and the media, the Democrats along with the black mainstream, and the Centrists and Conservatives who were dissatisfied with Bush’s policies. During the campaigning period, Mr. Obama made more promises to the American middle and lower classes than to anyone else and would therefore have to satisfy some of their demands once he took office.

After his inauguration, Mr. Obama made haste to get Congress to approve and sign the Stimulus and Recovery Bill. However, he had caused dissatisfaction among some Democrats when he compromised with Republican lawmakers and deleted some items in the bill. Mr. Obama could be said to have revealed his “left leanings” when he announced the new budget plan on Feb 26th, a revelation that is likely to cause a great amount of debate between the two camps during congressional meetings.

10 percent of Americans are the real “haves” and “have-mores,” and 90 percent the “have-less” and “have-nots.” When Roosevelt was in office, he resolved the economic crisis by increasing taxes of those in the 10 percent. When Reagan was president, he reduced the tax burdens of the 10 percent in order to revive the economy.

Barack Obama distinctly revealed in his budget plan that tax cuts for the wealthy will stop after 2010, and that the highest income tax rate will be increased from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, as well as the investment tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent. At the same time, he guaranteed that families with an annual income below $250,000 will receive tax relief, and he also attempted to help the middle and lower classes by reforming health care and education.

Does Mr. Obama’s coming into power represent an awakening of the blacks’ and the other American minorities’ strive for their own interests? Professor Cohen didn’t think so. She goes so far as to say that Mr. Obama himself was not representative of any ethnic label; it was just that he had married a real descendant of a black slave. She is worried about current U.S. politics “using ethnic labels to arouse public sentiments,” using “ethnic label politics” to drown out the black label, as well as “racializing” a “non-racial” U.S.

The U.S. is recognized unanimously by the world as the corporate state, a fully formed capitalist corporation acting as the engine for the country’s development. Both the Democrats and the Republicans uphold this system, but their main difference lies in the extent to which either of them could tolerate interference from the government. George Bush’s imitation of Ronald Reagan in using tax cuts to revive the economy failed to yield results, and the economic crisis sapped the corporate state of its vitality, as well as losing the confidence of the financial world. Obama’s vigorous and resolute “Big Government” will be in sharp opposition to the corporate state’s vested interest.

The two risks faced in pulling the troops out of Iraq

Our discussion now touches upon the country in the second question, namely the U.S itself. Internationally, other than adopting a more moderate image, the U.S. with Barack Obama in power will not divorce itself from the Clinton and Bush eras.

At Bill Clinton’s advice not to “deflate the U.S.” in his speech, Mr. Obama delivered an informal address of state affairs to a joint session of Congress a year early on February 24th, in which he boosted America’s morale. Obama’s America will never divorce itself from the proud “triumphantism.”

On February 27th, Mr. Obama officially announced that the ending of the Iraq “combat mission” is set for August 2010, but about 50,000 residual forces will remain to deal with emergencies. The left wing feels that his anti-war passion has cooled off and that he has inherited Bush’s imperial strategies; the right wing says that he does not appreciate the benefits of Bush’s political achievements that he has inherited, that he refuses to recognize the U.S. forces’ victory in the War on Terror in Iraq, as well as refusing to recognize the development of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship into a democratic state.

Mr. Obama ran risks in two areas when he decided to pull the troops out of Iraq. One risk is that the presently dormant Islamic “holy war” forces will launch an all-out attack after U.S. forces pull out and the Iraqi security force will not be able to control the situation, so Mr. Obama will have to once again augment his forces. The second is that once Iraq becomes independent, it might turn into a pro-Iran, anti-America Arabic state. Such a situation would likely give Mr. Obama a bad name.

Mr. Obama’s concentration on dealing with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Palestine would also be ill-fated. Since George Bush set the tone for the War on Terror, categorizing other parties as “good” and “bad,” the U.S. has fallen into the predicament of having made more enemies and continually increasing its vulnerability (it later managed to isolate the “bad” after buying off anti-American Sunnis in Iraq). If Obama does not get out of this predicament, he will fall headlong into the “imperial grave” that is Afghanistan.

The populist strategy will fail

Finally, we shall look at whether the Obama phenomenon will be a flash in the pan. Comedian Stephen Colbert coined the new English word “truthiness” in 2005 to satirize politicians who believed that they were absolutely right while relying solely on their instincts and overlooking evidence and logic. Barack Obama similarly has such a weakness. Coupled with his eagerness to win, Professor Reed thinks that his “demonstrating all things to all people” ethic will make it hard for him to achieve success one way or another.

Some say that Barack Obama is a “marketing commander” who is always on the road and cannot sit still in the President’s chair in the Oval Office, which is unprecedented in the history of the U.S. He is admittedly suspect of transgression, of trying to skip over normal channels to hijack Washington’s vested interest through the pressure of popular opinion.

The Democrats’ failure to fill up 60 seats in the Senate was an obstacle to Obama’s control over Congress. Therefore, he employed “guerilla warfare” and broke up the whole into parts, pulling in the support of a few Republicans until he achieved the necessary 60 votes.

American commentators have a saying: politicians who “peak too soon” have a hard time securing the final victory. Obama’s predecessors Bill Clinton and George Bush had a difficult start, but slowly they were able to stabilize themselves and were reelected to serve consecutive terms in office. Obama, however, has governed the U.S. with a lofty stance, high pressure, and a loud voice since the moment he took office, thereby gradually giving rise to antipathy from all quarters. It is hard to say if things will be smooth-sailing for Mr. Obama in the days to come.

Mr. Obama’s main challenge stems from the economy. The year 2009 will be the most difficult one for the U.S. economy. Not only will Mr. Obama have to handle unexpected crises, he will also have to prove his capability in governing the country within a year.

It will be hard for some of his measures to yield results in such a short amount of time. The main worry now is that when the people break out with complaints and Obama’s popular support nosedives, his populist strategies will then fail to work. American voters will then not dare to follow the Obama-style “changes” so blindly in the future.