Obama’s regrettable descent into vagueness
Obama’s decline into neo-liberal abstraction Why, asks Michael Lind, didn’t the populist backlash in the U.S. on both left (Bernie Sanders) and right (Donald Trump) against neo-liberalism begin as early as 2008? That’s when bankers’ greed crashed the world economy, at little cost to them, while destroying millions of ordinary lives. Arguably, says Lind, it did, with Barack Obama’s election then.
Obama’s campaign rejected the neoliberal policies of both the Bushes and Clintons. He said he’d revisit NAFTA and rebuild industries. “He was an outsider, a kind of celebrity, rock-star politician … much like Trump.”
Yet, in power, he bailed out banks but not homeowners and created new trade deals. By 2016, when he left, you got the harsher populist outbursts of Sanders and Trump. It’s easy to forget, now, what a challenge to mainstream values he once seemed.
Was it all a lie, was he a Trojan horse? I lean more to Alexander Cockburn’s view, voiced back then, that Obama had no idea what he’d do if elected. That’s why he could sound so sincere, and Republicans (along with Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu) saw him as a dangerous pinko radical till the end.
From the moment of the crash, he opted for the rich and mighty, who he called “really smart guys.” When he left the White House, he went almost directly to billionaire David Geffen’s yacht in Fiji, where he and Michelle basked in the after-rewards of prudently wielded power. Geffen, BTW, recently shared a yacht photo on Instagram, “isolated in the Grenadines avoiding the virus.” The Obamas also, in mimicry of a major Clinton fiasco, created a foundation.
In virtual commencement addresses this week, Obama dissed Trump, yet never named him (“so-called grownups with fancy titles”), as if enacting the pretentious notion of an ex-leader hovering above the nation and inspiring it with his devotion to abstract principles, versus specific policies and people. There was glib empathy about missing proms, numerous clichés and helpful tips: Don’t be afraid, Do what you think is right; Don’t just look after yourself and your family — which sounds like what he’s more or less done.
There are few biographical sights sadder than a once good mind and attuned moral sensibility devolving into sheer abstractions. I offer Obama as a concrete example of that regrettable descent into vagueness.
Is the vaccine glass half-full or … The gap regarding the prospects of a vaccine is perplexing. It’s unclear why authorities differ. There’s Dr. Fauci and the New York Times on the hopeful side. (“Many scientists are now cautiously optimistic that (it) could be ready by next year.”) Others moan it could be four, or 10 years, or never. I think this betokens the way we’re basically more emotional than rational, always reacting chiefly to our needs and mortality. Some strive to be neutral and objective, but you can hear their hope or despair clanging away since we never cease being primitive, gut-driven creatures.
So, speaking as a generally glass-halfempty kind of guy, here’s my idea of the argument for hope:
There are often no vaccines, or they’re slow to come, because there’s not great profit in them for Big Pharma, compared with, say, obesity or allergy pills. Most rampant infectious disease is in poor countries. And in rich lands, plagues like HIV-AIDS pay more through ongoing treatments than onetime vaccines.
But COVID-19 is everywhere and could disrupt everyone’s profit, along with the general social order. So the pressure’s on to cut it down.
I asked a student if he thinks there’s reason to hope for a quick vaccine. He said yes. Why? Because, he said, it’s in the best interests of the bourgeoisie.
He doesn’t belong to any left sects and doesn’t often use Marxist jargon. He said this like he was describing the weather. There are now cohorts moving into adulthood, who are no longer enthralled by capitalism, nor do they think there’s no alternative to it. They were enthralled by Obama but moved on, after those hopes fizzled. They’ve lost their stake in how things are. Getting them reinvested, so that they don’t make future trouble, is another reason why it’s in the interests of “the bourgeoisie” to fix this thing fast.