Last week I started to ruminate on remarks I will make tomorrow at a dinner with students.  They asked me to speak about the upcoming elections.  As I mentioned, I am looking past what I take to be a very likely Obama victory.  My question is: what does an Obama presidency mean?

I am now thinking in a more Taoist manner.  Passage 11 from the Tao Te Ching is in my head:

Thirty spokes gathered at the hub:
absence makes the cart work.
A storage jar fashioned out of clay:
absence makes the jar work.
Doors and windows cut in a house:
absence makes the house work.

Presence gives things their value,
but absence makes them work.

    That last line says a lot.  In relation to this presidential election, it would lead us to ask: what is absent?  What is missing?  Whatever is it that is lacking may be key to understanding how the election, and possibly an Obama presidency, might work.

     One thing that is absent is the obstacle that race has been in American history.  As I suggested before, at any other time in my lifetime, up to this point, if I had been asked if a black man would be elected President of the United States, I would have answered, "no."  That was not the outcome I wanted, but it was the outcome that seemed to me inevitable, given the legacy of racism in American society.  But now, rather suddenly, that obstacle has been removed.  It is absent.  Not completely, of course.  I would never suggest that racism has wholly disappeared here.  But it has been diminished to such an extent that it no longer bars a capable man from becoming president.  It is effectively absent as an obstacle in this election.

    Some may want to reject his idea.  In my previous post, a commenter, "Taoist Voter," asks, among other questions: "What good is a black President if there a million black people in prison, and this President has no initiatives to help them?"  The suggestion here is that Obama is sufficiently ensconced in the political establishment and status quo that he cannot be an agent of significant social change.  He is simply more of the same.  His race is not politically relevant because his politics will not yield genuine social transformation.

    This strikes me as too pessimistic.  I do not expect Obama to transform American society to the extent "Taoist Voter" might desire.  Politics rarely works that way, especially American politics, which more often advances incrementally.  In my more radical days I, too, would have scoffed at mere incrementalism.   But the election of a black man for president is a significant step, however overdue, for the US.  It is a generational change.  Young people who have grown up in a more integrated and more multicultural society (compared to my own experience in the 1960s and 1970s), are not as easily swayed by racial stereotypes and fear-mongering.  They listen to what Obama has to say, size up his character, place him in the broader political context of the moment (which works so powerfully against Republicans – thanks W!), and see in him a promise for the future.  Race matters less to them then other qualities of mind and character.  And that's an important change, perhaps one that has come about incrementally over the years, but now seemingly one that has reached a critical moment, a tipping point.

    To repeat, an Obama presidency will not end, once and for all, racism in the US.  There will be critics ready to pounce on any preceived mistake he makes as evidence of the folly of electing a black man to the highest office in the land.  But his presence in the oval office will symbolize new national possibilities.  And that presence will have been facilitated by an absence of the race obstacle this time. 

Sam Crane Avatar

Published by

Categories: ,

9 responses to “More Thoughts on President Obama”

  1. Taoist Voter Avatar
    Taoist Voter

    I understand what you’re saying, about the importance of a black President. And I want to like Obama, I really do. But beyond the glamor of his campaign, I just don’t see any sort of reform whatsoever. What I see is more of the past eight years, just with better marketing.
    Speaking as a young person (I was born in the 1980s), you are correct, we are not swayed by the stereotypes or fear mongering that kept earlier generations in check. But unfortunately, we are easily swayed by advertising, and we rarely bother to fact check. This is why Obama can get away with calling himself a progressive, an emblem for “change”. And ultimately, I think it means we are more easily duped than our forebearers. At least your generation rioted in the streets to protest racism and Vietnam. My generation is too busy updating their facebook profiles to notice as the country continues on the path of ruin.
    When I think of this election, a number of passages from the Tao Te Ching leap to my mind, among them:

    The sharper the weapons the people possess,
    The greater confusion reigns in the realm.
    (57)
    Obama wants to increase the military budget (which is already bigger than the rest of the world’s military budget combined!). Despite the media’s clamor about “withdrawl”, what he actually is advocating for is “redeployment”—-the shifting of troops from Iraq into Afghanistan (although an estimated 50,000 or so will remain in Iraq, plus military contractors). He has also stated he has no problem continuing the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive, unilateral military action and has explicitly named Pakistan as the new theater of the “war on terror”.
    Obama’s actual policies are very much at odds with his image of an “anti-war candidate”. Give me a candidate whose platform involves Chapter 80! (“Ensure that even though the people have tools of war for a troop or a battalion, they will not use them; And even when they have armor and weapons, they will have no occasion to make a show of them.”)


    The court is corrupt,
    The fields are overgrown with weeds,
    The granaries are empty;
    Yet there are those dressed in fineries,
    With swords at their sides,
    Filled with food and drink,
    And possessed of too much wealth.
    This is known as taking the lead in robbery.

    53

    Remember, Obama, along with McCain, voted for the outrageous bailout of wall street speculators. And “far indeed is that from the Way.” Obama’s chief economic adviser is Robert Rubin, who was a principle engineer of our current financial crisis. Rubin was a major advocate for the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, and a proponent of the disastrous Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which is what allowed the disastrous deregulation to occur. And now he’s a top adviser to Barack Obama. As for Biden, well, I think his record speaks for itself—he’s a lifelong advocate for the credit card companies, not the common people.
    I think we can expect another “corrupt court”, interested only in “taking the lead in robbery”, irregardless of who wins the election. Obama certainly hasn’t given me any reason for hope.

    Like

  2. gmoke Avatar

    Another thing that is absent is a strong ideology or partisan view. Obama doesn’t seem to have it. It is not that he is “post-partisan” but that he is what I call an “everybody come to the table” politician. He seems to be able to listen to a wide spectrum of views and find the path that is acceptable to the majority.
    He also seems to have a very strong center. Personally, I believe he is conservative in his habits and conduct which does not necessarily mean that his politics will follow.
    Recently, two friends sent me a series of pictures of Obama holding babies. What struck me was that he obviously reacted to each baby as an individual. He was not going through the motions with a stock response the way McCain seems to in similar circumstances. Obama is a man who can improvise. I think he listens and reacts within the moment moving from a very stable center of core values.
    Those are my observations based upon over 25 years of training in aikido, not Taoism but sometimes called moving Zen.

    Like

  3. Taoist Voter Avatar
    Taoist Voter

    With all respect to your observations, gmoke, I am more concerned with his voting record and his stated positions than I am with how he holds babies.
    I would also just like to note that frequently this is what I find Obama supporters talking about—how Obama makes them feel, or Obama’s image, or the significance of Obama’s race.
    Rarely do I find them talking about the fact that Obama voted for over $300 billion of war appropriations, or his vote for Telecom Immunity, or his statements about offshore drilling, or his support for the death penalty, or his flip-flop on NAFTA, his support for conservative, Bush-appointed Supreme Court Justices, etc.

    Like

  4. isha Avatar
    isha

    ” the fact that Obama voted for over $300 billion of war appropriations, or his vote for Telecom Immunity, or his statements about offshore drilling, or his support for the death penalty, or his flip-flop on NAFTA, his support for conservative, Bush-appointed Supreme Court Justices, etc.

    For the mature ( therefore, decadent ) stage of the Empire, “FACT” is a dirty word to be avoided at all cost, since in the self image of the elites, Empire can ” create the reality.”
    As to: ” pictures of Obama holding babies. What struck me was that he obviously reacted to each baby as an individual.”
    Isn’t that classic? Words have no meaning at this advanced stage.

    Like

  5. Justsomeguy Avatar
    Justsomeguy

    Sure, Obama isn’t the leftist savior some people have made him out to be. He is a pretty standard Clinton-style Dem, probably good step-or-two left of Bill, which isn’t saying much.
    But I will take center-right over extreme-right every day of the week. Especially since those are the two choices that have been presented to us.

    Like

  6. Taoist Voter Avatar
    Taoist Voter

    “They are the two choices that have been presented to us.”
    That is simply not true. Are you aware of the fact that at least seven people are running for president? Did you know that no less than FOUR third party candidates are on the ballots in enough states to win?
    Americans need to start thinking outside the corporate box. They need to take note of the candidates who stand for them (not for the military industrial complex, as both Obama and McCain do).
    Why are we tolerating this? Why are we merely content with the choices “that are presented to us”? Why don’t we hold our politicians to higher standards?

    Like

  7. Justsomeguy Avatar
    Justsomeguy

    Because the system has been set-up as a two party state. All third parties can do is swing the party they hurt back in the right direction (as Nader did with the Dems, somewhat).
    What we need is a reform to get instant run-off voting. A few other reforms would be nice, but that is the first step that needs to be taken.

    Like

  8. Taoist Voter Avatar
    Taoist Voter

    “All third parties can do is swing the party they hurt back in the right direction.”
    This is why we need third parties more than ever, as the Democrats and Republicans continue to converge on foreign policy, energy policy, civil rights, healthcare, etc.
    I’m a big supporter of instant run-off voting, which would cancel once and for all the so-called “spoiler” effect. Interesting you bring up Nader. His running mate, Matt Gonzalez, successfully implemented instant run off voting in San Francisco while on the board of supervisors. I believe it is the only city in the US to use this simply procedure.
    The problem is that as things currently stand, neither major party has any incentive to advocate for instant run off voting. Under the current system, they are each assured of being in power roughly 50% of the time.

    Like

  9. Justsomeguy Avatar
    Justsomeguy

    Converge?
    That seems like the Clintonian notion of co-opting rightist positions. What we need is more divergence! We need someone to lead the way. When our President-Elect slips, he does so to the hard left. That gives me a lot of hope.

    Like

Leave a reply to Taoist Voter Cancel reply