[Deleted by author on 28 Sep 2008 05:23 PDT: r]

Thanks Richard for starting this thread by posing such an interesting question. I'll try not to be controversial. ;)

Let me say first that I think it is far from certain that Obama will win the presidential election, so this may prove to be a thread whose conclusions may never be properly tested.

Much I would welcome the messages that an Obama presidency would announce simply by virtue of a majority of Americans having elected a young and talented black man to be their leader and their representative in the world, I have serious doubts about whether America is yet ready for this. By instinct, I think the US is still, subliminally, quite a racist country. I think most Americans are happy to see black Americans representing them at sport and featuring on television shows, though preferably in traditionally black roles. Many would be happy to see a black family move into their street, provided there was just the one family. More might make them nervous.

This is an advance on the America I experienced for myself in the 1960s when racial attitudes were even more stereotypical. What I seldom see in watching TV reports from America is mixed social groups where, say, in a group of five friends, three are white and two black. A college might have a racially mixed intake but within the school, black and white still seem to associate predominately with others from their own heritage. I acknowledge that watching TV reports is not a very sound basis for forming social judgements, but it is supplemented by actual experience of seeing American Forces who are stationed in the east of England, who are invariably in uni-racial groupings as they wander about town, shopping or socialising.

So I question whether Obama has really been successful on the basis of being a black American candidate. Jesse Jackson was a true black American candidate, as indeed was Dick Gregory, but I don't think it is only that times have changed and improved that explains Obama's much better showing in the polls. I think it is partly because Obama is an African candidate with a true black American wife that has contributed to his success - together with his youthful appeal and sound political campaigning.

I see him as a figure in the line of "darlings of the Democratic Party" that I can trace back to Gene McCarthy. These are the figures who have intensely fervent supporters, particularly among young college kids and liberal journalists. Their primary campaigns usually start with big successes, but they later falter, either as other Democratic candidates with a broader electoral appeal emerge or else when facing a run off against a more socially conservative Republican candidate. In other words, the best loved Democrats often fail miserably in presidential elections - think of Adlai Stevenson or (my personal favourite) Walter Mondale.

Successful Democratic candidates have often emerged from being behind early in their primary campaigns: JFK, Carter and Clinton come to mind. I wonder if Obama can buck this trend and win over enough of middle America to beat McCain. I certainly hope so.

But supposing he does. Will he then use his unique experience of having an African heritage to follow policies that especially benefit African countries? I doubt that this will happen. It is usually the case that major political advances are made in foreign policy by those whose chief opposition at home to a particular policy initiative comes not from their party opponents but from within their own party. For example, when a US president is so impeccable a supporter of Israel that s/he can over-ride the misgivings of the Right and do a deal with the Palestinians that someone from the Left couldn't possibly bring off because they would be adamantly opposed by the Israelis. In a UK context, it took the extreme Unionists to do a deal with Sinn Fein (after years of declaring that there would never be a deal) because a deal struck by moderate Unionists or social democrats of any description would be undermned immediately by extremists from both sides.

In a sense, to make a significant breakthrough, you need to steal your political opponents' thunder.

In adopting more Afro-friendly policies, Obama would not be stealing his opponents' thunder, but instead could be portrayed as acting in a politically partisan - even in an UnAmerican - way. Politically, he may well leave such decisions until his position as President has become more firmly established.

So my answer to Richard's question is "Don't hold your breath!"

From my POV Obama represents to some people in the US a much needed overhaul and change in American politics. If he gets elected that becomes true in meaningful actions remains yet to be seen.

Keep in mind that many in the US are very concerned about gas prices, the war, upward costs of food, problems in education and healthcare. So the focus on domestic issues seems to becoming more and more important to many people.

My POV is the internet and people connecting person to person (much like in this thread) holds a much better chance for connecting humanity than any temporary political changes might bring. (ala bottom up, not top down).

Whatever the election outcome, let's hope for and work towards a better world in any event.

[Deleted by author on 28 Sep 2008 05:25 PDT: r]

Thanks a lot Mark too for that insight. I share with you the sentiment that Obama represents some hope for change. His success so far shows a lot about the attitude of enlightened Americans...I personally had been convinced they did not exist.

There is a lot of hope too on the internet front. A lot in fact has so far been achieved via this medium.

Interesting question Richard. I personally do not believe Obama represents a "greater" hope for Africa or Africans because of his African-ness. At best, his Kenyan ancestry could prove a book for Kenyan and East African development. I don't see Obama being "better for Africa" than, say, Clinton was, for example. Certainly he'll have to defeat domestic power interests before he moves on to international development.

That said, ask me that question again in a few month when his running mate and key cabinet appointments become more clear.

I am going to be a bit of heckler here.

I support Obama and have from the very beginning. I believe that he has potential to be a statesman rather than a politician. Maybe.

That aside, I think I would not like him as much if he were campaigning on "fixing Africa". America has plenty (plenty, PLENTY ) of problems of it's own that need work on and that should be the function of the election of a US president, not fixing problems around the world.

I think that the problems in Africa need and deserve African solutions and despite Obama's color and heritage, he is not African. Why do African people (Man, I know this is a vast over generalization, but bear with me for the sake of discussion) look for someone else to solve their problems rather than stepping up to the plate and starting the grassroots work that is required? It is my opinion that real solutions in development (African, Asian or American) require lots of hard work from locals if they are to have strong, lasting, meaningful, totally owned solutions. There is no fairy godmother of international problems who is going to make the required work disappear.

Lars, that is so wonderful and very insightful from you. Linda, from you that is so sincere: and truths that might not require justifications. I envy you two; I cannot compliment you more.

Shall expect that the next president of the US will know that we in Africa are not insecure and are tired of fighting wars that are not our own; wars that we do not comprehend their sources, objectives, basis and motivations? Shall we expect that the next president of the US will know that we in Africa unanimously reject the cult of security? Shall we expect that the next president of the US will now that we are not objects of charity?

May Obama clinch the presidency, someone should take it upon themselves to tell him that Richard expects from him above all, an Obaman decree and an Obama doctrine regarding Africa!

Could we hope to succeed in stopping all Merchants of Death, and all Dogs of War in Africa?

That's a tall order to pin on the lapel of a U.S. president - so many interests and nations requiring a multinational response guided by continental leadership. But a bold and important vision none the less!

Wow Richard you have a knack for very densely packing a bunch of interesting ideas into a small space. I will vote for Obama in November--"God willing" as they say. I hardly think you need recant previous attitudes, hold on you may still need them. Heavens knows I've got some pretty harsh assessments about my government and politicians in general--including Obama.

One of the magazines we get at home is Harpers is the second oldest continually printed magazine in the USA, begun in 1850. Editorially it is and has been viewed as progressive. Over the years many of the intellectual luminaries of here have been published in it. In the current format each edition has a longish essay at the front of the magazine that bares some teeth.

In June the essay was "Democracy and Deference" by Mark Slouka. The short version something along the lines: How did Americans become such sheep? Why do we bow our heads to the ground in front of government officials; don't we know that's the sure road to tyranny? Generally, the essay is WTF America!

In the most recent Harpers, August, which came today there is a letter responding to Slouka's essay. A French political thinker named Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in the 1830's and wrote a famous book called "Democracy in America." This is a bit round about towards your question, but somehow seemed relevant. The letter writer points to Tocueville's observation that American's deference to power actually derives from independence and freedom because these are viewed as individual rights and they resist community. The letter writer, Fred Nolan, concludes:

It is this very deference to power, arising from our liberties, that Tocqueville believes presents such an insidious threat to liberty. As Slouka makes clear, that threat no longer lies somewhere farther along the democratic path; we have stumbled straight into it.

I'm not sure I agree with David that "the US is still, subliminally, quite a racist country." There's not much subliminal about it I'm ashamed to say. But I don't think that racism is Obama's greatest obstacle. It's funny how it works: "I don't have a problem with Obama's skin color, but there are them won't vote for a black man." What everyone is worried about is "them." And if it looks like lots of "them" are going to vote for Obama then they will;-) The important thing is this deference to the powers that be. Perhaps I'm politically tone deaf, but it seems to me that Obama is viewed as an "establishment" candidate and can win.

Poll after poll suggest that clear majorities of Americans want us out of Iraq. How then is it possible that McCain has such support? Well, Americans are notoriously ignorant. Ignorance isn't stupidity--it seems often to lead to very bad acts--but they aren't equivalent. It isn't just ignorance. Many Americans connect their fortune to empire, and Iraq as an imperial project. This connection seems morally wrong to me, but not entirely stupid. Americans want out of Iraq, but don't want to loose the empire. It's not so much McCain, but the imperial power centers he represents people are voting for.

The calamities brought on by the current administration are clearly enough for me to shout: "Throw the bums out!" But the deference to central governmental power is extraordinary and widespread. President Bush in polls has positive approval of only about 1/5 of Americans. He wasn't "popular" in the 2004 election, but still won out of deference. baaaaaaaaaaaa, I bleat. We're sheepy people, we Americans.

There was a fascinating interview with Chinese author Jiang Rong author of "Wolf Totem" a surprise runaway bestseller in China. Jiang Rong says the Chinese national character is sheep-like. Chinese deference has a different etiology, but the perhaps similar end point.

Jiang has sought to encourage liberal democracy in China. His book seems really smart in that it locates another stream of national character in China's history which is freedom loving. And people are buying his book.

The task for Obama is to locate a stream of American character to counterour headlong march into proto-Fascism--I would write simply Fascism but people are so touchy. Ironically appeals to the Liberal Tradition, won't quite cut it.

I guess if I had just the right sort of frame to put it all in, I'd be in high demand as a political advisor. Alas I don't have it.

Last election a very smart philosopher named George Lakoff tried to teach the Democrats about framing. He pointed out that Americans think of the government in metaphors of the family. The way his analysis played out in the last election was: the daddy party against the mommy party. I'm rather pleased that Obama seems to have avoided being framed as the mommy party candidate.

Frances Moore Lappe dissected Lakoff's framing in the 2004 election in an article "Time for Progressives to Grow Up: Beyond Lakoff’s strict father vs. nurturant parent, a strong community manifesto." Great stuff, and tending towards progressive myself, the idea of community resonates with me. But I don't think appeals to community are enough to win the election. At least I don't thinks so without the concepts being drawn in almost mythological terms from our history.

Somewhere there's probably a great unifying myth for it, but I can't think of it. Nor do I think Obama has latched on to it either. However he has been able to bring together aspects of community in his rhetoric drawing on history. He's weaving a story.

Now of course it's necessary for Americans knowing what a disaster electing McCain will surely be, to tell their own stories of America. Ours might not be the same as Obama's, but we're going in the same direction. What's crucial is that the story of the Liberal Tradition isn't enough, in a sense it's what's got us into this mess, and tyranny is not the solution. Tyranny has never been the destination Americans have professed.

I have a t-shirt with a picture of Nelson Mandela, but what I like most is the quote under the picture: "The struggle is my life." For me the most salient myth to confront American proto-Fascism with is our story of struggle. This is a story Obama is telling too: "Yes we can."

People tend to overestimate what they can do in the short term, and underestimate what they can do in the long term. A strong leader is a great thing, but it still comes down to people, all of us together worldwide, working together over time to effect real, sustainable, meaningful change.

A strong leader is a great thing, but it still comes down to people, all of us together worldwide, working together over time to effect real, sustainable, meaningful change.

Absolutely! Who our politicians are makes a big difference, but not the only difference that can be made. I agree with you very much that the most important thing is for all of us to find ways to work together.

Some of my friends will probably vote for Obama, but don't think his rhetoric is very important. I've been very impressed with his speeches because they so often point to what we must do together.

[Deleted by author on 28 Sep 2008 05:20 PDT: r]

i'm not sure i'm following your bounded, unidirectional interpretation of US involvement abroad richard. and certainly if it is true then obama cannot make a bit of difference. he's just part of the program.

i do happen to think there is more to the story, and we've contributed much to the emergence of "new" powers in today's multipolar world.

and there is a much stronger role we can - and i am sure will - play vis the global south. it is an exciting time, and i hope obama will help americans understand this opportunity, responsibility, and the cooperative work ahead.

one of the ironies of us presidents is that they become more capable of influencing the US stand toward development after they leave office. democratic presidents jimmy carter (habitat for humanity) and bill clinton (clinton global initiative) come to mind.

perhaps as a sitting president obama could play a unique role as the "third leg" of a sturdy stool that supports a new policy platform for the us in the world.

A few years back I used to go to meetings of the African Students Organization at the University of Pittsburgh. I was always so impressed how such a diverse group, people from so many different countries, could find a common language. The big stylistic issue was East Africans found West Africans so loud LOL.

Americans are all over the map when it comes to International issues and African issues in particular. Drawing a bead on what Americans think about Africa is hard enough for an American like me, much more difficult for Africans I suspect.

Kenyan blogs seem to have a rich conversation across the boundaries with a firm in Kenya presence. From my view American interest in West Africa seems a bit different. Anyway I wanted to put out a couple of links that may be of interest. First is Cheetah Index. Benin Mwangi is behind that and is an American with well founded views about Africa. His site is also powered by AfricanPath which in some way seems connected to Africanloft a social network that draws Africans and Americans together.

Alright also connected to those is a blog called Crossed Crocodiles. And coming back on topic now, the other day Crossed Crocodiles had a post How to Pick a President. Crossed Crocodiles links to a post by a much loved and now deceased American political writer named Molly Ivins. She quotes an old political insider named Tommy Corcoran (Tommy the Cork):

The Cork had a theory about how to choose a president. He always said it didn’t matter who was running, that it was unnecessary to pay any attention to them. What matters, he said, is the approximately 1,500 people the president brings to Washington with him, his appointments to the positions where people actually run things. The question to consider is which 1,500 people we get.

The people around Obama really are a mixed bag. But it's those people that make so many Americans think it's better to elect Obama, even while we're holding our noses about some of them.

My view is that more and more Americans are engaging in conversations with Africans and American views are therefore developing in good ways. These discussions are enormously important for more constructive national relationships.

Obama's pledges about foreign aid and military expansion definitely give me pause. But I also see in Obama a person open to sensible voices in foreign relations and seems genuinely concerned about the complex ways policies interact. McCain seems to me to have too simplistic a black and white view of things and surrounds himself with advisers who tend to be narrowly focused on special interests.

I'm sure Obama will follow many policy choices I think are unwise. But on balance it's easy for me to decide to cast a vote for him rather than McCain.