Obama makes history: America votes for change

FOR the first time in history, an African-American won the White House. This indeed is historic. To my mind it is not so much historic because Obama is an American citizen by birth, struggled to get good professional education, ran for public service position to become a Senator, and has every right to contest and win the highest executive post on merit. Why should his ancestry (in a land of immigrants) and the colour of his skin make his achievement historical? Is that not based on the assumption that a non-white is less of a citizen and has fewer rights?
What, however, is historic is the dawn of change in the political process in America that Obama’s victory ushers. To be more specific, the return of faith in American dream of equal opportunities, the breaking of the sound barrier of race and colour that effectively denied equal rights to minorities and blacks in particular, the triumph of reason and rationale over blind prejudice, and above all the groundswell of enthusiasm and energy of millions of young and educated voters made the history. Never before these 2008 elections did so many rallied behind a call for change, seldom did so many volunteer so much effort and energy in election campaign. The youth invested in hope and yearned for change in the political landscape, and give a new start. Those are the things that made history. The long, hard contest between the Republicans and Democrats is history already past. The time to rejoice is over; the future is waiting to happen. History 20 or 30 years from now will tell how well and how much history was made by this unprecedented and enormous victory.
Now that victory is in hand, the real task has just begun. As the president-elect told the climb will be steep, time will be needed. Those millions who invested so much in hope and faith to change America such that it is fairer, kinder, more just and humane at home and abroad have to remain engaged in a long, hard struggle; even those who lost the contest have an obligation to participate as well as a right to be listened to with respect.
Barack Obama, young as he is, did show remarkable maturity in his victory night address to more than 200,000 supporters at Chicago. He spoke with now-familiar eloquence that inspired but also tempered his speech with sober reminder of the enormity of the task ahead; did not fail to extend a hand of accommodation and sought cooperation of his ‘opponents’. Thus, the signs are good; hope is alight.
Barack Obama has already spelt out some of his future agenda as president. These include domestic policies on economy and jobs, on taxes and spending, on education and employment. The legacy left by the outgoing administration is riddled with dire dilemmas of which the current economic meltdown is the foremost priority. All assessments point to the inevitability of deep structural changes in economy and finance so hard to bring about given the past decades of laissez faire and blanket de-regulation. Obama faces an unenviable yet unavoidable task to be accomplished against stubborn entrenched interests of neo-liberal economists. He will need the determination and grit he could possibly command. He will also need the consent and cooperation of the Congress to help passage of legislation he proposes. He could have done well with a two-thirds majority in the senate which did not come about.
American public have not been much concerned about deeper domestic policy issues other than those that affect them directly. That is why the public dislike taxes while their representatives vote to support war abroad to commit huge tax revenues in war effort. Iraq and Afghanistan are two inglorious, if not notorious, examples. There could be more as long as the US president and the Congress choose to conduct foreign policy based upon an exaggerated and unilateral notion of national security. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption and ‘war on terror’ has been two dangerous adventures.
Indeed Obama had opposed war on Iraq. Now as incumbent he has to steer his way through a withdrawal with ‘responsibility’. Commitment in haste does not allow disentanglement in haste as well. So much blood has spilt, treasures spent with so little to show for it.
While pledged to withdraw from Iraq, he has committed himself to send more troops to the Afghan theatre. How well that would play out is open to question. His NATO allies are not ready to commit combat troops.
The hardest choice with potential of widening the conflict is his stated wish to conduct military operations inside Pakistan territory. The implications are not all predictable. But certainly yet another war front is fraught with danger.
Saving money in Iraq and spending in Afghanistan and extend war on Pakistan might not prove a good military or economic option. There has to be another way. Recent past shows enough evidence to suggest it is easy to launch war but difficult to either win quickly or withdraw by choice.
Observers would know the US foreign policy has been consistent across the Republican and Democratic Party lines. As long as ‘national interests and national security’ are perceived as supreme needs and unilaterally secured, if necessary, the US would be obliged to put ‘all options on the table’ including an intimidating military option to browbeat the non-compliers. How well that would continue to work and at what cost are things the new president might do well to ponder and act upon. Would Obama command the ingenuity to forge a new policy, one tempered by alternatives that could make him appear to be a weak commander-in-chief something he has been repeatedly accused of?
The good thing is: Obama did commit himself to opening dialogue with adversaries without preconditions. That would go well with Iran and Syria. One hopes he can carry through this approach without giving in to the domestic pressures to the contrary.
Elections rhetoric is one thing. Obama’s open-ended commitment and his support to Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel did not raise the level of confidence in the Arab world. How he will accomplish peace in the Middle East remains an open challenge. I am not even mentioning other hotspots like Iran, like Russia asserting its lost role as a superpower.
Foreign policy issues are formidable enough. Assumptions by his predecessor proved wrong and dangerous. He has to chart changes and invent new yet uncertain or untested approaches.
While the domestic economy plunges into recession it might spare him less time and resources to engage vigorously in foreign policy issues. Yet the legacy he inherits permits him the leisure or luxury to do so.
Now that Obama has raised so much hope and inspired so many within America and abroad he has to deliver, at least a few things. He could make history by charting a course that corrects the deep economic anomalies and restores leadership with responsibility. Reforms within must precede the call for cooperation from other emerging global economies.
If he could deliver reforms at home, if he could restore the image of his country in the international community as a credible, responsible power with benign posture in relation to the weaker ones he will be making history. In doing that he would change the political process and culture of the US for not just now but for decades ahead.
The US still is the leader with potential to do great things at home and abroad. The US need not earn that leadership by show of force but by setting examples of its moral values and an abiding faith in justice and fairer international order.
Would Obama at the end of his first or second term in office leave that kind of legacy? We do not know. Elections anywhere raise high hopes. This one did inspire many and elevated hoes at home and abroad. If even a part of those are realised Barack Obama would have made what is truly historic, not by his ancestry or colour of skin but by making a contribution that changed the course of America and thereby rest of the world. Many of those who did not support his election would not grudge his success. Those who rallied to make him win would keep their hopes alive.