Worldview Politics

Obama should shout: Hillary = War + NAFTA
08 March 2008

Obama has been running into trouble lately, in Michigan and Ohio, with the same working-class whites who rejected him in New Hampshire. For most of these folks, NAFTA is surely a dirty word. What perplexes me mightily, then, is that Obama should have been able to take advantage of this. If one thing is clear, it is that it was the Clintons who gave us NAFTA in the 1990s! As David Sirota puts it, 'Reading articles about Hillary Clinton attacking NAFTA can lead you to believe The Onion has taken over America's news bureaus'. In this post, I attempt to understand the political dynamics, based on what I have read so far on the net.

Why isn't Obama more populist on trade?

One possibility is that Obama is too indebted to Wall Street to allow any real trade populism in his message. A year ago, the Washington Post reported that Obama was the top fundraiser on Wall Street, and recently, Pam Martens has accused Obama of 'fronting for the most vicious firms on Wall Street'. Wall Street loves anything that cuts costs and raises profits, such as job-destroying mergers and acquisitions, not to mention NAFTA, which pits high-cost US workers against their third-world counterparts, who live on a few dollars a day. Not only progressives, but also nationalistic conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts have decried this, citing the 19th century American precedent of high tariffs that built up our economy. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was close to Wall Street, via rich and powerful buddies like Robert Rubin. Clinton's success at triangulating Democrats and selling them down the river to 'free trade' has been aptly summarized by Ralph Nader. It seems to me that Obama can dispense with Wall Street, since he has proven his ability to raise prodigious amounts of money on his own. Is he afraid?

This suggests another possibility, raised by Robert Parry. It may be that Obama's very success at raising money online is worrying the Democratic establishment, which is wedded to serving corporate America as a kind of GOP-lite; it is equally wedded to the hardline sector of the Israel lobby (viz. AIPAC). This will make the insider bigshots surrounding the Clintons unhappy, since they might go down with her. Thus, nasty rumors are circulating that Obama may be somewhat 'Muslim', and they are not all coming from Republicans. (Hillary showed her ugly and unscrupulous side recently, when she said that Obama was not Muslim 'as far as I know'.) We may be witnessing the Democratic establishment clipping the wings of an upstart who is out of control. Obama knows this and may fear what the super-delegates could do to him at the convention. Hence, he is muting his populist message on trade, and any sympathy he once expressed for Palestinians has long ago vanished.

Why is Hillary popular with working-class voters?

Still, how do we explain Hillary's astounding success at duping the working-class democrats? Sirota is an excellent observer of such matters; he recently wrote an article called The Democrats' Class War. He claims that the 'absurd phenomenon' of Hillary pretending to be anti-NAFTA is the 'product of both message and bias'. To begin with, Obama has failed to attack the Clintons for their ignominious legacy:

Obama has let Clinton characterize the 1990s as a nirvana, rather than a time that sowed the seeds of our current troubles. He barely criticizes the Clinton administration for championing job-killing trade agreements. He does not question that same administration's role in deregulating the financial industry and thereby intensifying today's boom-bust catastrophes. And he rarely points out what McClatchy Newspapers reported this week: that Clinton spent most of her career at a law firm 'where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards', including Wal-Mart's.

Sirota states two reasons for Obama's timidity. The first is Obama's ties to industry and Wall Street, as already mentioned. As Sirota puts it, 'that cash is hush money, contingent on candidates silencing their populist rhetoric'. Obama is further weakened, claims Sirota, because if he were to adopt a populist message like John Edwards, then he would suddenly be stigmatized as the candidate of race — in effect, another Jesse Jackson. I have no doubt that such a smear would occur and would be effective. A black candidate for president walks a tight rope. Any deceitful suggestion of racial uppityness would alienate not only white blue-collar workers but also independent swing-voters, who tend to be a libertarian type that doesn't like quotas any more than it likes corporate dominance. Needless to say, the Clintons are masters at playing this ugly, triangulating kind of politics. Indeed, Bill Clinton has already compared Obama to Jackson on at least one occasion. Thus, Obama is constrained to talking about 'hope' in vague and anodyne terms. How sad, considering that Obama actually has a history of fighting corporations on behalf of the poor, as detailed by Sirota, and in quite a contrast to the Clintons. Welcome to the bizarro world of American politics.

Further revealing light is cast on this phenomenon by Jonathan Martin, in a blog post entitled 'Hillary's Scotch-Irish advantage'. These 'Scotch-Irish' are pretty much the same as the working-poor whites who support Hillary. Joe Bageant is a great source of entertaining material on this under-reported but politically influential segment of the American population. As discussed, they are clueless to the Clintons' perfidy on NAFTA, due to their lack of education. Worse, they tend to be prejudiced towards minorities: recall Archie Bunker of years gone by or the so-called 'rednecks', who really do exist, says Bageant, who is one of them (albeit of an uncharacteristically leftist persuasion). These are the people voting for Hillary, says Martin, citing election results. It may not only be racial prejudice. Obama may come across as too much of the hated urban 'yuppie', whereas the Clintons have definite rural roots. Never underestimate the importance of identity politics, compounded by ignorance regarding one's true interests.

Finally, the Clintons are simply dirty fighters, according to Joann Wypijewski, which may again be testimony to their redneck origins. Obama has gotten this far on his nice-guy image, but when push comes to shove, mudslinging seems to work in American politics. Furthermore, as if the white working-poor factor weren't enough, the Clintons have also managed to exploit tensions between Latinos and blacks, an unfortunate development indeed. There is a major lesson about human nature to be learned from the fact that the Clintons have so screwed the working-poor in America, despite having those origins. When Samantha Power recently called Hillary a 'monster', that may have been one of the more truthful things she said in her entire career. Naturally, she had to apologize and was fired from the Obama team.

My recommendation to Obama

Here is what I would recommend to Obama, for what it is worth. Dump your corporate and Wall Street buddies, if necessary. You just raised $50 million last month, which is an astonishing record! Obviously, you are tapping into something big, so don't be greedy, for God's sake! Also, ignore the Democratic establishment, and dump any high-priced advisors you may have. Be a hero and don't worry about whether the party will let you be Senator again, should you lose the primary or the general election. Don't be a cynical career politician, that curse of American politics. You have a Harvard Law School degree; you'll make ends meet. Above all, trumpet the following clear message, in so many (or rather few) words: I am against the war and NAFTA and Hillary is not! I am against the war and NAFTA and Hillary is not! (And on the Middle East, say that you want a viable homeland for the Palestinians with security for Israel. The Israel Lobby will hate you but will not be able to bloody you in the press, only behind the scenes.) With a clear, uncompromising message on the war, you can win the yuppie Democrats and independents. With a clear, uncompromising message on NAFTA, you can win the working poor. With these two groups you can crush the evil Republicans. With only one of these groups, you may lose. Just do it! Go for broke and do it! A huge mass of Americans wants real democracy for a change. You could start a revolution, if you have the guts. Do you?

The Immigration Factor

UPDATE (09 Mar 08): One important issue I forgot to mention is immigration. This is a tough one for Democrats, as they don't want to anger the working-class whites who feel that their jobs are threatened by Latino immigrants, but neither to they want to offend the growing Latino vote. First, let me say that I do believe in the rule of law, and illegal immigration should not be condoned, as a matter of principle. However, the simple truth is that we have winked at this labor and derived considerable benefits from it. It would be just too hypocritical to rudely kick them out. Accepting their labor has created some kind of moral bond, which cannot simply be abrogated. The sad thing is that the Latino immigrants really do different jobs than the blue-collar industrial jobs lost to NAFTA. A conflict between working-class whites and Latinos is thus unnecessary. Unfortunately, with the industrial jobs lost, the whites are now seeking more menial work to survive. It is almost ludicrous how many cards the rich hold. They can screw working-class whites with NAFTA, and then pit whites and Latinos against each other, who then compete for the crumbs of labor that remain. The only solution is for working-class and poor people of all stripes to unite against the plutocrats. But this will require education and organization. Where is the charismatic savior capable of bringing this about? Is it Obama? Doesn't look like it so far. Obama's main claim to fame to date — a considerable one — is his opposition to the war, in a time when most of Congress is to craven to squeak up.

The 'Day One' Soundbite

UPDATE (09 Mar 08): Just for completeness, let me mention another factor that may be helping Hillary, though perhaps in a smaller way. Her line about being ready for the presidency 'on Day One' seems to have resonated with may Democrats, especially with those crucial working-class folks. Of course, this is nonsense. She did nothing during Bill's tenure except screw up healthcare. But the catchy phrase 'on Day One' seems to have really caught on, particularly with less educated voters who may grasp little else of the political discourse. This may seem like a small point, but it is really an important one. Just as Reagan's 'there you go again' worked to such devastating effect against Carter, so might any killer soundbite actually sway an election. It seems too idiotic to be true, but just ask the advertising experts. Obama had better come up with some catchy sound bites of his own. I think he can do it! He has a certain gift for words...

Poll: Antiwar Americans for McCain

UPDATE (12 Mar 08): The article by Ira Chernus called Looming Threat for Dems is very worrisome. Apparently, polls show that even many Americans who are against the Iraq war would vote for McCain, because of the lure of a 'strong' leader in the fight against terrorism. McCain's simplistic soundbite 'No Surrender' is working as effectively for him as similar language did for Nixon during the Vietnam war. I'll have to review this unfortunate trend at some point, but for now I highly recommend reading the article. Fear works, and reason doesn't — a fact known to all professional politicians, such as McCain and Hillary, and probably even Obama. What does this say about Democracy? It's enough to make a progressive despair. (Notice, once again, that this is a class issue: urban and educated people prefer Obama, rural and uneducated people prefer Hillary.)

A Cold Shower for Obamaphiles

UPDATE (17 Mar 08): Here is a gushing cold shower for antiwar Obamaphiles from Brendan O'Neill. I must say, his claims are consistent with Obama's close relationship with liberal interventionist Samantha Power (until her recent flap that led to her exit from the campaign). Oh well! What's the alternative to Obama?

David Sirota: The Democrats' Class War