Obama will have more freedom but less power to do the needed work

A fortnight ago President Barack Obama completed what some have termed his “Africa Lecture Series.” They began in Ghana and Egypt in 2009 then moved to South Africa, Senegal, and Tanzania two years ago, before he moved on to Kenya, the land of his father’s birth, and finally to Ethiopia, in the Horn of Africa. There’s a perception that his tours were heavy on symbolism and light on substance, as a prominent African scholar pointed out recently in an opinion piece in one of the region’s newspapers. This view is widespread. It is underlain by the idea that Obama could have done more for black people, for Africa, and for his brethren in Kenya in particular. But could he have done more? Let us take a look. It is possible that those who deride Obama for not ‘delivering for his people’ fail to grasp two important things. One is the narrow definition of who his people are. Second, and most importantly, is the straight jacket in which his presidency was birthed and nurtured. On this second point, for example, he was bequeathed an economy in recession. A global financial crisis was in full force as he ascended to the throne. With an economy in a shambles, Americans, in the millions, were losing their jobs. The social context was one of frustration. Consequently, Obama’s preoccupation at the time was to find some wiggle room for himself. He did this; first, by taking every opportunity to remind Americans that the mess he had inherited was the making of George W Bush; that it went so deep as to require him to do everything possible to create conditions for economic recovery. The strategy was mostly grounded in providing financial stimuli to save the American banking system from collapse. It would get ugly. The dire economic backdrop helped create conditions that politicised race relations in America, with racial tensions reaching levels not seen since the civil rights era of Martin Luther King in the 1960s and after. The republicans, now in political opposition, shifted politics further to the right. They were invaded and held hostage by a new phenomenon that swept across America like a storm: the Tea Party. Right at the extreme right of the Republican Party the ultra-conservatives held ultra nationalist and openly racist views. They denounced Obama as a socialist or even communist, a Muslim, and a Kenyan. Others went as far as labelling him an alien president. In fact, months before that, they had been shown carrying guns in their holsters during Obama’s campaigns. For them, ‘true Americans’ had to defend themselves against an impending attack on their way of life. America was under siege, they claimed. Branding themselves “Birthers,” members of this movement sought to ‘prove’ once and for all that Obama did not legally qualify for the American presidency, on the basis that he was not born in America. And, of course, matters were not helped by the names Barack H. Obama. Rarely used in its full form, the H. stands for Hussein, which helped to stir more anxiety about an American president with African and Muslim names. The anxiety was so real that some in the Southern States collected petitions, intending to marshal enough support to activate the secession of their home states from the United States of America. They looked for and ‘found’ more proof of Obama’s anti-America agenda. Video recordings surfaced in which Obama’s mentor and spiritual advisor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, spewed anti-American venom from the pulpit, with attendant claims that Obama had been present during some of them, when the preacher had denounced America and claimed that terrorism and 911 were America’s chickens coming home to roost. Obama was forced to publicly denounce his mentor and state that he did not subscribe to his teachings. As Obama manoeuvred his way around issues of race, albeit clothed in questions about his authenticity as an American, he was faced with another hurdle: he had been branded a socialist. At issue, however, was class. The poor and members of the middle classes got angry. They claimed that Obama’s policies, as evidenced by his economic recovery plan, had neglected their needs while prioritising those of the super rich, those in the 1 percent income category, the so-called “one percenters”. Claiming to be so hungry, the poor descended on Wall Street prepared to eat the rich! In short, Obama’s hand was forced. He had to play the hand he had been dealt. In practice, this means that he had quickly to shift into the political survival mode for much of his presidency. And with that, some of the choices were forced on him by a survival instinct. This angered many of his supporters who were derided for having “drunk the cool-aid” about the “change we can believe in” mantra. Some of them revolted and began to air some of their frustrations. They claimed that Obama had lied to them, had given them false hope, raising their expectations about what was possible, while riding their emotions to power. Angry with him, they accused him of being no different from his predecessors. Like all politicians, they said, he was made of the cloth of mendacity and mendicancy. Most vocal among these was the African American intellectual and Princeton University scholar, Cornell West, a true embodiment of disenchantment with the Obama presidency. At one time tensions between the two reached fever pitch, so much so that during a public spat Obama shot back at the philosopher and civil rights icon: “Who do you think you are?” But such perceptions about Obama fail to consider the political straightjacket he has worn during his entire presidency and, consequently, his policy choices. While in Kenya recently, he tried to explain his arms-length approach towards ‘his people.’ According to reports, he said he had not come to Kenya in his first term because he did not want to be accused of favouring the land of his father. “When I am a private citizen,” Obama told the media, “I will have more freedom to reconnect and be involved in some of the work that needs to be done.” In the end, the politics at home meant that Obama had little “freedom” to make a meaningful connection with the constituencies that had developed illusion about what his presidency would mean for them and their lives.

Opinions

Obama will have more freedom but less power to do the needed work