The man who seized the White House by fomenting a mood of irrational expectation is now facing the bitter price exacted by reality. The reality is that there can be no "good" American president. It's an impossible hand to play. Obama is close to being finished.
The nation's first black president promised change, at the precise moment no single man — even if endowed with the communicative powers of Franklin Roosevelt, the politic mastery of Lyndon Johnson and the brazen agility of Bill Clinton — could turn the tide that has been carrying America to disaster for 30 years.
Americans this summer are frightened. More than 100,000 of them file for bankruptcy every month. Three million homeowners face foreclosure this year. Add them to the 2.8 million who were foreclosed in 2009, Obama's first year in office. Nearly 7 million have been without jobs in the last year for six months or longer. By the time you tot up the people who have given up looking for work or the people on part time, the total is heading toward 20 million.
Fearful people are irrational. So are racists. Obama is the target of insane charges. A hefty percentage of Americans believe that he is a socialist, a charge as ludicrous as accusing the Archbishop of Canterbury of being a closet Druid. Obama reveres the capitalist system. He admires the apex predators of Wall Street who showered his campaign treasury with millions of dollars. The frightful catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico stemmed directly from the green light he and his Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, gave to BP.
It is not Obama's fault that for 30 years, America's policy under Reagan, both Bushes and Bill Clinton has been to export jobs permanently to the Third World. The jobs that Americans now desperately seek are no longer here in the homeland and never will be. They're in China, Taiwan, Vietnam, India and Indonesia.
No stimulus program giving money to cement contractors to fix potholes along the federal interstate highway system is going to bring those jobs back. Highly trained tool and die workers, the aristocrats of the manufacturing sector, are flipping hamburgers — at best — for $7.50 an hour because U.S. corporations sent their jobs to Guangzhou, with the approval of politicians flush with the money of the "free trade" lobby.
It is not Obama's fault that across 30 years more and more money has floated up to the apex of the social pyramid till America is heading back to where it was in the 1880s, a nation of tramps and millionaires. It's not his fault that every tax break, every regulation, every judicial decision tilts toward business and the rich. That was the neo-liberal America conjured into malign vitality back in the mid-1970s.
But it is Obama's fault that he did not understand this, that always, from the get-go, he flattered Americans with paeans to their greatness, without adequate warning of the political and corporate corruption destroying America and the resistance he would face if he really fought against the prevailing arrangements that were destroying America.
He offered them a free and easy pass to a better future, and now they see that the promise was empty.
It's Obama's fault, too, that as a communicator, he cannot inspire and rally the nation from its fears. From his earliest years, he has schooled himself not to be excitable, not to be an angry black man who would be alarming to his white friends at Harvard and his later corporate patrons. Self-control was his passport to the guardians of the system who were desperate to find a symbolic leader to restore America's credibility in the world after the disasters of the Bush era. He is too cool.
So now, Americans in increasing numbers have lost confidence in him. For the first time, in the polls, negative assessments outnumber the positive. He no longer commands trust. His support is drifting down to 40 percent. The straddle that allowed him to flatter corporate chieftains at the same time as blue-collar workers now seems like the most vapid opportunism. The casual campaign pledge to wipe out al-Qaida in Afghanistan is now being cashed out in a disastrous campaign viewed with dismay by a majority of Americans.
The polls portend disaster. It now looks as though the Republicans may well recapture not only the House, but conceivably the Senate. The public mood is so contrarian that even though polls show that voters think the Democrats may well have better solutions on the economy than Republicans, they will vote against incumbent Democrats in the midterm elections next fall. They just want to throw the bums out.
Obama has sought out Bill Clinton to advise him in this desperate hour. If Clinton is frank, he will remind Obama that his own hopes for a progressive first term were destroyed by the failure of his health reform in the spring of 1993. By August of that year, he was importing a Republican, David Gergen, to run the White House.
Obama had his window of opportunity last year, when he could have made jobs and financial reform his prime objectives. That's what Americans hoped for. Mesmerized by economic advisers who were creatures of the banks, he instead plunged into the Sargasso Sea of "health reform," wasted the better part of a year and ended up with something that pleases no one.
What can save Obama now? It's hard even to identify a straw he can grasp at. It's awfully early in the game to say it, but as Marlene Dietrich said to Orson Welles in "Touch of Evil," "Your future is all used up."
Alexander Cockburn is co-editor with Jeffrey St. Clair of the muckraking newsletter CounterPunch. He is also co-author of the new book "Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils," available through www.counterpunch.com. To find out more about Alexander Cockburn and read features by other columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

|
 |
Comments
|
6 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Are you sure about your comment on exporting jobs? Do you the know the actual figures of how many operations that American manufacturing businesses are actually having in China?
I can show you, as a matter of fact. James Jackson and others reported that as of 2009, United States invested in manufacturing abroad only $21 billion in China, $3.82 billion in Taiwan, $17.6 billion in Indonesia. By comparison, that's $72 billion invested by US in Canadian manufacturing, and $56 billion in British manufacturing.
Where is the outrage about Canadians stealing American jobs or British stealing American jobs? Where is the outrage about American industries shifting to Britain, Canada, Germany, France, and Netherlands - each of whom has far more manufacturing investment than China, Taiwan, and Indonesia taken together?
Could it be that you just lied? Because it's not just the total investment. One might presume that the rate of investment would be higher for poor countries. On the contrary, the rate of foreign investment flowing to rich nations has been *increasing* and that too at even greater pace since the 1990s.
It is outright dishonest to suggest a Third World flow of jobs. Such a thing never happened. There is no such thing as Global Labour Arbitrage.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Prateek Sanjay
Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Sanjay: American companies didn't "invest" large sums of money in China because such investment was generally blocked by the Chinese government. What happened was that American firms OUTSOURCED the manufacturing to firms in China (and elsewhere). That's not an investment; it's simply changing the source of the goods calculated in the cost of goods line in the financial report. For example, all most all PCs -- a product designed and originally manufactured in the U.S. -- are now manufactured in China and/or Taiwan. In 2010, the retail value of those PCs worldwide will be around $162 billion, and that's just one product in one segment of one industry. So your figures on "investment" are meaningless because they only reflect money actually spent by U.S. companies on factories elsewhere -- a drop in the bucket compared to the wholesale outsourcing of manufacturing as a source for goods that could have been manufactured in the U.S. Seriously, maybe you should learn something about business before commenting on it.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Geoffrey James
Fri Jul 16, 2010 11:13 AM
|
|
|
|
Except there is a problem still.
Domestic manufacturing still represents a giant proportion of both jobs and business revenues in First World countries, and that still has not changed even after China's entry. In United States, manufacturing represents 13% of the workforce, with 19% of total sales or shipments. That's tens of millions of people in a sector earning a disproportionately higher share of earnings. To say there are no longer Americans jobs or opportunities left in manufacturing is disingenuous.
Mr. James, do you have all figures on manufacturing output, revenues, and investments by geographic region?
Either way, there is no such thing as a Third World flow of jobs from low wages. Low wages are one thing, productivity another. You might be paying a Chinese worker $8.00 an hour, but only get $9.00 of goods produced by him an hour. You might be paying an American worker $10.00 an hour, and he'd seem inefficient if he produced less than $25 worth of goods an hour. That's because capital assets are far more abundant in US than China, and allow more to be produced per worker.
Capital matters more than labour. It is for this reason that tiny Germany was out-producing enormous China until very very recently.
Ford has $2.717 billion in annual revenues and 87,700 American workers. That's $31,000 earned per American worker. Geely, a Chinese automobile company, has $129 million in revenues and 12,000 Chinese workers. That's $10,750 per worker. You earn three times the same money from what an American worker produces than what a Chinese worker produces, and you are telling me that jobs shift to China?
It's all a lie.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Prateek Sanjay
Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Well, you're certainly doing your fifth-column best to get the next Republicans elected. I certainly hope you're not hypocritical enough to complain about them when you succeed.
Comment: #4
Posted by:
Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Prateek Sanjay Your argument neglects important factors and does not seem based on reality. Any good produced in China does not have to deal with the expenses of environmental controls, an expense that can far exceed the cost of labor. Second, you compare a Chinese being paid $8.00 an hour to an American being paid $10.00; these figures do not reflect the real wage gap that exists vis a vis the two countries. And finally, any trip to the mall will quickly reveal where the things you buy are made, or don't you ever look at such things? To those of us in our 60's, the contrast between the shopping experience of today and the one that existed up until 25 years ago is both stark and depressing, but is one that today's Americans have no trouble at all in accepting. They blithely go on their way pumping money out of the country and wondering where all the jobs have gone. We are consumers, and the effects of that can be seen in our grotesque waistlines and trade deficits; which one will pop first is anyone's guess. As for Obama, this fool walked into a situation tailor made for real fundamental change, and while it would have been difficult if not impossible to achieve, he simply took the advice of those who have been proven wrong about everything and kept the show going for as long as it could. No real change will occur in this country until we implode; until that time keep expecting unending unneeded wars, military budgets that equal the spending of the rest of the world combined, catering to the interests of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of renewable energy, weak kneed financial "reform", a crumbling infrastructure, expansion of military bases worldwide, especially in Africa, larger waistlines with diabetes and the effects of high cholesterol ramping up the cost of health care and more jobs lost here to low cost foreign labor.
Comment: #5
Posted by: michael nola
Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Nola, I am here in India, and I normally also see columns in foreign sites like BrusselsJournal, Der Spiegel, and Creators.
Now, here in India, the shopping experience is of domestic goods. Why? India is one of the most fiercely protectionist and economically xenophobic nations in the world. Foreign companies are often not allowed to enter here and invest here. Chinese steel gets duties of $3000 per tonne, and Chinese consumer goods even more. We still live in our colonial era revolutionary legacy of using only the homespun cloth to fight imperialism - ironically, people forget that it was done to fight British protectionism. Anti-Chinese hatred is rampant in media and places of learning.
So what quality of life is it for the poor, the middle, the rich? Often the same. We all go to the same grocery stores with only two brands of wheat, rice, or flour, and only a shelf of selections of each. Shortages are common. Prices are disgustingly high. Indians have poor health and nutrition, and even the better fed are below 5 feet 4 inches in height. The store has remained the same for fifty years, except they now bring new inventory through a small truck instead of a cart. It would take opening of trade and investment to fill those grocery stores, utility stores, hardware stores with long shelves of high quality goods of low prices. Of course, we did have that, but very briefly. Change of governments again stopped that small incremental change. You can't fight poverty without increasing production, increasing quality, and bringing down prices, so that buyers save more per goods that they buy, buy goods less often, and have more left to save in banks to be given as loans or to spend on other goods that could go to domestic industries. To protect domestic industry creates fewer jobs and makes even those workers have a lower standard of living.
The richest nations of the world are importer nations - Australia, UK, US, and Italy. They only produce whatever they are good at producing. It works.
Either way, let's not throw statistics at each other, and let's see only axioms. Production always precedes consumption. Americans can only consume more, because they produce and earn more. (To be poor in America is to have a car, an owned house, an air conditioner, and a refrigerator. To be rich in India is to have those things minus one of them.) Poverty is fought by saving more for the future and having to spend less on the goods one buys. Less production and more expensive goods increase poverty and not reduce it.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Prateek Sanjay
Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|