WORLD VIEW:'FOR THE world has changed, and we must change with it." This was the only reference to change in Barack Obama's inaugural speech – a surprising fact, given its centrality in his election campaign. Not that the issue was avoided, since the speech was pervaded by a related theme: "That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood." The need for individual and collective responsibility in working together to remake America transformed the rhetoric of change into the language of executive authority, writes Paul Gillespie.
Change was mentioned as part of Obama’s message to relatively prosperous nations: “We say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.” That is a radical shift from the Bush administration, signifying a very different approach to the environment.
Several passages in the speech recall Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s coming to power in 1933 and the New Deal programmes he introduced in his first term. The circumstances of this change makes a remark of Roosevelt’s especially relevant. “I want to see changes,” he said to a trade union activist who worked in his campaign. “What you must do now is push me to make them.”
Roosevelt understood that his programme of change would be achieved not by executive action alone, but by a coalition between him and the social groups which elected him. In the following years the US labour movement was empowered through its own organisation, factory occupations and often violent struggles. It was only in 1935 that the National Labour Relations Act legalising strikes was passed. This and other legislation altered the balance of power between labour and capital in the US. Roosevelt’s successful presidency also ensured that the Democrats became predominantly the party of labour, laying down the social basis of politics to this day.
How Obama relates to his own political constituency and social base of support will be just as important for his success. A time of crisis is a time of decision on social priorities. Economically this is already as deep a crisis as the 1930s, although not yet as advanced as it was in 1933, when 25 per cent were unemployed.
But if the trend continues and is not arrested, contentious politics and conflicting interests are likely to break through the cross-party consensus and widespread popular goodwill and pragmatic approach Obama is using to get his programmatic momentum going. This requires close attention to who supports him and why and how he intends to keep in touch with them. That is where the battle of expectations and delivery will be fought out in US politics over the next four years.
Exit polls after the election show he gained the support of 52 per cent of voters compared to McCain’s 46. Younger voters overwhelmingly supported him – by 66 to 32 per cent among 18- to 29-year-olds, whereas older ones gradually tapered off in favour of McCain, who, however, only gained a majority among those over 65. Blacks were 95 to 4 for him, Hispanics 66 to 32. But among whites it was 55 to 43 in favour of McCain.
The class profile is also clear, with those on $50,000 or less 63 to 38 per cent for Obama, while those on $50-100,000 were split 49-49 and those over $100,000 marginally in his favour at 50-49 per cent. That in turn reflects the deepening inequalities in US society. In 1967 the poorest 20 per cent of citizens had 4 per cent of national income compared to 3.4 per cent in 2007, whereas the richest 5 per cent had 17.5 and 21.2 per cent in those years.
Obama’s successful organisational methods, using networking and the internet, have been widely commented on. He intends to continue using them in office, precisely how is not yet clear. Will this be a sounding board to multiply his formidable communications skills or go beyond that to mobilise support when he encounters congressional, political, business and media opposition to the more contentious parts of his programme? How far can his supporters use the network to organise themselves? The test of his commitment to change is yet to come.
The word change is anyway deeply ambiguous. Does it signify becoming different, having a new experience – or being repaired? It can mean modify, reform, mutate – or transform. And its antonyms include keep, remain, stabilise, order – or restore.
As used by many of Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters there is a clear hope and demand for a better world. But others who would not normally support his party back him in the spirit of the Italian novelist Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa.
In his book The Leopard the Sicilian nobleman Don Fabrizio Corbera, Prince of Salina, lives through the events of the Risorgimento. His nephew, Tancredi, urging unsuccessfully that Don Fabrizio abandon his allegiance to the disintegrating Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and ally himself with Garibaldi, says: “Unless we ourselves take a hand now, they’ll foist a republic on us. If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”
Such people need Obama to repair the system, not to transform it – plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
How this plays out will depend not only on Obama’s competence, but on his success in heading off the recession/depression, his ability to secure resources, his willingness to mobilise his supporters against his opponents – and the extent to which these issues play out not only in conventional politics but in social conflicts too.
How far will his supporters be willing to push Obama to make the changes they want and he has promised? If the system can’t be repaired will they try to transform it – or allow it to be restored?
pgillespie@irishtimes.ie