2,800,000
For the left, resisting Trump means getting real about the legacy of Barack Obama
Two point eight million.
That’s roughly the number of people who gave Hillary Clinton the lead in the popular vote, a bitter, record high for an Electoral College loser.
It’s a karmic toll for the Democrats because it’s also the number of people Barack Obama deported, some fleeing death squads empowered by the administration, and the vast majority just trying to live, work, and send money to their families, eking out a living amid violence carried out with billions of dollars in US weapons and deprivation brought on by so-called free trade agreements. The number is a deportation record for a US president and an ethnic cleansing even the new administration might not trump.
In comparison to the current GOP regime, the Obama administration looks better than ever. But then again, Democrats now speak highly even of Mitt Romney, a man they demonized four years earlier for writing off 47 percent of the American population as moochers. It’s a low bar when you’re staring down at least two years (but probably more) of an unstable authoritarian enabled by an opportunistic legislative majority that has proven itself to be craven even by the standards of politicians.
However, waxing nostalgic about the newest ex-president means ignoring quite lot, in particular the millions of lives he actively destroyed. Glossing over the core similarities between Obama’s policies and those of both his predecessor and successor obscures the clarity progressives — and the country — desperately need in order to orient a way forward. In other words, left-leaning Democrats (and the broader left) need to stop lying to themselves.
Here are some troubling facts:
MENA Arms Deals and Proxy Wars
As part of Obama’s post–Second World War arms-sales record, his administration arranged over $100 billion in weapons deals with Saudi Arabia. He refueled their planes and guided their bombing of Yemeni doctors and schoolchildren. He continued the project even though he knew that 18 million Yemenis were — and still are — desperate for humanitarian aid.
Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, bombed seven Muslim-majority countries during his two terms. He brought mayhem to Libya and dumped arms into Syria. He passively slapped Israel on the wrist for its building of settlements on Palestinian land, but only after promising the US ally a record-breaking $38 billion in military aid.
Through it all, he secured nothing but the profits of arms manufacturers while expanding a global war with no clear objective or definition of victory, ensuring that another generation in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia is primed at best for resentment of the US, at worst for further radicalization and violence.
Police Militarization
At home, Obama presided over the expansion of domestic mass surveillance and the militarization of municipal and county police departments. These same militarized law enforcement bodies waged a war with communities of color in riots precipitated by well documented, overzealous police shootings that rarely saw punishment meted out to the perpetrators.
A Friend of the Wealthy
Black communities saw the deletion of 53 percent of their wealth over the last eight years while Obama protected the bankers, “foamed the runway” for their crash landing, and stood idly by while people lost their homes. He was more worried about insurance industry jobs (and lobbyists) than about pushing for what most Americans want and need: publicly funded universal healthcare, a system with better overall results for far cheaper than the version that eats a world-record portion of our GDP.
For all the uproar over Trump’s education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos, it was Obama who oversaw the advancement of the school defunding and privatization project which DeVos holds dear. Naturally, Obama’s brand new foundation looks poised to continue the work.
Clintonian Triangulation
Ultimately, Obama sought to appease the far right by toeing a third way, a slick Bill Clinton-era term for a right-wing economic agenda made palatable with progressive rhetoric (now available in fresh, Trump-era flavor). His talk and his team did nothing to stop the consolidation of money at the top or the stagnation of wages despite increasing worker productivity. He touted positive job reports that hid the millions of underemployed and underpaid, as well as those who just stopped looking for work out of sheer despair and frustration.
He now hints that he’ll go to Silicon Valley, where perhaps he’ll earn his fortune as he advises the titans of data mining and precarious, gig-economy employment on their inevitable political careers.
This is, of course, only a partial reckoning, and I’m far from the first or only person to be deeply disappointed by a presidency won with promises of Hope and Change.
I wouldn’t claim that Democrats and Republicans are the same; as the new regime has already proven, there is a deeply repressive and retrograde socio-religious agenda in the works. But there is a core alignment between Democratic and Republican policies that so many self-professed progressives continue to ignore. It’s the elephant in the room among those who say they “resist” Trump; it’s what separated so many Hillary voters from so many Bernie voters.
The Way Forward
Organizing a resistance and a viable future for Democrats, progressives, and/or the broader left requires discussing the elephant, which requires people to ask themselves some simple questions: What do you believe? Do you believe that our political, social, and economic system basically works but has just gotten a little out of whack? Do you believe that American power brings peace across the world? Do you believe that “capitalism has been the greatest driver of prosperity and opportunity the world has ever known”?
In the face of the electoral victory for ethno-nationalist, theocratic, and corporatist extremists, it’s tempting to ignore these fundamental questions and come together to defend Medicaid and Planned Parenthood or pursue reforms. But as the disastrous 2016 election showed, the “center” cannot hold. For instance, if the US were to institute single-payer health care, as many progressives claim they want, then Democrats’ insurance and pharmaceutical industry donors would lose. Or Uber, another example, like other tech companies, will work with Team Trump or Team Obama to profit at the public’s expense regardless.
The point being: if progressives want to stop Trump’s agenda and bring about some semblance of fairness, they have to be willing to part company with a lot of wealthy entities that, by their very nature, will turn every opportunity — and every political party — into profit. There is no sidestepping the choice between fighting for capital or fighting for people. Any liberal-left coalition that tries to serve both falters, and even reasonable people decide to stay home on election day, no matter the protestations of Clinton enthusiasts.
Relying on Democrats like Obama or the Clintons won’t stop our descent into ecological and economic hell — and progressives (and the broader left) won’t ever get another sort of party without a fight, without naming their adversaries explicitly, without a consciousness of what principles politicians need to be accountable to. This will necessarily mean admitting that what the country needs to stave off a feudal economy, environmental ruin, and ethno-nationalist politics at home and abroad is a broadly popular agenda well to the left of what both major parties are currently offering. It won’t happen without people taking political control from the ruling class Obama defended from “the pitchforks.” Nothing less will deliver the country from Obama’s successor.
P.J. Podesta’s work has appeared in The New York Times Women in the World, Salon, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and other outlets. He is based in Oakland.
