If Barack Obama Becomes the Next President of the United States! A Comparative and International Politics Perspective

                                                Ghelawdewos Araia                     March 1, 2008

The campaign slogan of Barack Obama, �Change We Can Believe In,� quintessentially manifests the current mood in the United States: the electorate is no longer polarized along racial lines although the residue of institutionalized racism lives on. In fact, the Obama factor, which has now become a global phenomenon, is partly due to the fact that America never witnessed in its entire history such a huge white turn out in support of a Black man running for the highest office in the United States.

To be sure, Barack Obama is not the first African-American candidate to run for the presidency. America and the global community know too well that the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton also bid for the Democratic presidential candidates but they were not successful. However, before these prominent African-American leaders ever came to the national political scene (except for Jesse Jackson who was at the forefront during the Civil Rights Movement) and contemplated the highest office, it was Senator Chisholm from New York who was the first black woman to declare her candidacy for the president of the United States in 1972. She too was not successful for obvious reasons. The failure of these Black candidates must be viewed in light of historical circumstances (the U. S. political reality) and broader contexts. When Shirley (Anita St. Hill) Chisholm run for the highest office, America definitely was not ready for an African-American, let alone for a black citizen and a woman. Moreover, Chisholm was a staunch advocate of the urban poor and a vociferous anti-Vietnam war activist and clearly far to the left and perhaps a pariah to mainstream politics. If Chisholm were running in 2008, i.e. three and half decades after her candidacy, she would have perfectly and conveniently combined the unique attributes of Barack Obama (black) and Hillary Clinton (a woman). But that was then! It was simply impossible for a black candidate to assume the top echelon of the American highest political structure.

On top of America�s lack of psychological preparedness for a black woman in 1972, four years earlier the nation was galvanized, so to speak, by student unrest, Black Panther defiance, anti-Vietnam war protests, and the civil rights movement that culminated in the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. Robert Kennedy was also assassinated in the same year and the United States clearly was in deep crisis. But even after two decades, the aftermath of the 1960s crisis was still haunting the U. S. political landscape, and for this apparent reason when Jesse Jackson run in 1984 and again in 1988, followed by Al (Alfred Charles) Sharpton�s attempt in 2004, the champion of democracy, liberty, and land of opportunity was not yet ready for a black president.

Is the United States of America now, in the year of our lord 2008, as implied above, ready for an African �American president? Unless otherwise we are witnessing a mirage and not the real political image on the ground, it looks that America is now ready for a black president. Thus, if Obama is sworn in as the first African-American president the world will change for the better as will be extrapolated later. If Obama becomes the next president of the United States, this country at long last will vindicate the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the dream of all people of African descent and others who cherish harmony and equality. This nation, after all, will rectify the wrongs and injustices perpetrated against black people for so long and by doing so it will salvage and redeem itself. This wonderful historical achievement subsequently will have a positive impact on national (domestic) policies and international relations. The United States will no longer be perceived and feared as a hegemonic power and international police. On the contrary, the country will enjoy a unique opportunity to introspectively examine itself and exploit its potentiality. By mere historical accident and perhaps to some degree shaped by political fiat, the United States has become the destiny of all humanity; it is land of immigrants and virtually all-ethnic groups of the world have converged in the United States. In New York City alone, twenty languages of various ethnic groups are spoken. Moreover, the United States is the richest country in the world and although there is no equality, there is opportunity unless for some the possibility for making a living is deliberately sealed due to misconstrued politics of intelligence. It may sound ironic but even the enemies of the U. S. want to come and settle in this final frontier of humanity.                    

If America indeed is on the brink of electing (or the electoral is about to choose) a black president, how well is Barack Obama qualified to become the next president of the United States? Some conservatives and liberals alike have exhibited reservations and misgivings on Obama and these ideas are perfectly all right in a democracy but the majority of these commentators were unable to substantiate their views. Some say, for instance, that Barack is to young to lead the nation. Age alone, of course, is not a factor in shaping the quality of leadership, although generally age and wisdom (life experience) reflect correlation of growth.  On the other hand, the proponents of Obama dismiss age as irrelevant and in most instances support their argument by giving the example of John F. Kennedy as the youngest ever president of the United States. But what most people don�t seem to know or forget the readings of their history notes is the fact that the average age of the founding fathers was forty-two. Among the first 55 delegates assembled for the constitutional convention, the youngest of all the delegates, only 27 of age, was Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey and the oldest (81) was Benjamin Franklin and all others were in their forties.

Others may argue that Obama�s foreign affairs expertise is not adequate enough because he may not be ready to pinpoint American national interest vis-�-vis global contending interests. Conservatives and old-fashioned political realists who are in favor of Real Politick hegemony as opposed to liberal global cooperation mostly forward this point of view. They seem to forget that the world is increasingly tilting toward the latter and Obama in fact can actually champion international diplomacy based on the ideals of international cooperation, which will ultimately favor the U. S. and the world. Real politic, hegemony, coercive diplomacy, and even �carrot and stick� policy will soon be discussed as anachronistic policies at least in the academia.

With respect to judgment and intelligence, some may portray Barack as relatively immature but they are definitely wrong. Nobody in his right mind would argue that Obama is one unrivaled genius, but many, I gather, would agree that he is intelligent, politically astute, eloquent, forward-looking persona, and above all charismatic, all important chemistry of leadership. What other proof could be furnished for a vision and judgment other than opposing a war that has immersed the United States in a quagmire. In fact, quite clearly Obama�s wisdom and vision was vividly reflected in his ability to obviate America�s involvement in Iraq. And one important and crucial attribute of a leadership is the ability to see beforehand (by leading) and disposing off miscalculated actions. The United States is justified to defend itself after the 9/11 terrorist attack but the perpetrators originated in Afghanistan and not in Iraq and Obama does not oppose America�s initiative to defend itself but like most Americans he believes the Iraq war was wrong from the outset.

There are still others who portray Obama as liberal and as far left in the continuum. There is no doubt that Barack is liberal and I don�t see any wrong in being liberal especially in a country that prides itself as champion of democracy and in fact founded on the ideals of liberty. The common denominator for the American revolution of 1776 and the French revolution of 1789 is the fundamental notion of �liberty� that is in turn the bedrock of Western democracy. Eleven years before the Declaration of Independence, i.e. in 1765, when the colonial government imposed tax on the States, professionals of all sorts rose against the so-called �Stamp Act� and called themselves �Sons of Liberty�. These sons of liberty then paved the way for the Founding Fathers, some of which were religiously liberal and quite logically the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution incorporated heavy dosage from John Locke. It is ironic, therefore, that �liberal� or �liberalism� have now become taboo in conservative circles in the United States. However, despite his liberalism, Obama does not belong to the far left; he has very well (and consciously so) positioned himself in the center. He who is at the center wins the race in American politics and Obama is very much aware of this reality. To be sure, Obama would have not come this far and embraced by a sizable electorate, let alone become a phenomenon had he not been in the center from the outset.

Obama bashers and detractors also argue that he is talkative and not a man of action who can really deliver. This argument is devoid of historical analysis and not surprisingly denies the power of words. The whole edifice of education is based on words, hypotheses, and theories that in the end are translated into action and in turn form a higher theory that guides action. In fact, one cannot really act without the proper guidance of words. The ancient Egyptian creation theory clearly puts the spoken word as the power behind all creations; so does Genesis. Words (hypotheses and theories) are the hallmark of our schools and universities and those of us in the academia inspire and intellectually motivate our students in every class encounter. Thus, one cannot divorce words from schools, the best institutions ever devised by humanity for the purpose of enlightenment and professional training from which our political leaders also emerge. In due course of �word gymnastics� in the schools, methodologies evolve as a matter of course and in method there is everything as Shakespeare once aptly put it.    

Obama is not just a snug, fitting comfortably with himself, but he is also successfully conveying messages to his supporters while at the same time creating a web-like networking and uniting the people. When Obama quotes Martin Luther King, Jr. (�the fierce urgency of now�) he himself is making a powerful exhortation to all races and classes across the board in the United States. Though Obama belongs to the Democratic Party, he in fact has created a rainbow coalition that can effectively unite democrats, liberal republicans, evangelists, African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Anglo-Americans, other Americans of European and Asian descent, as well as men and women.

More importantly, Obama is confident in himself and he seems to acknowledge the vicissitudes and puzzles in social life and in politics and how to confront the latter and strive to meet the demands of the larger society through rigorous, diligent, and disciplined behavior as well as fervent moral integrity. I have come to suspect that he must have come across a maxim by Marian Anderson who, in an effort to inspire African-Americans (remember the power of the spoken word!), said, �If you have a purpose in which you can believe, there is no end to what you can achieve.� When Marian Anderson uttered those poignant but inspiring words, she was addressing her target audience that was compelled to struggle against all odds superimposed on them by cruel governing circumstances. Now, those words are quite fitting for Obama and his followers especially when the political climate in America is arguably conducive. This assumption of a favorable climate is of course relative and we have to wait and see what the conservatives are going to do in the general election and how the electoral college is going to behave in November 2008.

In American electoral politics domestic issues pertaining to jobs, health, education, taxes, and immigration are very important but international relations in the context of foreign policy are also central to U. S. politics. The presidential hopeful is expected to master the intricacies and subtle nuances of world politics. The latter, however, should not be viewed, as stated above, in terms of real politic only; they should also be extrapolated in relation to changing but challenging global politics which could be an amalgam of adverse and favorable political parameters. It seems to me a new multi-polar world is on the horizon and it should be carefully examined and handled without resorting to confrontation and Barack Obama can properly handle such a political scenario.

Barack has already told the world that he would talk to the enemies of the United States after making necessary preparations. Talking to enemies is not weakness; it is strength. One of the fundamental premises of diplomacy is dialogue and this could serve as a powerful tool to emasculate the enemy without resorting to violence and paying with huge human lives. Thus, by tolerating strong rivals, America under the leadership of Barack Obama will sense the changing global reality that can in turn enhance world peace and international cooperation. Like it or not, as stated above, the multi-polar world is about to become a reality with the re-emergence of Russia and the ascendance of China in the global arena.

American policy makers must understand that they will soon confront a reconstituted Russia under the leadership of Dimitri Medvedev and a China that has clearly emerged from a cocoon of poverty five decades ago to an industrial-military complex in the 21^st century. Both countries also have cherished longstanding stability under successive reformist and innovative regimes. Russia is a huge country with eleven time zones, a nuclear power, potentially rich especially with strategic minerals such as oil and diamond. In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, Russia was relatively backward but it was a leader in literature and the arts and for the first half and the last quarter of the 20^th century it was a superpower, a rival to the United States for the most part but also an ally during the Second World War. Reemerging Russia will definitely reaffirm itself as a superpower and will be a rival to the U. S. but it will cooperate with America on many fronts and will not be its staunch foe. The new Russia will emerge with a revitalized identity of a hybrid of Christian Orthodoxy and a market economy. Medvedev is a devout Orthodox Christian and a Russian nationalist who openly argues the significance of the restoration of Russian tradition inextricably linked to the Orthodox Church. True to this pious ideal is the restoration of the Church of Christ the Savior in Moscow that was dynamited by the communists and was renamed Soviet Square.

By the same token, U. S. policy makers must reckon with an emerging superpower of the Orient, the Peoples Republic of China. China is now no longer �red� but it could retain its yellow complexion that in effect reflect its commitment to market economy and its socialist agenda especially in the rural areas. Most importantly, however, China now is a military-industrial complex that can easily claim the Far East and South East Asia as its sphere of influence. The ascendance of China is not altogether surprising. The country, after all, is known for its civilization of antiquity and its medieval innovations. Among American primer politicians, I believe Henry Kissinger very well understood the inevitability of China�s ascendance as a world power. If my memory serves me right, in one recent National Public Radio interview, Kissinger unequivocally stated that China was meant to rise to its present status given its historical background. China, like Russia, will be a rival to the United States but will not be a foe; on the contrary, it will cooperate with the United States on many bilateral and multilateral international politics.

Therefore, the emerging multi-polar world should not be of great concern to the United States if global politics and relations among nations are handled properly in the context of international diplomacy and cooperation. Furthermore, the relatively die-hard nations like Iran and North Korea could gravitate toward peaceful conflict resolution if the new world order in which the U. S. can play a pivotal role, provides them a green light to participate in dialogue. In order to realize such international cooperation, however, America needs an Obama type of leadership who can really shatter the long cherished myth of �talking to enemies would in fact strengthen their position and weakness our position� (a typical macho and jingoist politics). Interestingly, by calculated move or mere coincidence, the New York Philharmonic performed in Pyongyang, North Korea. What a wonderful gesture in cultural diplomacy! It is these kinds of cultural exchange that can enable us understand the idiosyncrasy of potentially inimical, mysterious, and /or aloof nations and the Obama administration can wisely manipulate it for the benefit of the United States and world peace.  

If Barack Obama becomes the next president, can America adapt to the global changing circumstances? Given America�s political history of �constancy and change,� and the ability of the nation to reinvent itself, the United States will definitely attempt to accommodate the new order rather than clash with it. The new world order that I have alluded to above is not just a multi-polar world tainted with balance of powers but it is also going to herald peaceful coexistence and cooperation among the peoples of our planet earth. In order to foster such a grandiose plan of international cooperation and cultural exchange, an Obama type of leader is the necessary prerequisite, because he has already united the American people and will bridge U. S. interests with other global interests and he is of dual heritage, American and African who can smoothly connect not just Kenya but also the entire continent of Africa with America. America needs a Barack Obama leadership in the first decade to quarter of the 21^st century, but we will have to wait and see for its fruition.

All Rights Reserved. Copyright � IDEA, Inc. 2008. Subscribers and commentators can contact Dr. Ghelawdewos Araia for constructive and educational feedback at dr.garaia@africanidea.org