'Change is happening in America. It is happening because many Americans are sick and tired of the policies their administration has pursued for the last eight years. It is happening because Americans are fed up with the arrogance of power, neoconservative obsessions, military invasions and the unfair distribution of wealth' Hope and change The former, yes; the latter, well don't hold your breath, advises Azmi Bishara The African American strategy for pressing their demands for equality is necessarily assimilationist. They did not have a common national or ethnic affiliation, they were unable to keep their original African language or languages, and they did not live in a single area but were spread over broad areas as slaves, in a manner that destroyed family bonds, let alone tribal affiliation. The strategy that imposed itself spontaneously over centuries and was then incorporated into the civil rights movement was to adopt the predominant Christian religion and values and the principles of the American constitution and Bill of Rights as a common platform that would be difficult to resist for long. The Martin Luther King phenomenon was no accident. Progress then was a matter of time in which the focus was on the acquired commonalty of citizenship as opposed to place of origin. Naturally, it was not just the circumstances of the blacks scattered across the US that gave rise to this strategy. It was also a product of the American political and legal creed, in accordance with which citizenship, as opposed to ethnic affiliation, confers nationality and the right to contribute to shaping the nation. In such a case the struggle for equality homes in on closing the gap between constitutional provisions and reality. In accordance with the goals this strategy strives to accomplish and the hopes and dreams it disseminates the first black doctor, or first black pilot, is an accomplishment, the first black representative to the UN or the first black secretary of state a victory, regardless of the opinions or the policies they espouse. It is a gradual process, complete with films, legends and other cultural productions. It has nothing in common with revolution. It is a struggle for gradual acceptance waged from within, not outside, the establishment. If a campaign was organised outside the establishment its aims remained to protest exclusion and to press for assimilation. And, while it did not seek to alter the existing class structure, that structure had to change in order to accommodate the protesters' demands. In the middle of the last century black people had to persuade white society that they could be lawyers and professors and accepted into the Harvard alumni association. Such a strategy must ultimately lead to identity politics which attain a more sophisticated level when progress towards equality is measured by the extent to which blacks are represented in various professions and public positions. What counts, here, is their colour, not their political positions, while the black poor, who are unable to complete, are included only to the extent that other blacks are willing to represent them. When Obama nominated himself as a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party these dynamics played out in full force. And he proved extremely adept at turning them to his advantage, orally and organisationally, and at the right time, which is to say at the peak of the crisis in conservative political thought which had objected to the very thought of a black man positioning himself to become president. A package of charisma, rhetorical flare and organisational acumen appeared against the backdrop of change in the making. It is not true, of course, that a person with grit and hard work can achieve everything he sets his heart on in the US. The same applies to most of those easily regurgitated saws and maxims that are concocted by PR experts as handy sound-bites. But it was with a simple, superficial and conservative slogan that Obama captioned his victory and his acceptance address. For everyone who watched the celebration (and the spectators who attended, in awe at the historical event they were witnessing, tears streaming down their faces, chorusing "Yes we can!") it was a classic Hollywood happy ending. It was the reach-for-the-Kleenex moment at the end of the film when the black or female candidate wins the office they were fighting for, or when the underdog team or the handicapped player scores the winning goal, or when the gay man decides to become army chief-of-staff, or when the white hero together with his male black and female Jewish sidekicks succeeds in saving the world from impending doom. Whatever it was, one could not escape that sense of déjà vu, the difference being that on this occasion one has actually seen it before in a film. Hollywood preceded true life with a film in which the role of US president is played by a black actor. That was the face of enlightened Hollywood, with all the progressiveness of enlightenment as well as with all its powers to monopolise the truth, stereotype and engineer society, and affix secular brands of good and evil. It is not so much that Hollywood has suddenly gotten into the business of manufacturing reality -- Hollywood does what it always has done, as is the case with cultural production in general, and the totalitarian cinema culture in particular. What occurred in this campaign is that the Hollywood-like processes of manufacturing images, dreams and propaganda, and of marketing them, all contributed to the Obama phenomenon. This is not a conspiracy. It is how economy and culture work. As poetic as all this was in the eyes of many, this was not a victory for the world of poetry, art and film. Other important changes have occurred and these both affect and are affected by reality and imagination. It is impossible to ignore the legend that is being made, but that does not mean we should contribute to its making. Here we have a man who has tried long and hard to personify the legend until he ultimately succeeded in perfecting the role. It is a role tailored by identity politics and ethnic origins: the father from Kenya, the mother from Kansas, the hard road to Harvard and from there into political activism, then another hard road to become accepted as a political leader and eventually a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party establishment. It is as though he were programmed. He set his sights on the goal of becoming president and president he became, proving the truth of the above- mentioned maxim which he repeated without blinking an eye during the acceptance speech ceremony. All of which raises questions regarding his critique of reality in American society. Even if it were true that a person can make his dream come true in the US, if the goal is so individualistic and the story so unequivocally an individual success story that has no bearing on the political platform and the values that the president-elect espouses, then why should we care? We should care because things are not as simple as he makes them out to be. We must bear in mind that Obama's rise to power does not only fulfil his personal dream (which is of no concern to us). It reflects a profound change in American society, and this should concern anyone who wants to understand what is happening there. The change is real and tangible. It was ushered in primarily by the young, many of whom voted for the first time, and by minorities, women and liberal forces in the country. These agents of change have now come into their own after decades of fermentation during the civil rights movement. So as not to recapitulate the whole history of slavery and apartheid-like racism that lasted until the 1960s in the south, we will only recall, here, that only two decades ago, when he fielded himself as a nominee for the Democratic candidate as president, former governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis was faulted for being a first generation son of a Greek immigrant to the US. Clearly some enormous change has had to have taken place in order for Obama to have won the Democratic nomination and to have made his eventual victory possible. Undoubtedly the dream and image manufacturing industry and the so-called science of marketing have contributed to shaping both culture and its needs. However, that industry and "science" have dealt with actual needs that have surfaced in the US as the result of changes more profound than those discussed in the propaganda products. The change in American culture has been gradual, cumulative and substantial. It is what not only made it possible for a woman, and a man of African origin, to compete for nomination as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, but also for that African American man to become the winning horse in one of the American establishment's mechanisms for change and the rotation of authority. The winner neither made nor proved the legend of success in the country of unlimited opportunity. However, the makers of legends made him, because the time was right. Of course, he was also determined, persistent and convincing, which is a major element of truth in the fiction. What we see is not an example of the change an African American will bring to the American political establishment and American policy, but rather of the deep change that has already occurred and that made his arrival possible. I can understand why tears would stream from the eyes of people who had spent decades advocating racial equality as they finally saw a black man elected president. But whether this change will lead to substantial changes in American policy is not contingent upon that individual but on the ruling establishment and how it deals with actual global developments: the fiscal crisis and looming global stagnation, the growing power of China and Russia, the failure of the bid for imperial hegemony imposed by force of arms and without moral appeal. These factors combined will bring changes far more profound and widespread than the election of a specific person as president. Indeed, his election reflected, epitomised and affirmed another change that has occurred and that was instrumental in his election. Obama is going to find himself faced with an economy that does not recognise the colour of one's complexion and he will face enormous difficulties in meeting his electoral pledges. In short, he is about to enter the world of reality confined by the limits of possibility. The first factor that made Obama's election possible (though not inevitable) is a profound and actual change that had already occurred in American society. The second factor is what made the victory of the Democratic candidate, whoever he or she was, not just possible but essential. Obama's nomination did not offset this second factor. Indeed, it probably gave it extra impetus, especially among the young and minorities. I am referring, of course, to the widespread revulsion against Bush's domestic and foreign policies. While this is the factor that made a Democratic Party victory essential, it is not sufficient to explain how an African American won that party's nomination and why his candidacy did not hamper that party's chances of success and may, indeed, have increased them. What generated most of this wave of support is the series of failures in Bush's "war on terrorism" which was then topped by the failure of the economic policy of his era (I underscore the fact that this policy failed during his era, even though it had its beginnings well before this). Each failure compounded the other. Naturally, a part of US society that had supported the war in the press and in the polls had their eyes opened somewhere between the storm of Falluja and hurricane Katrina, and turned to Obama as an instrument of change. Undoubtedly, the largest contingent of Obama's supporters had actively opposed the war in Iraq from the outset. However, this camp of opinion could never have swept a president into the White House. It carried significant weight in the primaries but it needed the added weight of many who had supported the war. It was this added groundswell that made the change possible. Obama cast the sharp change into relief during the primaries. He proved capable of mobilising broad swathes of the public in favour of his candidacy and against the continuation of the House of Clinton. The election of Hillary would not have reflected the amount of change that people wanted. His personal talents, combined with his smoothly oiled campaign machine, drove this point home and succeeded in shattering Clinton's almost arrogant confidence. After that victory, however, the kernel of change seemed to diminish. All that the candidate retained was the magic of the colour of his skin and his charisma. The pro-change camp may have helped him sweep the primaries, but afterwards he moved centre, towards the position of the establishment, embracing it in its entirety in order to win. The presidential candidate was determined to play the game to the end. He adopted all the accepted maxims on the needs and requirements of American national security. Nor, in the flush of victory in the primaries, did he omit the worst mantra of the Bush era, "the war on terrorism". It remains to be seen whether he will add a new text beneath this heading. He certainly gave no clear answers on any major international issues, apart from perhaps the occupation of Iraq, although there are certainly international affairs that propelled for the change in his favour. The growing power of China and Russia and the erosion of America's financial clout, for example, were interpreted as by-products of the failure of the Bush administration. Then came the fiscal crisis at the peak of the campaign, solidifying his already massive base of support and adding additional impetus. As the game entered the final round Obama had won the support of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other mouthpieces from the centres of power of the economy, politics, culture and the arts. He was the candidate to spearhead the coming change. There might be some risk in his being black but the economic crisis silenced all reservations and carried all opinion polls. The candidate accepted all the American establishment's pieties with regard to the alliance with Israel. His subsequent appointments have proven that his position was not just campaign talk. He even went so far as to dwell on the emotional link between himself as a candidate from an oppressed minority and the oppressed immigrant people of Israel (another myth), in the course of which he drowned us in a flood of unctuous sentiment, obsequious flattery, identity gibberish and biographical anecdotes, all of which betray the likelihood that his administration will follow the same policy of allying itself with the occupation against the people under occupation and justify this on the basis of Zionist clichés and hand-me-down tales fabricated by very selective memories. Obama is the product of two major changes. His election is a change, or an expression of change. It is a historical change and it will fire the imagination of many around the world who are discontent with their current reality. But will he, personally, change anything? Does he have anything to offer but himself? It is too early to say. So far we have not seen any sign of the change he has promised, apart, perhaps, from the ingenuity with which he ran his campaign and bested Hillary Clinton. As for his policies, he has promised to change Bush's policy but not American policy up to Bush. The fact that he was elected is a good sign: he, personally, is not a good sign yet.
