With the residual global hoopla surrounding Obama’s ascent to the White House, it’s been easy to miss the significance of the policies he’s implemented as President.

By Junaid Achmad

Roughly four months ago, Barack Obama was inaugurated as the President of the United States. The youthful and charismatic politician won a sizeable electoral victory after a campaign in which he offered himself as the “candidate of change”, and resonated with the public’s enormous opposition to the war in Iraq, their disgust with the Bush administration’s incessant violations of the Constitution and civil liberties, and the increasing concern around the global economic crisis. The world met Obama’s victory with hope and excitement, but it may well have missed the finer details of the policies he’s implemented since his election.

Primarily, Obama’s victory ends a long period of conservative ideological dominance over U.S. politics. For many Americans who are losing their jobs and their homes, the economic crisis has already discredited the dogma of deregulation, tax cuts, free trade and commodification of everything that characterised the neoliberal doctrine of the last generation. The fact that this “new era” emerges during the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression creates the space for the discussion of a wide range of political options.

As Obama’s term begins, the Republicans and rightwing forces seem to be befuddled, uncertain of how to deal with the new era and the widespread public rejection they have suffered. Nevertheless, they are attempting to wage an opposition to Obama’s strategies, identifying them as “big-government” liberal approaches.

As this opposition heightens, it will put the pressure on Obama and the Democrats. Will they meet the expectations their election raised to implement a progressive agenda? Or, in the name of “bipartisanship”, will Obama defer to the right, as many believe he has already begun to do? Obama has the greatest opportunity since the Reagan administration to significantly shift and shape U.S. politics and society, but because of pressure from the American political establishment, the President seems all too often to be beholden to political orthodoxy and its many advocates in policy circles and the academy. Indeed, within his administration, Obama has drawn from the same social circles to be found in the Bush administration, including those members of the financial elite most closely associated with the speculative bonanza on Wall Street.

The paradox between new approaches and old assumptions means that there is ample chance for the “change” that Obama called for to be subverted, and for his supporters to be thoroughly disappointed, too.

In foreign policy, Obama is making some modifications that will be welcomed by antiwar forces and generally by the international community. He has moved to shut down the Guantánamo Bay prison camp and promised to downsize the US presence in Iraq, although he reminds us constantly of the “residual” American forces that will have to remain to combat “terrorism” in Iraq. Obama’s style is different to Bush’s, with more of an emphasis on language such as diplomacy and human rights, rather than positioning every foreign policy issue as part of the “war on terror”. Nevertheless, these shifts are accompanied by the “surge” of US forces in Afghanistan – which has the potential of becoming a disaster as great as the Vietnam War – and an expanded war theatre involving Pakistan. Despite a rhetorical commitment to the “peace process”, Obama’s approach to Israel/Palestine does not seem likely to deviate from the standard US policy of unashamed total support for Israel. Furthermore, Obama’s foreign policy team, led by Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, don’t seem to have any idea of how to manage Iraq without strengthening Iran, or of how to confront the insurgency in Afghanistan without further destabilising Pakistan and the entire West Asian region. The uncertainty doesn’t bode well for an Obama administration which may find itself facing one crisis after another, when what it really wants is a sustained, overarching, progressive vision to guide its policies.

Obama promised change, but for those most in need, it’s been slow in coming. Massive popular anger below the surface brought Obama to power, and it seems like it will be continue to be contingent upon those who desire to see more meaningful change to organise, and to push from below to achieve it.

Junaid S. Ahmad is a PhD Candidate in Religious Studies at UCT.