22 de outubro de 2009

A ilusão de Obama

David Bromwich



Tradução / Bem antes de se tornar presidente, Barack Obama já dava sinais de prometer com facilidade e ceder com frequência. Moderado por temperamento, sempre foi claro que, uma vez eleito, ele se inclinaria para o centro. Mas havia algo de estranho na rapidez com que cunhou um slogan declarando que seu governo olharia para o futuro e não para o passado. Reduzido à prática, o slogan queria dizer que Obama preferiria não expor muitos dos atos ilegais da administração Bush. O valor da conciliação vencia o imperativo da verdade. Obama representava “as coisas que nos unem e não as que nos dividem”. Uma desagradável correção de erros passados poderia ser vista como retaliação e o novo presidente não permitiria que um equívoco dessa natureza atrapalhasse seus objetivos ecumênicos.

The message about uniting not dividing was not new. It was spoken in almost the same words by Bill Clinton in 1993; and after his midterm defeat in 1994, Clinton borrowed Republican policies in softened form – school dress codes, the repeal of welfare. The Republican response was unappreciative: they launched a three-year march towards impeachment. Os apelos de Obama pela harmonia, e seus gestos de conciliação, encontraram uma recepção uniformemente negativa. A bem da verdade, os republicanos estão tratando o sucessor de George W. Bush pior do que trataram Bill Clinton. Obama apenas parece mais estável porque a grande imprensa, que detestava Clinton de forma irracional, levantou-se em sua defesa. Mas existem inúmeras fontes de informação alternativas, capitaneadas pela Fox News Radio e Fox TV, as estações de Rupert Murdoch. Dessa fonte brotou um discurso que atingiu 20 milhões de ouvintes, no início do verão americano. A mensagem era coerente, detalhada e subvertia a ordem estabelecida. Visava atacar a legitimidade do presidente e prometia uma insurreição. Convocava-se um vago exército de furiosos e ressentidos a manifestar seu desprezo por Barack Obama e a exibir lealdade a princípios que poderiam estar ameaçados — o direito ao porte de armas, o direito de não pagar por planos de saúde. When representatives from Congress addressed town-hall meetings in the late summer, men in several states came armed with guns in leg holsters. O rancor dessa gente vinha da hostilidade ao projeto do sistema de saúde anunciado pelo presidente — projeto que detestavam sem tê-lo visto e que sequer fora explicado com clareza suficiente para compensar a desconfiança. (Clinton made the mistake of handing the construction of a national health system to his wife and a group of advisers she consulted in private. Obama, to avoid that error, left the framing and elaboration of a bill to five committees of Congress: an experiment in dissociation that rendered him blameless but also clueless beyond the broadest of rhetorical commitments.) But beneath all the accusations was a disturbance no ordinary answer could alleviate. The America these people grew up with was being taken away from them. That formulation occurred again and again on talk radio. Barack Obama passou a ser apresentado por determinados setores como o símbolo perfeito das forças que ludibriavam o povo americano, roubando-o de seus direitos de nascença. “Esse cara”— outra expressão comum — não tinha o direito de impor leis aos americanos.

When the Clinton impeachment was going forward, Obama was a young Chicago politician with other things on his mind. He could have learned something then about how the Republicans work. The most questionable of his appeals in the primary campaign against Hillary Clinton was the endlessly repeated bromide with which he dissociated himself from ‘the partisan bickering of the 1990s’ – a piece of spurious evenhandedness if there ever was one. Bill Clinton, who gained his national stature in the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, had been as much a prudent adjuster and adapter as Obama. The fury of the attack on Clinton, which started a few months into his presidency, was not the bickering of two rival parties exactly comparable in point of incivility. Yet such was Obama’s convenient picture of the recent past.

Atrasos na aprovação do “pacote de estímulo” para revigorar a economia após o colapso financeiro de 2008 e, depois, do projeto do sistema de saúde deveram-se em grande medida à espera de Obama para que os republicanos concedessem a essas medidas uma aura de unanimidade bipartidária. Alguns, de fato, votaram a favor do estímulo econômico. Nenhum encampou a proposta do novo sistema de saúde. Os republicanos se mantêm onde estavam e assistem à estatura política do presidente diminuir. Os motivos de Obama para esperar certamente têm algo a ver com o medo. Ele recebe quatro vezes mais ameaças de morte que George W. Bush. Também se vê contido por um desejo natural dos moderados — o de se manter próximo de todas as instituições ao mesmo tempo: militares, financeiras, legislativas, comerciais. Fosse o mundo ideal, ele poderia inspirar a todos e ofender a ninguém. Mas a ideia de acomodar os inimigos gradualmente para chegar ao consenso parece, em Obama, quase um delírio no sentido mais literal: uma crença estabelecida em algo que não existe. Como ela teria chegado a dominar um homem tão inteligente?

Até agora a carreira de Obama não contava com realizações singulares pelas quais ele fosse o único responsável. Sua experiência parece não ter lhe ensinado a lei da seleção natural da política, em que as maiorias se formam dos que sobraram. Qualquer ato concreto produz pequenas multidões de desiludidos. A política é feita de sentimentos feridos que só o tempo pode curar, se é que cura. Essa é uma verdade que confronta Obama em diversos campos, mas que ele não aceita com facilidade. Sua forma de pensar se aproxima do espírito do Iluminismo, que supõe que um conjunto de procedimentos corretos jamais pode ser descrito e plenamente compreendido sem ser aceito.

The Republican Party of 2009 is a powerful piece of contrary testimony. It has become the party of wars and jails, and its moral physiognomy is captured by the faces of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, faces hard to match outside Cruikshank’s drawings of Dickens’s villains, hard as nails and mean as dirt and with an issue still up their sleeve when wars wind down and the jails are full: a sworn hostility towards immigrants and ‘aliens’. The anti-immigrant bias – from which George W. Bush and John McCain were free, but which both were powerless to counteract – is an underground stream of the party that makes it a bearer of racist sentiments no longer avowable in public. I have been studying the ante-bellum South, for a course on the career of Abraham Lincoln, and have been struck by the resemblance between the Republicans today and the pre-Civil War Democrats. The model of the Republicans today is John C. Calhoun, the political theorist of the slave South and deviser of the rationale for local nullification of federal policies.

Ele age como se fosse o líder de um partido inexistente, como se paciência e um temperamento cordato pudessem trazer à tona o melhor em todos os homens. Ele parece falar, ao mesmo tempo ou alternadamente, como um organizador e um mediador, um líder nacional e um curandeiro. Há algo de estranho nessa alternância de posturas, do ponto de vista da prudência pragmática. As grandes bandeiras que ele levantou nos primeiros meses — a decisão de fechar Guantánamo, de pressionar pelo estabelecimento de dois Estados como solução para Israel e a Palestina, e de reformar o seguro-saúde com um plano nacional — foram apresentadas com um prefácio grandioso, seguido por meses de silêncio. Deixou que seus agentes, conselheiros ou o partido — se possível, os partidos, tanto o democrata quanto o republicano — cuidassem dos detalhes. Só que, durante a longa espera, são justamente as características mais marcantes de suas intenções que acabam sendo atenuadas. Thus, a new kind of pressure on Israel and a resolve to create a Palestinian state appeared to be signalled by his Cairo speech in early June. It was a thoughtful speech, and a courageous one, even if you took it as a series of propositions uttered at a certain time in a certain place. Simply to address the Muslims of the world without condescension was sure to make him unforgiving enemies on the American right – including the considerable body of Christian Zionists in the Southern and border states – and Obama went to Cairo and delivered his speech knowing that. Yet the four months since have seemed much longer than four months. Israel has sapped and undermined the settlement freeze. Binyamin Netanyahu gambled that he could trespass against objections by Obama’s negotiators, Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell, and the gamble has worked. The American desiderata were never backed by a sanction, and the Netanyahu government approved thousands of new units for the expansion of the Israeli colonies. This the Americans called ‘not helpful’.

O sistema de saúde, por sua vez, foi sendo minado por uma agenda diferente de negligência. Primeiro houve um longo verão de doutrinação conservadora pelo rádio, que tornou a oposição à mudança tão clamorosa que muitos encontros políticos regionais explodiram em tumultos. Foi somente no dia 9 de setembro que Obama falou para uma sessão conjunta do Congresso. Ali, finalmente, fez uma defesa concatenada e impressionante de seu plano. O discurso devolveu seus índices de popularidade para mais de 50% de aprovação e foi maculado apenas pelo grito de um representante da Carolina do Sul: “O senhor está mentindo!” Violar o silêncio daquele salão monumental requer premeditação e violência tão deliberadas quanto as que seriam necessárias para gritar “Inferno!” dentro de uma catedral. Com isso, a discórdia que o discurso de 9 de setembro pretendia minorar voltou a dar as caras diante do próprio discurso. Os Estados Unidos estão cheios de cidadãos que sentem cheiro de tirania em todo e qualquer programa do governo federal. E de cidadãos não fanáticos e de poucas posses, que ficam se perguntando como seus filhos vão pagar a conta das medidas de emergência adotadas pelo governo.

Early suspicion of the bank bail-outs found a ready target of displaced resentment in the later demand for health insurance reform. Healthcare had never seemed a main concern of Obama’s as a candidate, and this looked like one more exorbitance. O novo presidente tinha bancado uma conta imensa, perto de 1 trilhão de dólares, para pagar as corretoras e evitar uma depressão. Ele esperava uma gratidão que não recebeu. Sua escolha tática jamais seria facilmente explicável em um cenário em que tantos banqueiros sobreviveram, enquanto tantas pessoas comuns perderam casas e empregos. As medidas tomadas por Obama não tinham justificativa fácil. Ademais, alertou o presidente: “Vocês também estão perdendo a cobertura do seu seguro-saúde!” But in a country where 85 per cent have coverage of some sort, more have been worrying about their homes and their jobs. Most people’s health insurance payments are taken out of their monthly pay cheques and put into private plans offered by their employers; when an employer cuts your job you lose the insurance too; but it betrayed a planner’s conceit in Obama to imagine that people would worry first, and most acutely, about the loss of their insurance. Many without a history of political resentment, some of whom voted for Obama, are startled that they keep being asked to foot the bill. It was easier to blame ‘big government’ than to say that the bankers and brokers and the whole financial establishment, with Goldman Sachs at its core, did not deserve the bail-outs. Obama’s speech on 9 September arrived too late to work as a counter-charm. Num país em que 85% da população têm algum tipo de cobertura, a preocupação maior, porém, era com suas casas e empregos. Para a maioria desses 85%, os pagamentos pelo seguro-saúde saem de seus contracheques e vão direto para os planos privados oferecidos por seus empregadores; quando um empregador corta o seu emprego, você perde o seguro também. Só que Obama imaginou que as pessoas se preocupariam primeiro e mais agudamente com o seguro. Muitos sem histórico de ressentimento político, alguns dos quais votaram em Obama, ficam surpresos ao serem solicitados a pagar a conta. Era mais fácil culpar o "grande governo" do que dizer que os banqueiros e corretores e todo o establishment financeiro, com o Goldman Sachs no seu núcleo, não mereciam os resgates. O discurso de Obama de 9 de setembro veio tarde demais para funcionar como antídoto.

The pattern of the major announcement, the dilatory follow-up and the tardy self-defence has shown an alarming consistency in his administration. Obama ordenou o fechamento da prisão da baía de Guantánamo como o primeiro ato de sua presidência. Oito meses depois, Guantánamo continua aberta e sem solução, a data de seu fechamento foi adiada e a questão de o que fazer com os prisioneiros se tornou um dos assuntos mais candentes que confrontam a autoridade presidencial. After signing the order in January, he took a long break; and his enemies rallied. Two elements of the syndrome should be distinguished. Primeiro, Obama está tentando fazer muita coisa ao mesmo tempo, nem tudo isso é causado pelos desastres do governo anterior. It is also beginning to appear that Obama has a slower ratio to the passage of time than most politicians. When he was attacked for the Guantánamo order, on the grounds that it placed the security of Americans in jeopardy, he let it be known that the issue was undergoing reappraisal; then, on 21 May, he gave a speech on law and national security at the National Archives: the worst speech of his presidency. He said that his paramount duty was ‘to keep the American people safe’: that word, safe, which was accorded a primacy by George W. Bush it had not been given by any earlier president, Obama himself now ranked ahead of the words justice, right, liberty and constitution. The National Archives speech was, more particularly, a response to the charges made by Dick Cheney over several preceding weeks.

In a speech delivered on the same day, 21 May, the former vice president, who has never really retired, gave a digest of his own published criticisms. The decision to release photos of the victims of torture, and to rule out ‘enhanced interrogation methods’ in the future, could only ‘lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people’. Cheney intimated that if an attack occurred in the coming years, the fault would be Obama’s for having restored an antiquarian understanding of civil liberties and obedience to international law. Obama’s answer was sober and resolute in appearance, but, in detail, the National Archives speech was a capitulation on most of the points specified by Cheney. Prisoners would now be divided into five categories: those who could be freed because they were innocent; those who could be extradited to foreign countries; those who fell under the jurisdiction of military tribunals; those who could be tried in civilian courts in the US; and then a fifth category – those whom we lacked evidence to convict but who (it had been decided) were too dangerous to set free. These prisoners would be held indefinitely under a new legal dispensation still to be devised.

Preventive detention was a step President Nixon had proposed to Congress in 1970, but he never found the support or the temerity to put the programme into effect. Yet here was a Democratic president and professor of constitutional law doing what Nixon and for that matter Cheney and his assistants had only dreamed of. We have yet to see the final result, but the lesson of the encounter would seem to be: when you announce a great change, steal a march on your opponents by clinching the declaration with the deed. In no decision of his administration has Obama followed the wisdom of that Machiavellian precept. His government is also hampered by its want of a spokesman who can hit hard with words when the president wishes not to be seen to strike. Obama’s confidant David Axelrod, who managed his campaign and is often summoned to speak to the press on his behalf, emits a pleasant porridge of upper-media demotic. Another close adviser, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago friend, is a technocrat to the bone, genially officious but lacking in any pith and point. These people are no match for Cheney, or for the president’s antagonists in the substitute media who speak under no restraint.

What Cheney and the radio demagogues sowed, the less gifted members of the Republican minority in Congress gratefully reaped. The minority leader of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, said on 17 September on the PBS show NewsHour: ‘We’re in the middle of a modern-day political rebellion in America.’ Interviewer: ‘Rebellion?’ Boehner: ‘Rebellion’. He repeated the word without compunction, and added: ‘I’ve never seen anything like this.’ The tone of our public ‘conversation’ (he chose with malice the soft liberal word) Boehner pronounced to be healthy. He only hoped the crowds ‘would be civil’ or somehow would not become ‘too hateful’. But with Cheney at its head – a rebel against the constitution and a man above the laws since 2002 – the popular movement for nullification of the laws of the federal government has again become a force in American life.

Talk radio in the United States is a law unto itself. With the diffusion of authority that has followed wide adoption of the internet, Fox News Radio and Fox TV may be the only major outlets that still command a sizeable fraction of the audience of the old networks. The intuition of Obama and his advisers must have been that any protest in these byways of discourse was right-wing business as usual. That lazy assumption left them unequipped for the gravity of the challenge. They thought the anger would simmer and die down. It did not occur to them that it might simmer and boil. If a threat is seen to spring from a determined opponent, Obama’s inclination is generally to let it go. He will emerge (he trusts) in the long run as the man who takes long views. By the effects of these postponements, however, he is forever giving new hostages to the truckle of compromise; he is put in the position of backing away while his enemies pick up strength; and in a leader whose nature is conciliatory, this means that the declared scope of every undertaking slowly shrinks and recedes. Guantánamo will be closed but not as soon as we said. Israel must recognise the wrong of further expansion of the settlements, but Israel will not be required to stop soon. Healthcare will be passed on some terms or other, but government will not compete with the big insurers; price reductions will be conceived and executed by private consortiums; illegal immigrants will stay uninsured; and even legal immigrants will be prohibited from buying coverage.

There were plenty of people in December 2008 who nursed a prejudice against Obama but were still in search of reasons to back it. Rush Limbaugh was the radio talker who brought those people to a boil. Limbaugh’s style is a mixture of bluster, clowning and poison, in proportions hard to capture without his voice in your ear – a ‘fat’ voice, someone called it, that shifts in a beat from muttering to imprecation. It is always excited, always breathless, yet the pace is unhurried. Part of the appeal lies in a conscious and amiable egotism. ‘Rush Limbaugh,’ he will introduce himself after an ad, ‘with talent on loan from God.’ ‘El Rushbaugh, serving humanity (simply by being here).’ He tells people to believe him and believe no one else: ‘Shown by scientific study to be right 99.1 per cent of the time.’ He was capable, early, of nicknaming Obama ‘Bamster’ (to rhyme with ‘ham’), a semi-affectionate take-down in the parlance of fraternity boys. He nicknamed the health plan, with automatic sarcasm, ‘ObamaCare’. But the tone grew noticeably more bitter by late July. ‘You don’t know how difficult it is for me to say: the president of the United States is lying through his teeth.’ By 5 August it was ominous to the point of open menace: ‘The president of the United States, who is president of all of us, has decided to take aim at over half of the American people as political opponents.’

He was the scourge of Obama in the summer, a palpable challenge to his claim of legitimacy, as much as Cheney was in the spring. On his show of 27 July, Limbaugh could boast without exaggeration: ‘July is the month of horrors for Obama and the Democrats. And I am largely the reason why.’ In the absence of these accusers, the Republican Party would be adrift. With the impetus of such voices, it now stands a chance of winning the midterm elections in 2010. Limbaugh was placed on the defensive some months ago when he said that he wanted President Obama to fail. This seemed an insult to the office as well as the man. It also seemed to suggest a peculiarly self-separating definition of national loyalty. But he justified himself by remarking that Obama’s success would mean the end of America as we knew it. (The president had to fail for the country to succeed.) A link between Cheney and Limbaugh certainly exists. Limbaugh, unlike the other far right hosts, shuns the interviewing of guests, and yet Cheney, who for his part shuns interviews, was the guest of Limbaugh even when he was vice president. More recently Limbaugh has interviewed him in the role of ex officio party counsellor.

When I started taking notes for this piece at the end of the summer, violence was in the air. Has it passed? A protest march was shepherded to the Washington Mall and a monster rally of 100,000 was held on 12 September, the day after the anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. One message of the demonstration was a rebuke of Obama’s supposed offence against patriotic memory by his naming of 11 September as National Day of Service and Remembrance. Service – except for military service – is heard on the American right as a codeword or moral wedge for socialism: it is to socialism as doubt is to atheism. Probably they wanted something more like Pearl Harbor Day (though that is no longer commemorated). But when was there ever a rational fit between the size of a grievance flourished by an audience like this and a single cause the crowd can name?

‘They’ve taken on too much, too fast,’ Limbaugh said of Obama’s domestic curriculum, ‘and they’re not doing it right.’ That was in late spring; and it was close to common sense. By late summer the mood on the right was reminiscent of the rage against Kennedy in 1962, which passed through November 1963 unchastened, and attained a temporary climax with the nomination of Barry Goldwater as the Republican presidential candidate in 1964. It surfaced again in the run-up to the Clinton impeachment in 1996-97; but the fury of that time was allowed to take a detour through sex mania. Given the emotions he was up against, Clinton may have got off lightly.

Malthus’s doctrine on population and the necessity of many living in adversity, Hazlitt wrote, was a gospel ‘preached to the poor’. Equality in the United States in the early 21st century has become a gospel preached by the liberal elite to a populace who feel they have no stake in equality. Since the Reagan presidency and the dismemberment of the labour unions, America has not known a popular voice against the privilege of the large corporations. Yet without such a voice from below, all the benevolent programmes that can be theorised, lacking the ground note of genuine indignation, have turned into lumbering ‘designs’ espoused by the enlightened for moral reasons that ordinary people can hardly remember. The gambling ethic has planted itself deep in the America psyche – deeper now than it was in 1849 or 1928. Little has been inherited of the welfare-state doctrine of distributed risk and social insurance. The architects of liberal domestic policy, put in this false position, make easy prey for the generalised slander that says that all non-private plans for anything are hypocritical.

Afghanistan is the largest and the most difficult crisis Obama confronts away from home. And here the trap was fashioned largely by himself. He said, all through the presidential campaign, that Iraq was the wrong war but Afghanistan was the right one. It was ‘a war of necessity’, he said this summer. And he has implied that he would accept his generals’ definition of the proper scale of such a war. Now it appears that Afghanistan is being lost, indeed that it cannot be controlled with fewer than half a million troops on the ground for a decade or more. The generals are for adding troops, as in Vietnam, in increments of tens of thousands. Their current request was leaked to Bob Woodward, who published it in the Washington Post on 21 September, after Obama asked that it be kept from the public for a longer interval while he deliberated. The leak was an act of military politics if not insubordination; its aim was to show the president the cost of resisting the generals.

The political establishment has lined up on their side: the addition of troops is said to be the most telling way Obama can show resoluteness abroad. This verdict of the Wall Street Journal, the Post and (with more circumspection) the New York Times was taken up by John McCain and Condoleezza Rice. If Obama declined at last to oppose Netanyahu on the settlement freeze, he will be far more wary of opposing General Petraeus, the commander of Centcom. Obama is sufficiently humane and sufficiently undeceived to take no pleasure in sending soldiers to their deaths for a futile cause. He will have to convince himself that, in some way still to be defined, the mission is urgent after all. Afghanistan will become a necessary war even if we do not know what marks the necessity. Robert Dole, an elder of the Republican Party, has said he would like to see Petraeus as the Republican candidate in 2012. Better to keep him in the field (this must be at least one of Obama’s thoughts) than to have him to run against.

For Obama to do the courageous thing and withdraw would mean having deployed against him the unlimited wrath of the mainstream media, the oil interest, the Israel lobby, the weapons and security industries, all those who have reasons both avowed and unavowed for the perpetuation of American force projection in the Middle East. If he fails to satisfy the request from General McChrystal – the specialist in ‘black ops’ who now controls American forces in Afghanistan – the war brokers will fall on Obama with as finely co-ordinated a barrage as if they had met and concerted their response. Beside that prospect, the calls of betrayal from the antiwar base that gave Obama his first victories in 2008 must seem a small price to pay. The best imaginable result just now, given the tightness of the trap, may be ostensible co-operation with the generals, accompanied by a set of questions that lays the groundwork for refusal of the next escalation. But in wars there is always a deep beneath the lowest deep, and the ambushes and accidents tend towards savagery much more than conciliation.

Sobre o autor

David Bromwich teaches English at Yale. How Words Make Things Happen is out now.

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário

Guia essencial para a Jacobin

A Jacobin tem divulgado conteúdo socialista em ritmo acelerado desde 2010. Eis aqui um guia prático para algumas das obras mais importantes ...