|
Barack Obama may not be the first African American to launch a
serious bid for the US presidency, but he seems to be the first to
have successfully convinced mainstream Americans that he is not all
that hung up on race. Why should he? He is, after all, only
half-black.
In contrast, Rev. Jesse Jackson’s presidential
bid in the 1980s rode on his so-called Rainbow Coalition. The
multiethnic contraption was supposed to represent his notion of
unity in diversity. However, it only managed to frighten WASPs and
other Caucasian Americans that the former civil rights firebrand
meant to bring together blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans
and other minorities in a grand alliance against the white
establishment. True or not, the fear quickly marginalized
Jackson—who reinforced his image of being “too radical” by
going to Baghdad for an audience with Saddam Hussein soon after
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
Evidently, Obama has learned valuable lessons
from Jackson’s self-inflicted political marginalization. At one
point during the just-concluded Democratic Party primaries, he
sought to distance himself from the pastor of his own church in
Illinois and a supportive Catholic priest because of their vocal
denunciation of persistent racism in America. This was one race card
that Obama did not want to play—but that did not mean he was above
using the color of his skin to his advantage.
Early on in the primaries—when Hillary Clinton
still looked like a sure winner—Obama’s candidacy got the boost
it desperately needed when Oprah Winfrey came out to openly endorse
him. This, notwithstanding her now-famous sound bite: “I’m not
here to tell you what to think . . . ” There was little doubt that
the persuasive TV talk-show host had meant to rub off some of her
immense popularity—especially among her fan base that consists of
white suburban middle-class soccer moms—on him.
Throughout his campaign thus far, Obama has
sought to portray himself as a harmless black man who could validate
the notion that the USA is indeed a multiethnic democracy. Moreover,
beyond their borders, a growing number of Americans realize that
their country’s image needs reinvention.
At a time when the United States finds itself
confused by how much the rest of the world seems to dislike, if not
actually hate, it Obama’s supporters are hoping he could change
how foreigners look at America—and Americans. They are hoping that
his opposition to, say, the war in Iraq would tone down global
animosity toward the US. Even some foreign observers seem to believe
as much.
Will Obama—if he does ultimately get to occupy
the White House—actually alter US foreign policy in a big way?
Will he be able to make America look more like a solicitous friend
than a manipulative busybody, which is precisely how the rest of
world sees it now?
His campaign rides on the slogan, “a time for
change,” but would an Obama presidency really bring significant
changes to American foreign policy? Early indications are it
won’t.
On the day he clinched enough numbers in the
primaries to win the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama was
reported to have lavished praise on Israel—angering Palestinians
and other Arabs in the process.
In a dispatch from Washington DC, the Agence-France
Presse quoted Obama saying that Jerusalem must remain the undivided
capital of Israel , and that any Israel-Palestinian peace deal must
preserve Israel’s integrity as a Jewish state.
“I will bring to the White House an unshakable
commitment to Israel ’s security,” Obama said—reiterating the
foreign policy bias of the current and previous US administrations.
While it raised Arab hackles, Obama’s
pro-Israel declaration was calculated to blunt charges from the
Republican Party, which has branded him as the favored candidate of
the Islamist Hamas movement.
According to the Agence-France Presse report,
Obama spoke to the US-Israel lobby, targeting a perceived weakness
with Jewish voters, and Republican claims that he is naive on
national security.
At one point in his speech before the
America-Israel Public Affairs Council, Obama said, “the bond
between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today,
unbreakable tomorrow and unbreakable forever.”
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the root
of America ’s and, for that matter, the rest of the world’s
insecurity. The United States has staunchly stood by the Jewish
state even after brazen US partiality stimulated the rise of
Pan-Arab nationalism, Muslim militancy and, now, Islamist terrorism.
Given his declaration of undying support to
Israel, any hope that an Obama presidency would lead to genuine
change in US foreign policy—and turn America into an impartial
arbiter of international disputes—quickly vanished.
Obama merely confirmed suspicions that he is
indeed an Oreo—black outside, white inside.
dansoy26@yahoo.com
|
