I woke up the morning of November 4th feeling a strange surge of excitement pulse through me, one which I have never felt: an excitement about American electoral politics. Who would have thought that I – with my revolutionary-esque banter and permanent global-migrant status – would be remotely invigorated by the politics of a country which, especially over the last 8 years, has aggravated every jaded bone in my body with its persistently abusive policies both domestically and abroad? And yet there I was in Chicago’s Grant Park in what a friend called “a sea of humanity”: standing in long lines and tight crowds, waiting on my feet for hours, jumping up and down, and cheering alongside the rest of those who were waiting not only to witness history, but to be touched by a single moment.
And when that moment finally came, it was marked by leaps of joy, incredulous laughter, long-overdue tears, hugs from strangers, passionate embraces by loved ones, continuous applause, and phone calls to relatives announcing, “This is what victory sounds like baby!”
I haven’t fully absorbed the historic and momentous significance of that moment; the fact that it will soon be on AP History exams, let alone in a flood of newspapers, academic journals, and legal documents across the world. However, I gradually began to the next morning after speaking to a relative, a leftist-leaning academic and self-prescribed cynic, who expressed surprising levels of excitement and jubilation about Barack Obama the man, and what this election may mean for the future, especially potentially for third party politics. His 20+ years dedicated to public service in which he was actively engaged in community organizing, makes me trust him far more than most who have been in public office for much longer. It was striking that a man who was once living in a small apartment eating out of soup cans and whose mother was once on welfare, had broken the cycle of upper-middle class white presidential politics not just as a black man, but as a black man with the middle name Hussein in a post 9/11 world. Ultimately, his diverse, often dichotomous, life experiences have made him a compilation of the American experience and an embodiment for reconciling historically opposing forces: white vs. black, Anglo vs. African, privileged vs. poor, and perhaps even America vs. the world.
For me, Obama’s greatest source of trust is his background. The fact that he has lived in and has relatives from other countries, that he has met not simply with world leaders, but more importantly that he has had personal interactions with people overseas, makes me less uneasy about the foreign policies he will implement – one I hope will be defined by negotiation and diplomacy, rather than “let’s bomb this place back to the stone-age”; one that will not blindly defend state policies guiding the deaths of millions of children simply by saying, “it was worth it.”
Based on the world’s reaction, I’m not the only one who feels that way. Whether it was people joyfully marching through the streets of Kenya and Paris, school children singing in Jakarta, or Egyptians congratulating American tourists – people around the world reveled in Barack Obama’s victory, embracing him as someone who could potentially alleviate symptoms of the catastrophic plague which the Bush administration so graciously presented us. Even those in Pakistan and Iran – two countries which the US has deeply censured and isolated itself from – are offering their congratulations, saying things like “Mu-Barack ho!” A student of Farsi made me aware of a Persian saying which can be transliterated and translated as follows: “o-ba-ma wa ma-ba-o” or “He’s with us, and we are with him.” And you know President Barack Obama’s won big when people around the world have pledged their support for him by becoming his ”facebook fans.”
It’s all definitely super-exciting. But as the confetti gets cleaned up, the euphoric crowds go home, and the quiet of everyday life sets in, I can’t help but begin to have concerns; about what the words hope and change will come to mean. Although I believe in Obama, his abilities, and his intentions – I’m weary of putting both feet in the pond and trusting the political machine backing him. My elation has been unfortunately short-lived, tinged with a sense of realism when announcements were made recently that Obama has asked pro-Israel hardliner Rahm Emanuel to serve as his White House Chief of Staff. It’s unfortunate, but considering the long-standing parasitic relationship between the United States and Israel, it’s not unexpected.
Something else worries me: that the election of a black president will make people believe they can go into a state of comatose on the issue of race in this country. The weekend before the election, I attended a conference by the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations here in Chicago on “The State of Race: Redefining Identity, Building Power, Changing Communities.” Their key-note speaker was the anti-racist activist and author, Tim Wise, whose op-ed piece “white privilege” became a popular pass-around in cyberspace. One of the many things he said which stands out in my memory was: “A black person and a white person can have a black baby. But a black person and a white person cannot have a white baby.” It’s a simple statement, but packs a lot – foreshadowing the unfortunate reality that Obama’s slip-ups as president will most probably be analyzed and censured more harshly. It made me think about my own ingrained notions of race, and the dynamics of a social construct which I unknowingly endorse. As one panelist articulated, “We are dealing with the world the way it is, rather than the way it should be.” Although I was unfortunately unable to film his entire speech, I was able to capture these important five minutes where he discusses Obama and the impact of race in his presidential bid. Perhaps his most memorable quote at the event was: “Hope without truth can be dangerous.”
I admit: I have joined the ranks of Obama’s groupies… daring to hope and latching onto the belief that a new day is on the horizon, that anything’s possible. I never thought I would so publicly support an American politician, let alone a politician in general. However, given his story and the story of the future filled with countless possibilities he so poignantly illustrates for us, hope, trust and belief in better days are impossible feelings to defy. Yet, I tread cautiously into such aspirations, not wanting to fall into dangerous delusions of expecting perfection, not wanting to be unrealistically greedy that I should want more so fast from a man and his supporters whom, in many respects, have given us something so great already… a first step.
4 Comments
November 6, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Salaam,
Good post but what you have to understand is that the chief of staff is not a policy maker in international matters. The most he can do is give advice. His main job is to get things done around the white house. The secretary of state and all those main people in the cabinet including the President are the decesion makers. Chief of staff has very little input if any in matters concerning international and domestic matters.
November 7, 2008 at 8:03 pm
ASAK!!!
Awesome blog Amina!!!! I got here thru facebook, which probably the only good thing that website has done for me in a while.
You’re right, those of us who have had a taste of international politics feel like we are too smart to start feeling idealistic or romantic about one politician or one election…but Obama definitely tempts us!!!
Ofcourse Obama will have to compromise his personal beliefs with the agendas of Congress, lobbyists, and other influential groups. And although he may be president, a lot of the decisions coming out of Washington will be in the hands of the State department. I guess we will have to wait and see.
November 8, 2008 at 9:21 am
Thanks for the kind words guys. As for my comment about Obama’s selection of Emanuel, I’m aware that the chief of staff doesn’t dictate public policy, that it’s the president who dictates public policy. Which is why I reemphasize my belief in Obama. I like that he’s open and listens, and I’m impressed with the fact that he is not afraid to surround himself with people he disagrees with. I’m also well aware that he was among the few in the House who had enough integrity and foresight to oppose the War in Iraq.
Look, I don’t expect US Middle-East policy to change drastically, if at all. But that doesn’t mean I will discontinue having reservations about those in office who agree with the injustice being delved out in the region everyday since 1948, especially those who are the president’s “closest ear.” Hence why I said that although I trust Obama and believe in his abilities and intentions, I remain skeptical of the political machine he’s now in; making me wonder how that combination will come to define change.
November 19, 2008 at 12:45 am
I would be shocked if Obama makes any attempt at any major Middle East Peace deal involving a resolution to the conflict in the Levant. First, I would point out yes the White House Chief of Staff is a powerful figure in policy formation. It maybe more indirect then say Secretary of State but it is no the less significant because the Chief of Staff can dictate how much air time you can have with the President. I’m not particularly concerned about Emanuel in the fact he’s pro-Israeli… I’m more concerned in that he has a very partisan reputation which doesn’t mix well with Obama’s “change” message (for those of you who didn’t know he is in part the inspiration for the character Josh Lyman on the West Wing). And besides if you were really worried about pro-Israeli lobby well Obama has Dennis Ross as an adviser who worked for Aipac an Israeli lobbying firm. And having pro-Israeli advisers doesn’t spell doom for any peace initiative either. There “Peace Plan” is stagnant because there is no Palestinian partner to negotiate with. Hamas & Fatah must make up first and make a unity government otherwise the other will simply reject an negotiation the other has made on the simple ground of exclusion. They basically fought a civil war against each other resulting in Hamas controlled Gaza and Fatah held West Bank. This is not a relationship US can heal since they are too blame in part for the breakup. It will be up to the Arab states to push these parties to “kiss and makeup”. But the Arab states are just as divided… and there is a mini regional “Great Game” of sorts being played out in the Levant by Egypt, Jordan & Saudi vs. Syria and Iran. Any peace initiative will only have a fighting chance to succeed if Israel & Syria make peace. Although, they are in talks now there will be no change until Bush is gone and after Israeli elections are over (which are very tight). Which throws another dynamic into the mix if Likud wins and brings back hardliner Netanyahu then it will take greater pressure on the US’s part to compel Israel to give up the Golan (the pre-req for peace with Syria). If Israel & Syria can’t make peace then continued escalation between Hezbollah and Israel can produce a Sumer War Part 2 in which neither side will come out a clear wined and Lebanese and and northern Israelis will suffer. Not to mention Syria will continue to send aid and Iranian funds to Hamas which will make them less likely to want to make a deal with Fatah and create a unified Palestinians government which there needs to be if there is to be a two state solution. And without a Palestinian state and peace between Israel & Syria, Lebanon will continue to be a powder keg and the Lebanese people will be lucky if the Doha agreement lasts for more than a few years. The US role in all this is to push Israel to give back the Golan to Syria and make peace with formal diplomatic ties and stop settlement expansion. In exchange for Syria to clamp down on the various militant groups they fund and help compel a Hamas/Fatah union. Another dagger in the peace lover’s dream is the economy stupid. Obama’s #1 concern is the economy and I don’t see this being fixed very quickly and could quickly eat up his entire first term. Not to mention Obama’s peace in Iraq plan is really a transfer to Afghanistan plan. So there still will be a major conflict in a country which has never been subdued from Alexander the Great to the USSR. Bad economy + bloody War in Afghanistan and a possible spill over into dangerously instable Pakistan will make Obama look more like Nixon’s promise to end the war yet invaded Cambodia to do it… this can spell no second term which means no Peace deal in the next 4+ years. Now if the economy can be stabilized in 2 years or less then maybe we can have something going. So the amount of pressure US can put on Israel & Syria (which are incapable of making peace by themselves) will directly correlate on how quickly the economy recovers. I know I painted a bleak picture… but I hope it recovers quickly for people’s jobs and refugees alike. Just hope i’m wrong… As much as it’s magical to finally see an African American become President after what this country has gone through… it is equally important to note that the “happily ever after” doesn’t happen with just the election. Lets see what he can do!