The change machine is broken again

The always sane and worthwhile Mark Weisbrot (who writes frequently about Latin America generally and Venezuela in particular) points out yet another example of Obama continuity:

US-Latin American relations fell to record lows during the George Bush years, and there have been hopes – both north and south of the border – that President Barack Obama will bring a fresh approach. So far, however, most signals are pointing to continuity rather than change.

Obama started off with an unprovoked verbal assault on Venezuela. In an interview broadcast by the Spanish-language television station Univision on the Sunday before his inauguration, he accused Hugo Chávez of having "impeded progress in the region" and "exporting terrorist activities".

These remarks were unusually hostile and threatening even by the previous administration's standards. They are also untrue and diametrically opposed to the way the rest of the region sees Venezuela.

So despite an uncharacteristic bout of honesty by the State Department (which admitted that the Venezuelan referendum on term limits was conducted in a way that was "fully consistent with democratic practice"), things are looking to be the same or worse under Obama when it comes to Venezuela.

Then there's this incredibly ironic news:

The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism, pressing foreign governments to drop reparation demands for slavery. [...] U.N. officials have urged the Obama administration to participate in the review conference, saying that the election of the first African American president presents the United States with an opportunity to inspire other minorities around the world and to highlight U.S. progress in the years since slavery was abolished and blacks were granted civil rights.

So Obama is sticking to the longstanding U.S. practice of preventing discussion of reparations for the victims of slavery (which as far as I can tell was not intended to be limited to the United States, by the way).  This is entirely consistent with his practice of attacking blacks for his own political advantage, of course, so it's no surprise, but the least we should have been able to expect from the first black president was substantive change in the handling of racial issues.  I can hardly imagine a more pointed illustration of the fact that on issue after issue, the only change with Obama is the person, not the policy.

Comments

[James]

I can hardly imagine a more pointed illustration of the fact that on issue after issue, the only change with Obama is the person, not the policy.

Could we really have imagined anything else, though? Reparations for slavery is an idea opposed by more than 90% of Americans. It's simply not politically possible for Obama to suddenly change U.S. policy on that issue, especially in a U.N. forum, without deeply damaging his ability to deliver on his agenda.

[John Caruso]

I'm surprised you'd want to offer a justification for Obama's position here, given what you say on your web site (and again, I've seen no indication that the reparations issue would be specific to the United States). But this was just one of the two issues I covered in this posting—and in both cases (and many others I've mentioned in other postings) there's continuity between Obama and Bush and Clinton. The "he can't do that because then he'd be unable to deliver on the rest of his agenda" argument isn't convincing when the betrayals are so frequent and consistent.

Personally I'd say Obama is delivering on his agenda—it's just that his agenda isn't "change", but implementing policies that are largely indistinguishable from those of Bush, Clinton, et al, albeit with more competence and less rancor. That was clear from his platform during the campaign, though his rhetoric was intended to mask it as much as possible (as many of his supporters are discovering now, to their dismay).

[James]

I didn't intend to justify President Obama's position, John. I was simply trying to point out that a democratically-elected leader will rarely defy 90+% of the electorate, and certainly not in circumstances such as these (newly-elected, lengthy agenda, etc.).

I do agree that there's significant continuity between the last three U.S. administrations, especially in foreign policy. This isn't to say that the Obama administration isn't changing quite a bit, especially in domestic policy but also in foreign affairs; consider the willingness to return to the Durban review conference as just one recent example. But the last president, especially in his second term, moved considerably towards the consensus on foreign policy in this country, and Obama isn't exactly a radical leftist, either.

I think perhaps the issue is that you see some of these similar positions as "betrayals." How is opposing reparations for slavery a betrayal, when Obama has been opposed to reparations (at least in standard form) all along (as is, again, most of the country)? Who, exactly, is he betraying by criticizing Chávez for those activities that arguably conflict with U.S. interests?

[John Caruso]

Actually a democratically-elected leader will defy the majority of the electorate, so long as it's in the interests of major corporations that he do so. Also, you keep saying "90% of Americans" when the actual statistic appears to be "90% of white Americans". By contrast, in those results, 67% of black Americans favor reparations and 80% favor a formal apology. Which also answers the question of who's being betrayed in that case.

Setting aside the argument from popularity entirely, though, the point is that this is another instance of no change with Obama—and an exceedingly ironic one at that.

Regarding Chavez et al: the United States has supported right-wing dictatorships against poor and indigenous left-wing movements throughout Latin America for decades (or really centuries), with hundreds of thousands tortured, disappeared, and killed in unimaginably horrific ways—for the sin of trying to put their own interests above the interests of U.S. corporations. U.S. opposition to Chavez, Evo Morales, and other leftist/indigenous Latin American governments now is just a continuation of this policy, and it's a betrayal of the victims (past and present) and the survivors. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't feel that aligning ourselves with right-wing, anti-indigenous forces is in my interests—nor is it acceptable to me ethically or morally.

And again, the point of the posting was that this is yet another instance where there's no meaningful change with Obama. We'll see what happens going forward, but I'm not holding my breath.

Finally, regarding "the consensus on foreign policy" and the notion of "U.S. interests" you mention: I'd suggest that it's worth thinking carefully about whose consensus that is, and whose interests are being served.

[James]

I agree that democratically-elected leaders often defy the majority of the electorate. My point was that they will almost never defy 90+% of the electorate, and certainly not on controversial issues.

In terms of public opinion on reparations, we're seeing roughly similar numbers. That's a 2002 survey you link to. The most recent numbers I've seen show about the same thing: roughly two-thirds of blacks say they support "reparations for slavery," and well above 90% of whites are opposed.

I think even your 2002 survey, though, suggests it's 90+%. It seems to show that 96% of whites don't favor reparations, 33% of blacks, and so on. That could easily average to well over 90% of all Americans.

I don't see, though, how this constitutes any kind of betrayal. Surely people didn't think that Obama would radically change his views on reparations, the moment he entered the White House?

As for your objections to many right-wing U.S. actions in Latin America and to your concerns about whose interests are served by the broad consensus on foreign policy in this country, I'm certainly inclined to agree with you.

[John Caruso]

Beyond the (important) senses I've already discussed (which I won't rehash), "betrayal" was a casual reference to Obama's failure to change—i.e. a "betrayal" of his promise to bring change. And both of the items I mentioned in the posting certainly represent no change from previous administrations.

I'd agree that that's no surprise on reparations, though the harsh rhetoric about Chavez contradicts the conciliatory approach he said he'd adopt during the campaign. But nothing Obama has done so far is a surprise to me personally, because a) I know what to expect from Democrats and b) I paid attention to Obama's official positions. However, that's not so for millions of Obama voters, who were misled—as intended—by his "overheated rhetoric" into thinking there were significant changes coming (and many of them went the extra step and believed he'd contradict his official positions once he was in power).

Glad to hear we're in agreement about foreign policy.

[James]

Surely, John, Obama promised to bring change to the White House -- but not all kinds of change? He has brought change in a number of areas already, despite your personal feeling that it isn't enough change, and in a case like reparations for slavery, it was crystal-clear whether or not that was an area in which he intended to bring change.

You say that sending a delegation to the Durban review conference didn't represent any change from the Bush administration. Yet Bush refused to participate in the Durban process in any way, after having the U.S. walk out in 2001. Sending a delegation and explicitly raising the prospect of continuing is surely a change, even if Obama didn't change all aspects of the U.S. position on the substance of the conference?

It's interesting that you concede that Obama's actions in office to date match his stated positions during the campaign, yet you express concern for those who voted for him, millions of whom you worry will be surprised and feel betrayed. Assuming that millions of his supporters feel that way, how could it possibly constitute a betrayal of them by him? Would it, if anything, be a betrayal of him by them, if they turned on him because they wanted him to act contrary to his own positions and promises?

You can say that his rhetoric was "overheated," but that hardly excuses any expectations that he would act contrary to what he actually said he would do. Not to mention if anyone seriously, as you suggest, "believed he'd contradict his official positions once he was in power"; what a terrible and foolish thing for these hypothetical people to believe!

[John Caruso]

You can say that his rhetoric was "overheated,"...

No, James, it was Obama himself who said that (as he was in the process of backtracking on some of it)—as you'd see if you'd follow the link.

And I didn't "concede that Obama's actions in office to date match his stated positions during the campaign"; I said that I was able to see how he'd actually govern, because I know what to expect from Democrats and (on issues like Iraq) I read his official positions with that in mind, and also because I ignored his attempts to blow smoke on the campaign trail. There were others who were equally skeptical, but not bloody many. As for "hypothetical people", if you seriously want to contend that there aren't millions of Obama followers who took his amorphous hope and change rhetoric as an empty canvas on which to project their own interpretations—and that that was not only his intent but the very core of his campaign strategy—knock yourself out. It's certainly a common enough evasion these days among Obama apologists, just as Bush supporters never tired of saying that he never explicitly connected Iraq and al Qaeda.

Setting aside the question of how much change is enough (about which we apparently disagree), what I said in the posting—that the positions in question represent no change from previous U.S. policy—is absolutely true. If you don't think it matters in these instances and you're happy with whatever other change you feel you've seen, again, that's your prerogative.

[James]

No, James, it was Obama himself who said that

I realize he said that his campaign rhetoric could sometimes be overheated and overly simple, John. My point was that you said his rhetoric was overheated, as part of your argument that millions of voters were intentionally mislead by his words. I was simply saying that you can say his rhetoric was overheated, but that doesn't mean voters should expect particular changes in areas where he specifically said he wasn't going to change policy.

I didn't "concede that Obama's actions in office to date match his stated positions during the campaign"; I said that I was able to see how he'd actually govern, because I know what to expect from Democrats and (on issues like Iraq) I read his official positions ....

If I misunderstood you, John, then I apologize. But it still sounds to me as if you're saying that by reading his positions, you knew what to expect. Forget your supposed knowledge of the behavior of Democrats; if any of his positions didn't match what he'd done, you'd be saying so, right?

It's fine for you to speculate that millions of voters may have projected their desires onto Obama's calls for change. It may be true, and it may always be how many voters in a democracy respond to successful candidates and their rhetoric. I just think it makes no sense to blame Obama, much less to say it's a "betrayal" of those silly voters who thought anything other than what he said he'd do.

what I said in the posting—that the positions in question represent no change from previous U.S. policy—is absolutely true.

You said, "both of the items I mentioned in the posting certainly represent no change from previous administrations." Yet clearly, "The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism ..." represents a huge policy change. It was reported around the world as such, and rightly so. Bush administration stalwarts are furious, and understandably so.

Forget the fact that it was a clearly stated policy of the Bush administration not to attend Durban sessions. Two of our allies, Israel and Canada, boycotted the session last week. If they feel that's an important thing to do, do you really think they don't consider the U.S. breaking its boycott and attending the conference to be a change?

[John Caruso]

I just think it makes no sense to blame Obama, much less to say it's a "betrayal" of those silly voters who thought anything other than what he said he'd do.

You've misrepresented my use of "betrayal" throughout this thread (unintentionally, I assume), despite multiple explanations. It's all in my previous comments, and I won't explain it again.

I will say one more time that by your reasoning it makes no sense to blame George Bush for those silly Americans—about 75 percent of the population—who somehow, through no fault of his or his administration's, foolishly concluded in 2003 that Iraq was connected with al Qaeda.

You said, "both of the items I mentioned in the posting certainly represent no change from previous administrations." Yet clearly, "The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism ..." represents a huge policy change.

James, at the beginning of this thread you addressed my actual point: that there was no change on reparations (and in fact you agreed, and argued that that we shouldn't expect change). But now—for the second time—you're implying that I made some general statement about the Obama administration's participation in planning for Durban II. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming these repeated misrepresentations come from honest confusion, but it's hard to justify that when you make patently false assertions like "You say that sending a delegation to the Durban review conference didn't represent any change from the Bush administration." The statements I actually did make—that Obama's positions on Venezuela and reparations represent no change from previous administrations—are clearly true.

I'll make one last point, on the issue that you (not I) brought up. The United States attended a single preliminary consultation session in advance of the Durban II conference, without even commiting to attend another preliminary session, much less the conference itself—and without budging one iota on the previous U.S. policy of protecting Israel from condemnation for its racist/apartheid policies that was the source of the friction in the first place. You see that as "a huge policy change"; I see it as a microscopically tiny procedural difference in the way the identical policy is pursued. Like I said, we differ (tremendously, it's now clear) in how much change we think is enough. If you consider this level of change significant, wonderful—you'll no doubt find many more reasons to celebrate over the next four years. I don't, and I won't.

[James]

You've misrepresented my use of "betrayal" throughout this thread (unintentionally, I assume), despite multiple explanations.

In that case, John, I'm sorry. I've re-read your use of the word "betrayal" in this thread, however, and I must be missing something. You did say, at one point, that you meant the word to refer to "a casual reference to Obama's failure to change—i.e. a 'betrayal' of his promise to bring change." But you also refer specifically to Obama's policies as betraying millions of people.

You also write of millions of voters being intentionally mislead, which at one point is clearly the remark I'm responding to when *I* use the word betrayal.

by your reasoning it makes no sense to blame George Bush for those silly Americans—about 75 percent of the population—who somehow, through no fault of his or his administration's, foolishly concluded in 2003 that Iraq was connected with al Qaeda.

If you can point to statements of Obama's that misleading imply that he will change policies that he has not, I will concede this argument. I think you're simply saying that he talks in general terms of change, but doesn't bring as much change as you think he ought to, and doesn't change certain policies which he specifically said he wouldn't.

you're implying that I made some general statement about the Obama administration's participation in planning for Durban II.

No, I'm not. I pointed out that you said, "the positions in question represent no change from previous U.S. policy," when what you quoted about Durban was a substantial change in policy -- even if some of the specific positions taken by the U.S. delegation were similar to substantive positions of the previous administration. The fact that you want to focus on one of those policy positions is fine, but the words you quote from a new story are broader.

The statements I actually did make—that Obama's positions on Venezuela and reparations represent no change from previous administrations—are clearly true.

You're taking an ambiguous statement, twisting it to one possible interpretation, and then accusing me of malicious intent.

In fact, you said "both of the items I mentioned in the posting." One of those items was the quotation about the delegation attending Durban. If you want to limit that reference only to the position taken on reparations, fine, but don't accuse me of patently false statements.

You see that as "a huge policy change"

So do the participants at the conference, and so do those boycotting the process, and so do the observers and NGOs on both side of the issue. If you disagree, fine.

[John Caruso]

If you can point to statements of Obama's that misleading imply that he will change policies that he has not, I will concede this argument.

Of the two policies actually mentioned in my posting I've already pointed out that Obama's harsh rhetoric on Chavez and Venezuela contradicts the conciliatory approach he said he'd adopt during the campaign. I've also linked to a story about his backing away from the "overheated rhetoric"—his words—that misled people into believing he was going to overhaul NAFTA (quoting: "I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced"). Which was, as one of his senior economic policy advisers admitted, "political positioning" that was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy" (and which certainly had the desired effect of misleading people into believing his position on NAFTA was stronger than it was).

And here's an example of one of those silly, foolish, hypothetical people who were misled, addressing a much more serious issue than reparations:

However, compared to the tone set by Obama during his campaign, others found room for disappointment. "At a minimum, we were expecting that the Obama administration would say that they are still considering their position and whether or not to change course," Tina Foster, a lawyer for the Bagram detainees, told us.

"It's one thing to say that we're going to close Guantanamo in a year," said Foster. "It's another to say that we're going to close Guantanamo, but we're not going to change any of our policies on holding people without charges and denying them access to courts."

In fact changing his positions became Obama's modus operandi as soon as he won the nomination—much to the dismay of the millions of people who'd believed his initial posturing.

(I'm guessing you'll disagree with many if not all of these examples, by the way, so if you do there's no need to explain it at length; we already know that we have vastly different standards for what constitutes meaningful change. And this is also all beside my original point, which was to observe that Obama's positions on Venezuela and reparations represent no change from the past—not to assess how misleading he has or hasn't been.)

In fact, you said "both of the items I mentioned in the posting." One of those items was the quotation about the delegation attending Durban. If you want to limit that reference only to the position taken on reparations, fine, but don't accuse me of patently false statements.

The two items I mentioned in the posting were 1) Venezuela and 2) reparations. My specific words on the latter were "Obama is sticking to the longstanding U.S. practice of preventing discussion of reparations for the victims of slavery," which isn't the least bit ambiguous (and you addressed your first three comments to reparations, so you certainly seemed to understand that). This isn't just "one possible interpretation", it's what I actually said—and the assertion "you say that sending a delegation to the Durban review conference didn't represent any change from the Bush administration" was, in fact, false. I also said I was assuming honest confusion here rather than malicious intent, and I still do.

I think we're getting to the point of diminishing returns, so this will be my last epic response. Thanks for the comments; I genuinely do appreciate the discussion, even if we disagree in fundamental ways.

[James]

Thanks, John. It's been good to talk with you, and I think we've both made our views sufficiently clear.

[John Caruso]

In case you come back, James, I wonder what you think of this:

The United States will not attend a United Nations conference on racism that critics say will be a forum to criticize Israel and will no longer attend planning sessions for it, a U.S. official said on Friday.

So as I said, the only change here amounted to the U.S. attending a single planning session, with zero substantive changes to its underlying positions and no guarantee even to attend another planning session...and now they've followed through on that by pulling out not only from the conference itself but even from any additional planning sessions.

You'd said you felt that the U.S. attendance of one solitary planning session, on its own, represented a "huge policy change". Do you still feel that way now?

[James]

I still believe, John, that U.S. participation in the Durban process, and its attempt to influence that process from within rather than boycotting the entire process and its outcome, is a significant change in that area of foreign policy. This is precisely why, for instance, there has been such a struggle over whether or not the U.S. would attend preparatory sessions, and so much attention given to the outcome.

I would also point out that the reporting you quote here appears to be inaccurate. Other media outlets are reporting that the U.S. has simply reiterated what it said earlier in the month, that it will not attend the review conference without certain changes in the conference document.

[James]

I would just add, John, that I think the issue between us remains the same. You seem, to me, to be applying an utterly unrealistic standard of "change" to the Obama administration.

In this particular area, how much additional change would you have expected? That Obama would endorse reparations for slavery in the Durban process? He's been opposed to reparations all along.

If we can't expect him to embrace reparations, then, isn't this an area where we expect only the change that we've seen? How can you point to this instance and say that Obama isn't bringing the change he promised, unless you believe he must represent a substantive change in policy in all, or almost all, areas?

[John Caruso]

Thanks; I just wanted to verify that that was in fact your standard.

[James]

John, I just want to let you know that I've finally blogged about the State Department's announcement on Friday, after returning from a conference.

I explain more fully in my post why that decision was not to pull out of the conference, as the news story you link to is mistakenly headlined, but rather was simply an update, explaining that the conference is currently heading towards a position at odds with what the administration had said would be necessary for it to attend the conference in April.

I also talk a bit about how the Obama administration's position is substantively different from that of the Bush administration. In particular, I cover reparations, which you said was the only U.S. objection to the conference document which you had intended to talk about. I explain how the current administration is fine with the reparations language from the original Durban declaration, which the Bush administration had rejected out of hand.

I realize this won't do anything to bring our positions on "change" closer together, but I did want to do you the courtesy of letting you know.