Obama - the Lucky Hypocrite

People are wandering why Barak Obama has “phenomenal success” in democratic primaries. Some try to explain it with his personal charisma, others believe his message consistence and actuality appeals to democrats and some independents. Rightfully, some observers stress on the fact the liberal media was too gentle to Obama and quite harsh towards Clinton. Obama was charismatic, phenomenal, like J.F. Kennedy, etc. Clinton, on the other side, was laughing ugly, she sheds fake tears, she is a demagogue, etc. Nobody was paying attention to that Obama hypocritically avoided taking side (more than 100 times) on controversial bills during his Illinois Senate mandate when he was voting “present”. Political observers from everywhere gave too much “free” time to Barak Obama’s complain staff and put down the advisors of Hilary Clinton’s. CNN left him go away without answering the asked questions on their primary debates. It is obvious to the majority of engaged in the campaign journalists Obama’s speeches are full of rhetoric and lack specific political views.

The critical questions standing before the American society today are why manufacturing jobs decrease, why some cityzens happened not to have access to health care, what we going to do with the rising oil prices and environment issues. The solutions are controversial. Obama promises change - to revise NAFTA agreement, to make collage education affordable for yang Americans, to change the foreign politic and international image of USA. Obama’s campaign wants us to believe “experience only” does not work. Clinton promise solutions – to create universal health care, to reduce unemployment stimulating creation of green job, to pool the American troops out of Iraq responsibly. Clinton’s complain wants us to understand that her opponent offers nothing more than “celestial wind”. Now before Ohio debate on SMNBC every show host asks the question what Hilary should do in order to stop Obama’s “momentum”. Different journalist and observers give different answers but they a tactical ones. Nobody offers solution how to counter the “free lance” empty promises Obama generously showers over his rallies; no one knows why his rhetorical approach works. Is John McCain threatened?

In answering these crucial for American politics question we have to understand in what conditions is the American society during the last 10 years. We would want to know the main processes that change the society. We are interested in what drives these changes and what can be done to meet the new trends in the social development; how to overcome the created problems? The easily noticeable changes in the last 10 year are opening of American society towards international trade and outflow of American capitals overseas and in Latin America. There are two main reasons that made these phenomena possible. The first one is the end of the cold war. This disarmed the fear-mongrels and made possible for American investors to look for new possibilities overseas. The second phenomenon was the IT boom in the last 25 years that lead to accumulation of free capitals in the American society - many people became investors. They happened to influence the American political environment which became friendly towards entrepreneurs willing to explore overseas labor markets and importing the manufactured goods back into the vast American consumers market. So the export of manufacturing jobs started with no symptoms to come back again. The middle class, well paid highly qualified workers, started vanishing. The politicians did not understand these processes; they could not offer solutions how to exit out of this trap. President Bush’s low tax policy was a temporary solution – the economy revived but it stratification could not be restored. Too many workers had to change their specialty; they needed system system of prequalification and there was no such built in the American society.

Lacking employment, American workers and espatially yang people, have no hope and they need someone to give them some hope. Hopeless people cannot be rational; they are desperate and if someone gives them even murky vision for the future they will stuck with it. The triky moment with general promises is that listeners usually believe the promising person means same things they are dreaming for themselves. In case the masses are desperate they are more gullible and they can be easily misled; they believe any kind of change will bring along desired results.

Purposely or not for milions americans, Obama is this person. His speeches are metaphorical and full of baseless promises but nobody cares. On the contrary Clinton is specific but it does not mean too much. That is why in the discussions, she has to bring on proves that she will not just restore jobs; instead, she will create structures in the society that will make the unavoidable future chalenges easily overcome by the society with a little help from the government. Otherwise, she has no chance to defeat the divine wind blower, the perfect demagogue and the happy hypocrite Obama.

The same predicament is waiting for John McCain.
April, 2008