SOME 45 years ago, a silver-tongued American preacher from the Deep South who had been propelled to national prominence after leading an anti-segregation bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, was addressing a huge gathering in the heart of Washington, DC. Winding up one of the most powerful public speeches of the 20th century, he called for freedom to ring “from every mountainside”, from “the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire … the mighty mountains of New York … the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania … the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado” to “the curvaceous slopes of California”.

 

Last week, it seemed Martin Luther King Jr’s vision was being translated into reality. In each of the states enumerated above, a decisive majority of voters cast their ballots for Barack Obama. In others, he fell short. In his 1963 speech, Dr King had also spoken of freedom ringing “from Stone Mountain of Georgia … from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee” and “from every hill and molehill of Mississippi”. In these states, most voters chose to endorse John McCain. But not all former components of the 19th-century Confederacy conformed to that pattern: Virginia and Florida fell to Obama, as did North Carolina, albeit by the tiniest of margins.

 

Only a heart of stone could have remained unmoved in the face of the tearful eruptions of joy that greeted the first indications that Obama’s lead was unassailable. His triumph – by the largest margin achieved by any Democratic candidate since Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 landslide against Barry Goldwater (another Republican “maverick” who, like McCain, happened to be a senator from Arizona) – was hardly unexpected, given that it had been anticipated by every opinion poll. Yet the predictions could not completely dissipate the sense of disbelief.

 

To understand this phenomenon and to appreciate why so many African-Americans in particular found the moment of Obama’s victory so profoundly emotional, it is necessary to take a peek into the past. It needn’t be the distant past, even though the history of black slavery is in many ways pivotal to the perception that a tremendous barrier has been transcended. It should suffice to recall that at the time Barack was born, in many states across the union, African-Americans could not reside, go to school, buy a meal or urinate alongside whites. They could not use the same public swimming pools or water fountains. They were denied the right to vote. The discrimination was maintained through systematic repression and a degree of violence, institutionalized as well as random, that might occasionally have raised eyebrows even in South Africa.

 

The civil rights movement spearheaded by the likes of Dr King led to federal legislation outlawing the foulest aspects of American apartheid, partly because it was so obviously the moral thing to do (and, by any measure, long overdue), and partly in order to undermine more militant expressions of African-American anger, epitomized by leaders such as Malcolm X and, later, the Black Panthers. Inevitably, however, the Jim Crow mentality lingered on. In recent decades there has been plenty of evidence of its diminution, but last week’s presidential election offered the first nationwide test, and the result suggests that while racism in the US may not have been eradicated, it has certainly been marginalized.

 

The unrestrained enthusiasm of African-Americans – and, significantly, many of their compatriots – is in part a celebration of this realization, but the wow! factor is not altogether unrelated to the disproportionate alienation and incarceration of blacks in the US. In an unequivocally healthy trend, meanwhile, younger whites proved far less reluctant to vote for Obama than older generations. Whatever else his presidency may or may not achieve, by its very existence it will change the dynamics of race relations.

 

Will it prove to be equally transformational on other vital fronts? It will almost certainly fail to meet all the expectations it has aroused domestically and internationally. After all, seldom before has such a transition occurred under comparably trying circumstances, ranging from sharply diminished business in the economic sphere to all manner of unfinished business abroad. With a solid congressional majority at its disposal, there can be little doubt about the Obama administration’s capacity to usher in substantial change. The extent to which it will be prepared to do so is unpredictable. It’s worth recalling, in this connection, the euphoria that surrounded the advent of Bill Clinton after 12 years of the disastrous Reagan-Bush administration. Yet in all too many respects the conservative era simply continued under the Democrats. A repetition of that farce at this juncture would be monumentally tragic.

 

At home, efforts to stimulate the economy could, for instance, take the shape of federal assistance for those who need it most, instead of feeding the fat cats. And, as Obama seems to be aware, a system of healthcare under which the ailing can be refused medical treatment if they are too poor to pay for it is a complete travesty.

 

Internationally, Obama’s election has generated a tremendous surge of goodwill, with explosions of happiness across Europe and many parts of the Third World complementing the dancing in the streets of Harlem and so many other American neighbourhoods. In order to harness, rather than squander, this surge, the president-elect should not lose sight of the fact that it was his principled opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq that made his candidacy viable in the first place. In the eyes of the world, the moral stature of America has already been redeemed, to a certain extent, by Obama’s electoral success. It could immediately be enhanced by shutting down the prison camps at Guantanamo Bay (restoring the territory to Cuban sovereignty would be an even bigger help in erasing the ugly stain) and unequivocally outlawing torture and rendition.

 

Obama has frequently expressed his determination to pursue terrorists, which is all very well, provided it is based on the realization that George W. Bush’s “war on terror” has spawned more terrorists than it has captured or killed. A radically different strategy would require a rethink of the president-elect’s oft-stated opinion that more troops in Afghanistan, or repeated violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty, would somehow solve the problem. 

 

The appointment of Rahm Israel Emanuel as chief of staff  is a dispiriting portent for Palestinians, and perhaps the first of many disappointments. But let’s not prejudge the Obama presidency. Barack is well aware of the burden he stands to inherit. In terms of intellect, he is as different from the incumbent as could be hoped for. It’s been a long time since Old Glory has been waved rather than burned in so many streets across the world. One obvious way of keeping it aflutter would be to ensure that it ceases to symbolize the imperial hubris of a thoroughly discredited military-industrial complex.

 

Email: [email protected]

---