When comparing Democratic candidates with Republican candidates, the Left demonstrates the similarities between the two big business parties. We ask, "Whose Plan Colombia?" and, "Whose Welfare Reform Act and NAFTA?" Ex-President Bill Clinton made this analysis far too easy for us, though, he was not unique from the Democratic Party’s tradition. Woodrow Wilson led the U.S. into WWI, after being elected on an isolationist promise; John F. Kennedy risked American and Cuban lives in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs; Lyndon B. Johnson led U.S. military forces into Veitnam; the most aggressive military acts in our history have been committed predominately by liberal Democrats.
Why are the most "revolutionary" activists convinced every four years that we have to all get behind a vague liberal!?
Back in the 2004 U.S. Presidential race, I remember noting that John Kerry attacked G.W. Bush for being soft on Venezuela. His basic argument went like this: Afghanistan was necessary, but—even though I voted to invade Iraq—I regret supporting the attack on Iraq. (Unspoken: We should have used the steam of fear for empire more wisely.) We should have invaded Venezuela, and I would have used the public’s support after 9/11 for it; however, we can’t today, because all of our military resources are tied up in Iraq. Kerry argued that, because we were in Iraq, we had left other places, like Venezuela, vulnerable. "Democracy is at risk," he warned. Here is an excerpt from Kerry’s March 19, 2004, Statement on Venezuela:
Too often in the past, this [Bush] Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere—including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.1
In other words, when the U.S. backed an illegal coup in April 2002—kidnapping the democratically elected President for instituting popular reforms, and Venezuelans immediately arrived in awesome masses on the steps of the capitol to demand his return—Kerry would rather the U.S. have responded to the working people of Venezuela with machine guns and tanks. As Bill Berkowitz said, at the time, "Kerry appears to be out-Bushing Bush when it comes to Cuba and Venezuela."2
Berkowitz’s statement about Kerry rings even truer in relation to the Democratic and Republican candidates in 2008. Obama has made Kerry’s argument for a better managed empire more explicitly than Kerry could have.
Lately, this relationship has frayed, as the Bush administration pursued a misguided foreign policy with a myopic focus on Iraq. Its policy in the Americas has been negligent to our friends, ineffective with our adversaries and disinterested in the challenges that matter to peoples’ lives.3
What constitutes an Obama democracy in Venezuela? "Democracies are better trading partners," clarifies Obama. This is his (often vaguely stated) running definition throughout his speeches and writings. Obama uses this as a foothold to go after Cuba. "A democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective our [Latin American] policy," which will be accomplished by liberalizing "relations with Cuba now while holding back important incentives such as relaxation of the [illegal] trade embargo and greater foreign aid so that we can encourage change in a post-Fidel government."
Obama on Venezuela
His policy for most of the rest of Latin America can be simplified to a confusing mixture of racism and forced privatization in "the region". Obama has made it clear where he is interested in going after in a better managed and articulated empire, claiming, "The U.S. and Colombia have many important shared interests," as do the U.S. and Venezuela; he even shows distinct concern over Venezuela, because that is where most oil in "the region" is. Given snippet facts from last Spring’s headline news coverage of the FARC, the Colombian government, and Venezuela, Obama explains bluntly why Colombia matters to him:
Last March, Colombian security forces targeted a senior Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), leader, and Ecuador and Venezuela moved troops and tanks to their borders with Colombia, bringing hostilities to a boiling point. But this must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region. In an Obama administration, we will support Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders, to defend itself against FARC and we will address any support for the FARC that comes from members of neighboring governments because this behavior must be exposed to international condemnation and regional isolation.
The shocker here is how bluntly Obama’s goals are stated—to preserve "Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders," and "will address any support for the FARC that comes from members of neighboring governments because this behavior must be exposed to international condemnation and regional isolation," right after alluding to a conflict where Venezuela harbored FARC members in an attempt to mediate the "boiling" conflict between Colombia and the FARC. Obama would rather have had us invade Venezuela.
These quotes are not just from one of his public statements. This imperialist aggression is the exact "change" and "hope" Obama consistently speaks of in relation to Latin America. In Miami, Florida, he delivered a speech on the same topic ("Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas") on May 23, 2008. He firmly stated that he would "lead diplomacy [in Cuba] at a time of my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people." Cutting out the thieving first half of his statement leaves us with nothing more than Bush’s rhetoric for invading Iraq. In this speech, though, he specifically set his sight on Venezuela.
He acknowledged that Chavez is the democratically elected representative of the Venezuelan people, but concluded that we must enforce his style of "democracy" (good trading partners for U.S. businesses and financial investors) that requires open markets, forced privatization, forced deregulation, free flow of capital, and demands the Venezuelan people oppose.
And we know that freedom across our hemisphere must go beyond elections. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. But we also know that he does not govern democratically. He talks of the people, but his actions just serve his own power. Yet the Bush Administration’s blustery condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chavez have only strengthened his hand.
Again, just like Kerry, Obama is insinuating that the April 2002 coup should have not crippled under the pressure of the Venezuelan people, but should have, instead, set an example of Venezuela for other Third World struggles around the world, specifically those in "the region". "We’ve heard plenty of talk about democracy from George Bush, but we need steady action. We must put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond the ballot box." In other words, we should disregard democratically elected sovereign representatives of populations throughout the world.
What "change" or "hope" is there in "out-Bushing Bush"?
How can any conscious Leftist see the last two Obama quotes here as "hopeful" for "change"? Obama is more aggressive than Kerry on Latin America, both of whom have been clearly more aggressive in their imperialist rhetoric toward Latin American, than Bush and McCain. Obama is not even offering himself as the liberal Democrat who doesn’t want to, but has to mislead us into war; he is not just offering proxy wars or military aid. Senator Barrack Obama offers us the whole Bush foreign policy package, for another four years.
Iraq was the target in the sights of the Bush Administration once Bush was elected; and 9/11 offered a window for it to attack. This clumsy aggression drained any nationalist steam the public offered the American Empire for further invasions. Thus, having an unorganized, bumbling idiot for our President has actually accidently hindered the Empire’s ability to maintain its order in other parts of the world, accidently allowing breathing room for populist and revolutionary currents to flourish throughout Latin America. More orderly managing empire and an end to humorous public speaking embarrassments are the only changes Obama presents to the American people.
Since that is what the 2008 election is over, winning it should not be our goal. The biggest chunk of the American population will not even vote, which doesn’t necessarily indicate apathy; most people seem to be discontent with both parties, despite varied levels of passion and apathy. Instead, the election should be used by Leftists as an opportunity for all of us to propose an alternative to all oppressed peoples in the U.S. Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente’s Power to the People Campaign, under the Green Party banner, offers us this opportunity. We need to build solidarity with this (largely unorganized) group of (largely confused) people to present vision of a participatory society could look like.
Sources:
1. Kerry’s initial "Statement on Venezuela" from March 14, 2004, has been removed from his website. Greg Wilpert, who taught the ZSchool class on Venezuela, wrote an excellent rebuttal to Kerry’s "Statement". "A Rebuttal to Senator Kerry’s Statement on Venezuela". Venezuelan Analysis. March 22, 2004:
2. Berkowitz, Bill. "Kerry’s Foreign Policy Trap Is the Democratic Candidate Trying to Out-Bush Bush on Iraq, the War on Terrorism, Israel, and Cuba?" Common Dreams. Originally appeared in Working for Change. May 12, 2004,
3. "Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas". Obama for America. 2008.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate