Bush packs his bags...Obama unpacks his...and millions await promised changes

Will things change significantly in the U.S. and around the world after Barack Hussein Obama--the first non-white  U.S. president--settles down in the White House and former president George Bush packs his bags? That’s what thousands of souls in the United States and around the world are asking themselves today.

 The young and well educated president himself has been quite circumspect about that, perhaps aware of how difficult it is to bring about change when doing so supposes brushing against powerful lobbies, interest groups, gigantic centers of corporate power, the Pentagon, mushrooming intelligence agencies and the ingrained notion of “preventive warfare” as the standard bearer for the country’s dealings with the outside world.

 There is a difficult semantic puzzle in all of this: politicians who promise change must either find out how to bring them about or yield to the elephant sized appetite of the status quo. The very concept of change supposes a conflict with existing relationships. One key is certainly the ability of Obama to free himself of excessive dependence on "advisors," something that plagues most governments.

 The list of changes Obama’s followers would like to see is enormous: a solution for the financial crisis and all of its ramifications; health care for the estimated 45 million citizens left to the profit gauging of private medical services; an overall response to the needs of immigrants without resident papers; a solution to the increasingly critical energy crisis and the collateral effect a petroleum based economy poses for the environment; the rights of minority groups including blacks, Latin Americans, homosexuals and those favoring abortion and other issues.

 On the foreign front, the demands include an end to the occupation of Iraq, the dismantling of the Guantanamo prison and the torture of prisoners authorized by outgoing President George Bush; an active policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict enabling the establishment of an independent state for Palestinians; an approach towards the struggle against terrorism ending the present notion of preventive warfare and the so-called notion of “justified wars;” a more cooperative attitude towards Latin America in place of the Bush Administration’s confrontation with the predominant left-of-center governments in the area; a renewed interest in environmental safety and the warming up of the planet…

The positive signals for change may include the following:

1) Obama is unique not only because of his afro-american origen, but his dedication to community social service activities and his clear identification with historic leaders such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. This might give him the possibility of circumventing the rigid political and diplomatic norms that clutch even the most progressive minded advocates of change within the establishment circle of political parties and other niceties.

2) The long propagated myth in the U.S. that "anyone can become president" is a foundation piece in the U.S. political system, although the question is not whether someone from the grass roots can become president but how faithful a president can be to his own roots, to the basic principles of democracy and justice that are also the underbelly of the system.

3) The notion of the new president is apparently to emply the art of negociation with opponents rather than direct confrontation. That probably also implies the generation of energy for change outside the confines of Congress and the White House.

4) There certainly will be conflictive but  important attempts to advance in civil rights and policies aimed at dealing with discrimination, marginalization, and the situation of minorities--immigrants, homosexuals, those advocating abortion and related issues.

The question marks:

1) One of Obama's challenges will be the introduction of medical care for the estimated 45 million U.S. citizens who lack it. That was also attempted by the Clinton Administration, in vain. And the extreme cost of medical care in the country is one of the most severe problems the country faces.

2) The solution to the economic-financial crisis will certainly be more complex than expected, and will take longer than many observers suppose. Furthermore, the solution must revert the economic philosophy of conservative governments (Nixon, Reagan, Bush father...) based on a supposed return to the notion of free market economics. In fact, it has meant the handing over of enormous benefits to the richest corporations, via tax reductions and other mechanisms, and has introduced an enormous distortion in the functioning of the capitalist system of production.

3) Why did Obama keep his lips tightly shut during the recent bloody Israeli invasion of Gaza--in the purest style of the Bush Administration's preventive wars? During the campaign and after he made clear his support for Israel--nothing new in vew of the fact that since its creation at the expense of Palestinians the U.S. has always back Israel politically, diplomatically and with abundand money and weapons.

4) How far will the government be able to go in reversing the violations of human rights inside and outside the country--the legalization of "soft" methods of torture under the Bush Administration, electronic spying and numerous other repressive measures introduced by Bush as a response to the so-called "war on terrorism?"

5) Although Obama has clearly opposed the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq, he has also publically advocated a step up of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is this a mere tactical change or will the new administration dump the notion of "preventive wars," "justified wars," and the notion that the means justify the ends?

6) Will there be a long awaited warm up with Latin America? Even before taking office, and in the midst of his silence on Gaza, Obama went out of his way to criticize Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He also indicated that although there might be some softening of restrictions on sending money to Cuba, the embargo would continue. What will happen to the attempt to get area countries involved in free trade agreements (usually favorable to U.S. interests) is not yet clear.

As history shows, changes are the result not just of individual leaders but the active participation of those interested in bringing about the changes.