Change I don't believe in (and neither does he)

On my way back from a cynical but delicious "election party" the other night, I found myself in traffic backed up by cheering Obamaphiles taking the streets of Providence. I watched in bemused silence as maybe 50 people marched down Thayer cheering "Yes We Can", pondering how the election of some rich warmonger in the pockets of the banks and nuclear industry could get these people to stop traffic on a Tuesday night but actions against the things that really matter are so often watched from afar.

Oh well, I'm sure they'll be out again in 2012, unless the Obamanation happens to visit little old RI before then. Socialists really need to have a skillshare with liberals in the US about how to do the cult of personality right. Where are the giant signs of his face? The pomp and circumstance? At least they got the speaking on cue right during his acceptance speech.

This is the change we should know better than. We're witnessing the birth of another generation of apologists. It's not 100 days anymore, and gone are the grandiose promises of ending the war in Iraq quickly or serious economic relief. The mantra on the parts of the left that should know better seems to be "we need to pressure him to keep his word". Which word is that? Let's recall Obama's own words around the time that criticism from silly liberals who should have known better in the first place was emerging in response to his stances on immunity for telecommunication companies that spied on Americans among other things. Obama stated that "the people who say this haven't apparently been listening to me" and goes on to explain that "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically". Well put.

That being said, we are now witnessing the lack of an "exit strategy" by the progressives that threw themselves behind Obama observed in a prescient interview with Naomi Klein. So for example, when Obama appoints a vicious pro-Israel, pro-war brute as his Chief of Staff we witness a spectacular mix of anger, confusion, and most of all silence. This article from Alternet is demonstrative. It spends a good amount of time wringing its hands about how bad Rahm Emanuel is, then closes with a declaration that Obama should know better:

However, this does not necessarily mean that Obama as president will pursue nothing better than a Clintonesque center-right agenda. Someone with Obama's intelligence, knowledge and leadership qualities need not be unduly restricted by the influence of his chief of staff as less able presidents have. At the same time, this shocking appointment of Emanuel is illustrative of the need for the progressive base that brought him to power to not celebrate too long and to refocus our energies into pushing hard to ensure that the change Obama promised is something we really can believe in.

There's something deliciously authoritarian about these sentiments. As if Obama's stances are substantively different from Emanual's, and he's the wise leader who needs to hear from his followers. It seems that, despite Obama being clear about just what kind of change he represented (nominal at best), his supporters are still married to the illusion they created and that the campaign sustained. Indeed, not many people were listening in the first place.