Obama: How Much Different?

This year’s presidential election is to go down in history as the first time a black man is elected. After eight years of George Bush, all we are use to is saber rattling towards sovereign countries, scapegoating of immigrants, racism towards Arabs and Muslims, and now an economic crisis. It is no wonder that both candidates are trying to represent themselves as different then the current administration. Whether it be by calling yourself a “maverick” like John McCain or a fighter for “change” and “hope” like Barack Obama, neither candidate wants to be associated with Bush’s policies. The presidential race has been exciting and reenergizing for a large segment of the population for this very reason. Compared to election 2004, between current president Bush and John “ready for war” Kerry, this election might seem like a breath of fresh air. After all, there is a clear difference between this year’s candidates, one man is white, and the other is black. However, if one looks below the surface and the rhetoric that both Obama and McCain use, one will realize that they agree on some of the key issues we are facing. Although they’re minor differences, particularly in the way to resolve the financial collapse, both candidates share the same vision and understanding on healthcare, immigration, and the War on Terror.
The national immigration debate hasn’t resurfaced since the collapse of the McCain-Kennedy Bill. The bill intended to implement a guess-worker program, and allowed a minimal process of legalization while simultaneously funding the militarization of the border. Although this bill cause hysteria from conservation forces who hailed it as amnesty, John McCain saw it as a must for today’s economy. In the same vein, Senator Barack Obama approached the bill on the basis that it both secured our border and allowed flexibility in today’s labor force. However, neither of the candidates attempted to address the second-class status of immigrants or to take up the argument that “illegal workers hurt our economy”. Furthermore, neither has addressed the notion that immigrants must pay large fines in order to get papers. You would think risking your life by hitchhiking through deserts and than working for below minimum wage would be enough: well, not for McCain and Obama.
Similarly, the healthcare system in the U.S. is in a major crisis. Millions of Americans are uninsured, and 50% of personal bankruptcies occur because of healthcare-related issues. This is an issue you would think that Obama and McCain would debate on a national level. However, on this issue both candidates agree more than they disagree. John McCain believes the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world, due to the fact that it is a privatized, for-profit system. Similarily, Obama believes people should be forced to sign on to a healthcare plan, and in turn make some plans more affordable. Again, neither candidate tries to locate the real source of the problem, and that’s the fact that our healthcare system is motivated by profit, not taking care of people. This has resulted in the health and pharmaceutical industries being on of the most profitable, while millions of Americans remain uninsured, and those that have insurance still have to fight to get their coverage rights.
The war on Iraq has, on the one hand, produced some differences between Obama and McCain, albeit, minor and tactical differences. According to McCain, the Iraq war is the central focus in the fight against terrorism. Thus, McCain is for keeping the number of troops in Iraq high and perhaps to stay for decades to come. Obama has criticized this aspect of McCain’s policy. According to Obama, the Iraq war was the wrong war to fight, and it is distracting us from the real fronts in the war on terror, i.e. Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama even said that we should bomb Pakistan if they continue to not aggressively pursue Al-Queda. Once again both candidates refuse to disagree with the logic of the War on Terror, which says that the U.S. must be on the offensive to fight groups and countries who do not believe in “American values”. But is bombing a continent really going to help the U.S. eliminate terrorism? Or is it creating the conditions for more and more people to stand up to U.S. aggression at home and an abroad?
The fact that this year’s presidential election will make history is correct. However, if one looks beneath the surface of the rhetoric that both candidates use, we see that they’re in agreement in the fundamentals of many of the key issues today. This desperately poses the question of what kind of political alternative do we need. First, it must be said that in order for a candidate to go outside of the boundaries of “politics as usual” in Washington, they must remain independent of the two main business parties that exist today, Democrats and Republicans. Secondly, the candidate will need to directly address the concerns of working people and offer concrete proposals, like taxing the rich, money for jobs and education not for war and occupation, and free healthcare for all. More fundamentally, the candidate will have an understanding that the voting process isn’t the only way to get change, but building grass-root activism on your campus, workplace and communities is the real way we have ever seen change happen in this country.