Glover v. Obama: Who is Right? Maybe Both of Them.

Elliot Millner, J.D.

Danny Glover recently directed some criticism at President Obama, regarding his lack of action in dealing with issues disproportionately impacting the Black community. President Obama fired back, saying that he was not neglecting Black issues, and that the issues he was being asked to address could not be fixed in one term, much less one year.

So, who is right? I'm not a fence-rider, however in many instances there is truth on both sides of a dispute or issue, and that is the case here. To be accurate, Danny Glover didn't call out President Obama for simply not paying enough attention to Black people; he called him out for his overall policy approach, and it's similarities (in Glover's opinion) to the policies and approach of the Bush administration. This is a fair criticism, for a couple of reasons. Despite the conservative media's protests to the contrary, Obama ran as a moderate, and that is basically what he is on most issues (if you don't think so, compare Obama's campaign platform to that of Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards). Former President Bush, although a Republican, was also considered a moderate (too moderate for many Republicans) on many issues. So, it is no surprise that President Obama may look similar to President Bush in his views and actions on some issues (most obviously in his war policy). I'm not saying I like it, but that is the reality. This is not an issue new to our current President, or to politics as a whole. Many (especially those who argue for the need of a strong third-party in American politics) have made the argument that there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats (often calling them "Republicrats") in general, especially when dealing with higher offices, such as the House, Senate, and presidency.

Glover went on to critique President Obama for bailing out Wall Street, yet neglecting to offer significant assistance to "Main Street". This is a common criticism made by many across the political spectrum, and is equally valid. Continuing with the "Republicrat" theory, President Obama, whether out of a desire to or not, did cave to the interests of Wall Street, by not only giving them billions in bailout money, but by placing very little regulation on what those companies receiving bailout money ultimately did with it. The rhetoric may be different, however the result for Wall Street (and Main Street) is the same.

Although other aspects of what he said may receive more attention, to me, the most significant point that Glover made was regarding the systemic issues affecting the ability of any politician who wants to make change to do so. People need to understand the political system and the political process, and that includes understanding not only how to register to vote, but more importantly, how campaigns are funded and how the legislative process works. As presently structured, the campaign finance system allows far too much input from large corporations and unions, and any interest with large sums of money. The cost of running for elected office is so high (especially for President) that it requires that a candidate cater to some form of corporate interests. Although the corporate interests may be different depending on party or candidate, they do still both depend a great deal on that financial support, and once elected, they are expected to show thanks for that support with legislation that serves the interests of those who put them in office.

Now, given this landscape, we get to President Obama's reply. He stated that he had not forgotten about the issues affecting Black people; however, as President, he could not "pass laws that say I'm just helping Black folks." As a politician, President Obama understands how things work. We are not talking about how things "should" work; we are talking about how they "do" work presently. President Obama could propose legislation to directly deal with the issues affecting Black people, however to do so would be political suicide. Not only does any legislation have almost no chance of passing through both houses of Congress (especially given the increasingly blatant racially-hostile environment in the U.S.), it would result in an incredible backlash to Obama from the many white voters (and money-givers) who helped put him in office. President Obama knows where his political loyalty lies, and it is not with Black people. President Obama is a politician, and his focus is not only on getting elected and enacted legislation, but getting re-elected. It's a numbers game, and to ask a politician (any politician) to go against the people and interests that got him elected, is as absurd as asking a corporate CEO to not make moves to increase the profitability of his or her company, because it may cause American workers to lose jobs. A politician (including Obama) and a CEO are both about the bottom-line; for one (the CEO) it is about increasing profits for shareholders; for the other (politician) it is about getting elected and re-elected.

So, Danny Glover is not necessarily wrong in his criticisms of President Obama, and ultimately the system as it is presently structured. And President Obama is not necessarily wrong in his reply. The root issue that they both address, either directly or indirectly, is the problem with the system. As long as corporate interests take priority over the needs of the people (even if that means addressing needs specific to Black people), then making changes that are necessary will continue to be a difficult process.