It is little over a year since Obama won the 2008 Presidential Elections; in truth this was when his presidency began. The day after his victory he called his transition team together for a morning of brainstorming and planning. From November 4th to his inauguration on January 20th he played an unprecedented role in the affairs of the nation and carefully laid the groundwork for his presidential term. Yet how are we to assess this first year and the movement that brought him to power? An exhaustive answer to that question is not possible but here a few observations, on four key issues, made during my time here which may be of interest to some.

Health Care

Obama’s first major domestic move has been health care. Sadly, the bill that passed in the House of Representatives 10 days ago is a pale reflection of what Obama promised (or appeared to promise), a long way short of other first world countries (and even some third world countries) and significantly less than the American public needs. It looks to be more like a reform of the insurance industry than a real viable opportunity to offer universal and/or affordable health care to all. The health care industry accounts for 16% of total GDP, the highest in the first world and yet there are currently 50million uninsured Americans, and many whose benefits do not allow for adequate treatment. As the recession deepens this number grows.

At its core the bill creates a federally regulated marketplace where consumers would be able to shop around for the best insurance plan. This includes state subsidies to some private plans for certain consumers and, most controversially, a state run insurance plan.

The good news: The bill extends coverage to an estimated 34million people, requires more employers to offer decent health care benefits, reduces the cost of health insurance in general, expands Medicaid coverage, offers subsidies to small business and individuals, increases taxes of high income earners (over $1million) and prevents insurance companies from denying coverage and/or charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions.

The not-so-good news: In a “compromise” move any state subsidized or run plan excludes abortion coverage except in the case of incest, rape or where the mother’s life is in danger. Undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for any plan involving state subsidy, tax credits or for Medicaid or Medicare (state insurance programs for the poor, elderly and disabled). They are, however, able to purchase private insurance through the market place at the full price that few can afford and access emergency care at unnecessarily high cost to the state. There will be no “public” health care in the sense that Canada, most of Europe and even South Africa offers, i.e. free public health care services. Rather state subsidized or run insurance programs would pay private doctors medical-aid rates as private insurances companies do (and not significantly reduced rates as some hoped). The privatization of health care continues. Most damming, however, is that most of the funding may only come into affect in 2013 despite the growing number of uninsured. And even this modest reform bill will most probably not make it through the more conservative Senate in its current form. Most telling is the extremely muted resistance (and even silent acceptance?) by the health care industry to this plan.

The Long War

Obama seems to be making positive moves on a gradual withdrawal from Iraq despite none of the objectives (securing foreign oil, stabilizing a client-regime and “countering terrorism”) having been achieved. Some enthusiasm can be taken by the progressive (albeit agonizingly slow) attempts to close Guantanamo Bay (which Obama admitted will not meet the promised deadline) and the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-accused (allegedly implicated in the September 11 attacks) in a civil court in New York. Likewise Obama’s reaching out to the Muslim world and his diplomacy with Iran is a sharp departure from previous policy and sorely needed.

However, Afghanistan remains a weight around Obama’s neck and a quagmire he appears to be sinking deeper into. At the heart of the problem is long-term American military strategy. Official policy follows the idea of “The Long War”; a 50 or 100 year counter insurgency cold-war against Al Queda and Co. along the “arc of crisis” mainly oil rich, Muslim countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines and beyond, with various “hot-wars”, as we have seen, along the way.

The term “Long War” was coined by Gen. John Abizaid in the 1990s and is promulgated by counterinsurgency experts around the Pentagon and think tanks led by the Center for New American Security. Its most ardent advocate, who popularized the idea in 2005, has been Dr. David Kilcullen, a top military advisor and current aide to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and the case is made for it in his recent book The Accidental Guerrilla. Despite the failure of global counterinsurgency tactics the strategy has gained dominance in military circles.

This is the quagmire that Obama faces; Afghanistan (and its surrounding conflicts, in Pakistan for example) is not an isolated fight that can simply be “won”. Rather it is a single battle in a larger plan, one with dubious military and political gains, clear moral inconsistencies and enormous financial implications that will undermine all domestic policy.

The Environment

Positive talk abounds. Obama’s address to the United Nations on September 22nd was the first progressive thing to come from an American President on the environment in a long time. He acknowledged past American failure and the gravity of the threat and said he was determined to act for the sake of future generations. A host of public meetings of high level officials and other important role players have taken place. Despite being watered down the stimulus plan offers: “$24.4 billon in real money for energy efficiency, $25.3 billion for renewables, and $23 billon for transit improvements… According to Clinton and Obama adviser John Podesta, the package means $150 billion in clean energy investments yearly for 10 years, creating 1.7 million net new jobs”6. Obama’s meetings with foreign leaders have also managed to produce positive statements on the need to tackle green house gas emissions.

However, very little of the American plan has been implemented to date, although in fairness these programs take some time. More importantly though is that eloquent speeches have not included concrete targets, this is true for Obama’s UN address and (as an example) his statement after meeting China’s President Hu Jintao. Even more disappointing to climate change activists is that the upcoming Copenhagen Conference appears to be dead in the water with a non-binding political agreement the likely outcome which, optimistically, is a stepping stone to a binding agreement with real targets and, realistically, a face saving move.

Why lay this at Obama’s feet? It would not be fair to do so entirely, but we must acknowledge that progress on this front is not possible without American leadership and at times arm twisting of other countries, clear commitments to specific targets and actual restrictions of its own domestic economy.

Economics

Those who expected a radical change in economic policy with the assent of Obama to the White House have been sorely disappointed. The expectation was, of course, completely unrealistic. Obama’s economic policies do not vary greatly from those who came before him, whether Democrat or Republican. To choose but three examples…

Bailouts: The astronomical chunks of money given to banks and other financial institutions and the terms (or lack thereof) on which this money was given in both the Bush administration bailout (of which the Obama team tacitly approved) and Obama’s stimulus package do not indicate any shift from the prevailing neoliberal economic policies. Despite strong talk very little has been done to regulate the financial sector in the wake of the 2008 crisis. Obama’s enthusiasm for the “jobless recovery” of the stock market (i.e. investors are making profit whilst workers continue to lose jobs) is another indication of his mainstream market-economy approach (the system is fine, it just needs to fixing, intervention and control). To his credit we must acknowledge the expanded public sector spending in important areas in attempts to create jobs. Again, on the flipside, this is tied up in boosting consumer spending (as the banks are encouraged to start lending) which was part of the problem in the first place.

Foreign Trade: Obama’s speeches on trade are perhaps most telling. Whether it be his speech in Ghana, his discussions at the APEC summit or his press conference with the Chinese President, the message is clear: free trade, market competition and transnational business are the key to international prosperity. Contentious issues such as American farming subsidies are not even close to the table. Of course there are nuances, talk of regulation and some positive reformist policies, but the core policy remains.

Advisors and Appointees: Perhaps most telling is with whom Obama surrounds himself. Economic advisors and appointees pre and post election are a mix of Clinton era economists (the era of greatest international market deregulation) Bush era functionaries, academic economists, big businessmen and a few reformists. Members of the Transition Economic Advisory Board include: Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, TIAA-CREF and Xerox (Warren Buffett, Roger Ferguson and Anne Mulcahy respectively); Chairman of the Board of Time Warner (Richard Parsons); and Chairman and Director of the Executive Committee of Citigroup (Robert Rubin) – Citigroup received approximately $45billion in bailout money 8.

Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary did a stint at the IMF and Lawrence Summers, the head of the Economic Council (NEC), a former top World Bank official, was forced to resign from the presidency of Harvard University in 2006 after he suggested that women lack men’s innate ability to excel at math and science9. He is on record saying that nothing can be done about both huge AIG executive bonuses (post bailout) and rising unemployment10.

What is to be learnt?

Readers of this post may be surprised to know that I’m an Obama fan. He’s charismatic, fresh, eloquent, intelligent, progressive, has good values, an awareness of dynamics of discrimination (class, race, gender and sexual orientation), is supportive of union activity, offers an inclusive international policy approach and has prioritized the right issues of health care, employment, education and the environment. And he’s African American. He is pretty much the best you are going to get within the American political system. But that’s the crux isn’t it: “within the American system”, and it’s not just the American system but the global neoliberal capitalist economic order. Obama’s hands (and mind?) are tied in so many ways.

It all comes down to economics, money, power and profit in the end. It is no secret that various lobbies and big business exercise extra-ordinary influence over members of Congress and the Executive. Campaign financing by lobby groups totaled $3.3billion in 2008 with the US Chamber of Commerce (representing big business) coming in first place with approximately $527million and different health insurers and pharmaceutical groups coming in at 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th place with a combined whopping $712million. Not surprisingly the military-industrial complex is represented by Northrop Grumman, Lockhead Martin and Boeing Co in the top 20 spenders. Also making the top 20 are energy giants General Electric (3rd), Exxon Mobil and Edison Electric Institution. Mass telecommunication companies (AT&T Inc and Verizon Communication) Financial Giants (Freddie Mac and the Securities Industry & Financial Market Association) and General Motors round off the top 20 list11.

We must remember the fundamental driving force of the market economy: profit; and anything goes – exploitation, environmental degradation, war etc – in pursuit of this. Not only does this shape our economic relations but also our social relations and the very fabric of our society.

Members of Congress also have their own agendas. A recent report by the Centre for Responsive Politics tallies a total of 237 millionaires in Congress. And not all are Republicans with Democrats making up 4 of the top 5, and the top 2 are from the liberal state of California. To make matters worse the top 10 industries invested in by Congress men and women include: real estate; entertainment (read media); securities, investments and banks; oil and gas; manufacturing; and pharmaceuticals/health products12.

Playing a secondary, but significant role, are the ideological groups, such as the conservative Christian right and libertarian anti “big-government”