Obama wins Iowa (which matters but not that much)

There are four issues that obama's win in iowa requires us to consider -

could he win?
i think he could.

his intelligence is obvious, he's a churchgoer, his rhetoric is inspiring to the media and some of the masses, he's raised surprising amounts of money from the ruling class, he's good-looking and radiates an uncommon emotional maturity. everyone understands that he's much more electable than rodham-clinton.

i don't think that the ruling class stands opposed to him - his rhetoric of a united america is exactly the feel-good nationalism the elite need to balance the brutality of the bush regime and perpetuate this suicidal system's appearance of legitimacy. some folks will oppose him - he is a liberal and some rightwingers will attempt to focus their fear weapons. but i think he wins in any head-to-head against any of the republicans, unless the media suddenly betrays him (like they did dean).

could his mixed-race heritage (i.e. for most voters being "black") be an important obstacle? at this point there is still a solid coalition for white supremacy in the u.s. (too many prisons, lots of black children in poverty, no reparations) but i think most folks congratulate themselves on their fair-mindedness in discounting an individual's skin-color. in fact, that's the framework that white supremacy has evolved - racism on an individual level is rude and unfair since each individual deserves a certain dignity - the dignity of each individual requires that we ignore collective inequality.

black face in a high place?
a black president would be a society-altering situation. peoples' sense of reality is increasingly dominated by media images - daily images of a very intelligent and charming black president would be strong influence against perceptions of black inferiority, among folks of all colors.

obviously obama would also be wildly popular in the rest of the world. a black president who plays basketball and has won a grammy award? they totally fell for clinton - they would plunge for obama. he would enable the scared/lazy/delusional folks all over the planet to pretend that the most powerful nation in the world isn't a juggernaut that they have the burdensome obligation of opposing.

substantial policy change?
i don't expect there would be any substantial political reform because of an obama presidency. if anyone would know what needs done, it would be a former poor-people's organizer. if he wrote the book i read (dreams from my father) i think he's very sharp and very aware.

but the strategy he's chosen (the uniter, the populist let's-all-get-along, at best the i too sing sing america), while very likely the only possible winning strategy available to him means that he won't be able to simply bulldoze right-wingers. and policies that are compromises with right-wingers will always be broken policies with self-destruct buttons built in.

a black militant, heck, anyone militant that isn't obviously just play-acting like edwards can't win the game as currently rigged. this is why kucinich - an actual social democrat - isn't allowed to play.

basically with obama we'd be looking at another clinton - at best the clinton of attempting and failing to get better health care - at worst the clinton of compromise with gingrich's contract on america.

general limitations on presidential power
the main issues facing our culture, as i see them are;

• ecological unsustainability
  
• meaninglessness, delusionality, & stupidity
• class exploitation
• imperialism

could any president significantly address these problems? not really - these issues are knotted tightly, are fundamental to the basic structure of our culture, and would be difficult to get at even without major opposition - and major opposition would certainly manifest against any real attempt to restructure this society.

real power (economic, military) is the main determinant of the shape of the political structure, policy, and the rest of the culture. this is a fairly crude notion, and its been a long time since marx argued it, but i think it is also largely true.

relatedly, the constitutional structure was explicitly intended to make dramatic political change basically impossible in the absence of (an impossible) consensus.

in basketball terms even michael jordan couldn't win a game if the opposing team was the nba all-stars, his supporting players were the worst JV football players from a small high school in alabama, and the refs, scorekeeper, and timekeeper were all paid by the opposing team.

but the game would keep people watching (possibly peeking through their fingers) and i think that's what the election game is intended to accomplish and would also be the primary function of an obama presidency.

what do you think?