American (Communist) Idol-Barack Obama

The Communist Party USA just loves Barack Obama.


The party actively campaigned for him in his 2004 Senate race.

The party claimed him as an "heir" to their ideas in a recent article by "Political Affairs" contributing editor Gerald Horne.

Now comes a gushing "I've got a crush on you" piece from "Political Affairs" managing editor Joel Wendland.

Here are some excerpts.

Reading Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's outline of his intended foreign policy posture in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs was for me much like that moment when the drowning swimmer finally reaches the surface and takes a first gasp of fresh air.

After nearly 7 years of hardline neo-conservative driven foreign policy fueled by militarism, unilateralism, preemptive strike madness, nuclear build-up fundamentalism, sprinkles of theology, oil greed, torture, and infused with bold, unrestrained imperialism, Obama's message, while containing points on which I have sharp disagreements, is pure oxygen.

Foreign Affairs, incidentally is the mouthpiece of those nice globalists from the Council on Foreign Relations.

The US, in Obama's view, has a vital role to play on earth. That, despite the best efforts of the Bush administration, this country is still capable of accomplishing a "mission" of "global leadership," and that America retains "great promise and historic purpose in the world." But, Obama says, "America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America."

Because "the world shares a common security and a common humanity," Obama insists, we have to learn and turn into practice the basic principle that "the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders." The implication of this statement, of course, will have right-wing pundits and the Republican presidential candidates, who have committed themselves to continuing and expanding Bush's war on Iraq, wringing their hands and stamping their feet over bleeding hearts and pussy footing around.

Here comes the international socialism bit.

But diplomacy and force are not the only tools available to the international community to help accomplish these lofty but achievable goals. Economic aid. "[C]ombating the terrorists' prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy," writes Obama. "America must make every effort to export opportunity – access to education and health care, trade and investment."

"America," he continues, "must commit to strengthening the pillars of a just society. We can help build accountable institutions that deliver services and opportunity... . In countries wracked by poverty and conflict, citizens long to enjoy freedom from want. And since extremely poor societies and weak states provide optimal breeding grounds for disease, terrorism, and conflict, the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need."

Obama calls for a serious investment in education and fighting disease globally led by the US, and commits to expanding aid to AIDS programs and establishing a Global Education Fund. Aid dollars will help build infrastructures for health and education programs that could lay a basis for turning the hearts and minds of the marginalized towards hope rather than fear and violence.

Here's the "soft on China" bit.

Missing from Obama's broad outline are knee-jerk threats against the "Axis of Evil" or jingoistic posturing against China. In fact, Obama believes that China can play a positive role in promoting serious diplomatic efforts in Asia to reduce threats and encourage economic cooperation.

The "we can trust Russia not to nuke us" bit.

Obama's comments about nuclear weapons proliferation appears to be a qualitative departure from long standing US policy on nukes. Obama asserts a comprehensive plan for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. One, by reaching out to Russia to dismantle existing stockpiles, and two, by making peaceful nuclear energy technology available with accountability and oversight vested in the International Atomic Energy Agency. But, in addition to this not so new proposal (it is a basic feature of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty authored by Kennedy and signed by Nixon), Obama will press for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and bans on producing new nuclear weapons materials.

Obama calls for "de-emphasiz[ing] the role of nuclear weapons" and rejects producing "a new generation of nuclear warheads." Global security and human survival depend on it. Removing the basis of the desire some states have for getting nuclear weapons is a more reasonable security strategy than fueling nuclear arms races with threats and preemptive nuclear strike postures.

Next comes the "let's abandon the industrial revolution to appease the Reds and Greens" bit.

But states and global actors are not the only potential threats. Humanity is also threatened by global climate change. The issue is certainly worthy of the focus given by Obama in his paper. International efforts to create binding emissions caps combined with trade and aid projects tied to sustainable development are some of the things Obama predicts can help us avoid environmental catastrophe.

Now comes the significant bit.

We as democratic-minded people, as a broad people's coalition who favor the spirit and letter of the most positive "founding values" will have to give Obama's words life and meaning, by our action, activism, our common unity to end the reign of those who favor the negative. We can start now by continuing to demand an end to the war and by voicing our call for a new direction on election day 2008. But, of course, it should not end there.

To conclude, I am buoyed in my hopes for interpreting Sen. Obama's words in the most positive way, not by his oratory or his voting record or his statement on this or that issue, but by a seemingly minor thing as the title of his most recent book: The Audacity of Hope. It nagged at me for the longest time. I haven't read the book yet. Nor have I read reviews of it. But when it came out last year, I noted it and put it on my to-read list for some time down the line when I got around to it.

Recently, I started reading his first book, Dreams From My Father, originally published in 1995, which I highly recommend. It was while reading this book that I got it. What does "the audacity of hope" mean, and why does it give reason to believe in Sen. Obama's words? All people have hopes. But who are the people who must be audacious in their hope?

Whose side does that sentiment put the junior Senator from Illinois on? Think about it.

Joel Wendland is one the US (and world's) top Marxist-Leninists. As managing editor of the CPUSA's theoretical journal, "Political Affairs" he is charged with sending "signals" to the hundreds of thousands of unionists, peace activists and Democrats who dance directly or indirectly to the CPUSA's tune.

The CPUSA backs Democrats who it knows or has good reason to suspect are sympathetic or helpful to its goals.

Whose side does the CPUSA think Barack Obama is on?

Is this a signal to the CPUSA's thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of allies and minions that Barack Obama is the party's favoured candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination?

It's looking that way.