Sirota on Obama and class

David Sirota has an interesting column out that explores certain seeming paradoxes that I myself have pondered, mainly having to do with class and race in the current Democratic primary.

While Edwards was always my pick for the nomination, I have tried to remain clearheaded on why his campaign took its own particularly populist direction. In short, I guessed, but could not prove, that his more radical, anti-corporate rhetoric was largely a function of his position as a white man. Clinton and Obama, as a woman and a black man, respectively, could not "afford" to partake in similar class-based politicking lest they risk alienating large portions of the electorate. Due to the sexist and racist ideologies of America, which persist to this day, a populist white woman would appear a "nagging feminist" and a black man a "pandering race-baiter."

However, there are complications with this view. While it is tempting to suppose that Clinton and Obama, should they win the nomination and, ultimately, the Presidency, would cast off their "timid" facades and support more progressive legislation, there is the undeniable reality that they accept large amounts of corporate donations. Their actions thus might not point to a "hidden agenda" but simply to a different ideology, if not a cynical pro-business friendliness that they don't care to mask: they really are more conservative than Edwards.

Thus, it may not be, pace Sirota, that Obama refuses to exploit Hillary's role as "corporate America's preferred candidate" because "he relies on corporate donations" and "he'd be stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing race." It may be that he just doesn't care about the same things as David Sirota. The latter finds it incredible that Obama wouldn't attack NAFTA, free trade, and financial deregulation. For Sirota, these measures are obvious instances of a "class war" that systematically disadvantages the working and middle classes. Obama's connections with "blue-collar joblessness," Cesar Chavez, and the South Side of Chicago should automatically entail a class-centric viewpoint. This may or may not be true: perhaps Obama never actually cared about those issues as ends in themselves, or perhaps whatever sympathy he had for them was washed away by the "sensible" tide of electability concerns and lucrative campaign finance. Perhaps Obama has his own reasoned ideological views that preclude talk of "class struggle" and "class conflict." Obama is, of course, the "most liberal Senator" according to the National Journal, but American liberalism has often been a curiously un-radical beast.

These questions might largely be solved if there were some reliable, programmatic statement of principles from Obama, preferably one formulated before his current bid for the Presidency, when principles run up against reality. Does anyone know of such a source?

I will also add that while I always enjoy reading David Sirota, I have sometimes sensed a certain disengenuousness on his part. Sirota's populism leads him to say that the majority of Americans agree with his views, but that their voices are silenced by corporate interests. He presents his positions as the "true general will" and mostly "mainstream" (if only they would be recognized by the "corporate media") and eschews the label "radical," but even in this column he cites Manning Marable, a self-avowed radical academic scheduled to speak at the "Young Democratic Socialists" conference in a few days. Also, rather than use Martin Luther King as an argument from authority, it would be more honest to acknowledge King's interest in radical causes and his flirtation with the idea of democratic socialism. Is Sirota a populist who doesn't understand the lack of enthusiasm in America for radicalism or a socialist who doesn't want to reveal his true colors too much for tactical purposes? Or something else?