President's Viewpoint

Barack Obama: A New Direction

 (This article appears in the May/June 2008 issue of
The American Postal Worker magazine.)

The APWU National Executive Board has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president. The Democratic primary contest has not been concluded, and it is not certain that Obama will be the nominee: But events — and the calendar — dictate that the board must provide leadership, consistent with the principles of the APWU constitution.

When the campaign began last fall, the consensus of the executive board was that the interests of the APWU would be best served by permitting the process to run its course and postponing the union’s endorsement until the parties had selected their nominees. It was not anticipated that Sen. John McCain would emerge as the Republican nominee five months prior to the GOP convention while Democrats continue to vie for their party’s nomination.

Sen. Hillary Clinton was considered the favorite among Democrats for a number of reasons, including name recognition, experience, and the success of her husband’s administration. Sen. Obama was relatively unknown outside of his home state of Illinois, and there were reservations about whether the national electorate would seriously consider an African-American candidate for president.

Puzzling for the Pundits

The events of the past half-year have surprised casual and astute analysts alike. No one predicted what we face today — not party insiders, Internet junkies, or TV’s talking heads.

John McCain, a lockstep supporter of the failed policies initiated by a president with a public-approval rating consistently below 30 percent, has been selected as the Republican nominee, and while the Democratic race is still competitive, Senator Obama has a clear lead in delegates and the popular vote.

With this edge in mind, the APWU board determined that it was no longer in the best interests of our membership to withhold an endorsement. As it stands now, it is quite possible that the Democratic Party will not select its nominee prior to its national convention in Denver (Aug. 25-28).

The APWU National Convention, the union’s highest-ranking body, will convene in Las Vegas prior to that (Aug. 18-22), and the delegates are expected to make an endorsement. It is the responsibility of the National Executive Board to provide leadership and make known to the delegates their preference — with which the convention may agree or disagree. In light of the timing, the board does not have the luxury of awaiting the final decision of the Democratic Party.

Sen. McCain

The endorsement by the executive board was not made without serious consideration of the other candidates, Senators McCain and Clinton.

John McCain has served our country well as a warrior and as a U.S. Senator. As a prisoner of war for five-and-a-half years, he embodied every principle of outstanding service. He also has been principled as a senator, but he has been steadfast in conservative philosophies that are abhorrent to working people.

He supports “right-to-work” legislation (and was instrumental in its enactment in his home state of Arizona). He does not respect workers’ picket lines, as seen in his disdain for the Writers Guild, whose strike lines he crossed to appear on national TV. He supports privatization and has voted to privatize federal jobs. McCain was a strong supporter of NAFTA, and supports the exportation of American jobs. He supports the continued misadventure in Iraq, at the expense of our soldiers’ lives and the diversion of resources that could be better used at home. He opposes national healthcare reform, and he is a strong believer in trickle-down economics – the theorythat if taxes for the wealthy are slashed, average workers will benefit from the increased spending by those “above” them.

Sen. McCain is on record as opposing virtually every program that would benefit working people, and supports every economic injustice that is imposed as a result.

Sen. Clinton

Hillary Clinton has a proud and effective record as a public servant. She was a strong partner in Bill Clinton’s administration, and is entitled to share some of the credit for the accomplishments of that administration, including the first federal budget surplus in 100 years. She has fought for ordinary people throughout her professional career.

My primary reason for recommending that the executive board refrain from endorsing Clinton is because her campaign is based upon her intent to achieve change through the political system as it now exists, where every act of government is influenced by political lobbyists.

Under the current system, the only constituency whose voice is not heard is that of ordinary people. The current system cannot and will not allow for average citizens to improve the education of their children; their healthcare will not be made affordable; the Social Security program will continue to deteriorate; the home-finance meltdown and the disastrous war abroad will continue.

Under the current system, no politician is persuasive enough and none possesses sufficient political support to initiate the change that is necessary.

Sen. Obama

Barack Obama has promised to bring about change by revamping the way public policy is established: He has pledged to work against the “special-interest solution” to public problems.

I am not naive — I do not believe that a campaign promise is any assurance that change will occur. But a candidate who refuses to accept contributions from lobbyists will not be beholden to a few at the expense of many. A change to how our government makes policy will take many years. The mere fact that a candidate expresses a desire to remove undue influence from the legislative process does not mean that it will happen; but Obama has identified a significant impediment to progress, and has demonstrated his commitment to eradicating it.

The other great inspiration of the Obama campaign has been his ability to bring new participants into our nation’s democratic process — to get young people involved, and to persuade many of the most cynical citizens that they have a real stake in politics.

Obama vs. Clinton

Despite Clinton’s best intentions, under the current system she would be thwarted in many of her initiatives. Her attempts in the early 1990s to establish national healthcare offers a textbook example of how the system is resistant to change, and how no single individual is sufficiently powerful to do what is right, despite doing as much as one can.

As is often observed, all you have to do to expose influence in politics is to “follow the money.” Track the list of those who were granted private meetings and compare it to the names of major contributors: How much they contributed to a campaign will correlate with their influence on legislation.

Clinton has willingly accepted contributions from special interests, and these contributions do not come without a price. They guarantee a seat at the table for the special-interest lobbyists. Fundamental change cannot be achieved when those vested in the current system have a disproportionate voice on the issues of the day.

I am sensitive to the fact that Obama is African-American and I am privileged to serve as the only African-American president of a major U.S. union. It is easy and perhaps convenient for some to conclude that the reason for my endorsement is because he and I share this heritage. But his race has absolutely no bearing on my recommendation to the executive board.

Sen. Obama has connected with millions of Americans, young and old, black, white, Latino and Asian, with a message of hope and change. I think that his message is special, and the timing is right: We can have change. There is hope for American politics.