But Obama was never the active reformer that many of supporters thought he was or at least hoped he would be.
This address to the Congressional Black Caucus during his first Presidential term in 2011 is a good example of how Obama packed what were generally centrist positions as uplifting and very much in the progressive tradition. (2)
When addressing primarily Black audiences, Obama had a habit of scolding them in at least part of the presentation. That was also true of this particular one, which came 11 months or so since the midterm elections that went badly for Democrats in Congress.
Frank James reported on it for NPR:
After running down a list of his administration's accomplishments on behalf of middle and lower income Americans and calling for passage of his jobs bill, Obama concluded his speech by saying:James comments, “To some, the whole bedroom slipper image seemed to play into historic stereotypes of black laziness.”
I expect all of you to march with me and press on. (Applause.) Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. (Applause.) Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on. We've got work to do, CBC. (Applause.)For some, it was another example of a tone perceived as patronizing from Obama when he speaks to primarily African-American audiences. (3)
You will search long and hard to find any Obama speeches addressing billionaire donors in a similar manner: Quit’yer whinin’! You have more money than you can spend in a hundred lifetimes and yet you oppose public schools and health insurance for ordinary people?!!
So it’s worth paying attention when politicians use inspiring rhetoric but make a point of opposing progressive goals. I’ve praised California Governor Gavin Newsom’s when he actually is fighting for democracy and against Trump and his ICE goons. But, as the Sacramento Bee recently pointed out, reporting on a state ballot measure for 2026 to raise taxes on billionaires, something that is very popular among voters and particularly among Democratic voters:
The measure, which was filed with the attorney general’s office in October, would impose a one-time 5% tax on Californians with assets worth $1 billion or more. The funding would be used to backfill cuts to health care and food assistance programs that were part of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.Democratic voters need to pay attention to what their elected officials and candidates are actually saying and what they are actually doing.
Its backers – labor unions representing health care workers and the leader of one of the state’s largest nonprofit providers – argue the revenue would come from just 200 California billionaires and would stabilize hospitals and community clinics, along with the jobs they provide.
Similar wealth tax proposals have failed to get far in the legislature under opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom, who’s used his bully pulpit to defend the current setup of the state’s progressive tax structure. [That is, he’s opposed raising taxes on billionaires.]
Newsom will also be opposing the new ballot measure, said adviser Dan Newman, who recently set up a committee called “Stop the Squeeze” with colleague Brian Brokaw to fight the initiative. The California Business Roundtable last week set up its own committee in opposition.
But a wealth tax could get more debate among Newsom’s potential successors – especially with affordability and wealth inequality front-of-mind for voters. [my emphasis] (4)
And with the murders of fishers off the coast of Venezuela and Colombia, it’s important to remember that Obama enthusiastically embraced targeted assassinations. That not a justification for Trump and his loopy Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth doing what they are doing. But it is important to recognize that the individual-assassination programs were something that Obama proudly advocated and endorsed.
Brian Michael Jenkins noted in 2016: “Obama can claim credit for ordering the military raid that killed Osama bin Laden - to many, his only significant counterterrorism achievement - and for pursuing an aggressive policy of drone strikes and special operations aimed at taking out terrorist commanders.” (5)
Virtually nobody regrets the fact that Bin Laden is no longer with us. But there were serious questions about whether that operation was really meant to capture him or assassinate him. There would have been big advantages to capturing him alive and putting him on trial for murder before US courts.
U sing drone strikes to kill terrorist commanders began with the previous administration, but became a major component of Obama's counterterrorist efforts. The strikes enabled the United States to directly attack terrorist organizations without taking on counterinsurgency or nation-building missions. Drone strikes also remain directly under White House control. With advice from the intelligence community and military commanders, the president determines the target. As Obama has said, “I am pretty good at killing people.” A future president may not want such direct involvement. [my emphasis]Amandla Thomas-Johnson also wrote in 2020, “As Obama reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine’.” (6) Blair McClendon reported the same quotation in The Guardian.
A President really should not be bragging publicly (or even privately) about how good he or she is at “killing people.” It encourages contempt for basic laws against murder and for the laws of war.
Thomas-Johnson:
Obama’s drone policy has been viewed as a significant blemish on his reputation as a president, with some regarding it as the most dangerous aspect of his legacy. ...She also reports:
Defending his policy, Obama wrote that the often young men and boys he targeted “had been warped and stunted by desperation, ignorance, dreams of religious glory”.
“They were dangerous," he writes. "The world they were a part of, and the machinery I commanded, more often had me killing them instead.” ...
[R]ights groups have consistently questioned the legality of such strikes and their precision, and have argued that well into Obama’s presidency, dozens of civilians were being killed in the ruthless pursuit of a single target.
Obama’s drone policy has been viewed as a significant blemish on his reputation as a president, with some regarding it as the most dangerous aspect of his legacy. [my emphasis]
Reprieve, the London-based rights group, has pointed out that the US regards all military-age males - boys and men over the age of 16 - in a strike zone as legitimate targets unless evidence is brought to light after their death proving them innocent.This is Obama in 2013 after being re-elected defending his targeted-assassination drone strikes. (7) In this excerpt he stresses how legal he claims they are. But this was also very much a precedent for the Trump-Hegseth strikes on fishing boats with essentially the same argument: these people are not actively engaged in military hostilities against the US or its allies, but they might be doing something now or in the future that might endanger Americans, so we’re just going to kill them for the time being.
This has allowed US officials to controversially claim low civilian casualty figures and a high number of militants killed. [my emphasis]
That’s Obama showing his coldest and least uplifting side.
Notes:
(1) Haider, Asad (2016): The Art of Politics. Jacobin 07/28/2016. <https://jacobin.com/2016/07/dnc-bernie-hillary-thatcher-miliband-miners-labour> (Accessed: 2025-05-12).
(2) Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Phoenix Awards Dinner. The Obama White House YouTube channel 11/25/2025. <https://youtu.be/swlaZJ2RbBw?si=8iyoZP3Dicvzf6uF> (Accessed: 2025-06-12).
Text: Remarks by the President at Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Annual Phoenix Awards Dinner 09/24/2025. (Obama White House archive). <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/24/remarks-president-congressional-Black-caucus-foundation-annual-phoenix-a> (Accessed: 2025-06-12).
(3) James, Frank (2011): Obama' 'Stop Complaining' Order To Black Caucus Causes Stir. NPR 09/26/2011. <https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/09/26/140802831/obama-stop-complaining-order-to-cbc-fires-up-some-folks> (Accessed: 2025-06-12).
(4) Nixon, Nicole (2025): Coming in 2026: A battle over California billionaire tax proposal. Sacramento Bee 12/01/2025. <https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article313211082.html> (Accessed: 2025-06-12).
(5) Jenkins, Brian Michael (2018): President Obama's Controversial Legacy as Counterterrorism-in-Chief. RAND Corporation 08/22/2016. <https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2016/08/president-obamas-controversial-legacy-as-counterterrorism.html> (Accessed: 2025-06-12). Note: The RAND Corporation is not known as a booster of Muslim terrorism or of Ghandian pacifism. To put it mildly.
(6) Thomas-Johnson, Amanda (2020): Middle East Eye 11/16/2020. <https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/obama-defends-deadly-drone-campaign-new-book> (Accessed: 2025-06-12).
(7) Barack Obama: 'drone strikes have saved lives'. The Guardian YouTube channel 05/24/2013. <https://youtu.be/6Upd96OSBPk?si=3gA46w83vEk9b-BS> (Accessed: 2025-08-12).
No comments:
Post a Comment