Progress is possible

Many believed that Obama would change the world, because, even though he was a young, African-American liberal, or, perhaps, precisely because of that, he won the presidential election in 2008.
His election was a sign that America was reinventing itself.
Obama was the personification of that change, and his election thrilled all those yearning for the US to once again champion the values of peace, justice and democracy, brutalized by the Bush-Cheney administration for eight, long years.
Obama was thus both the embodiment, and an agent, of change.
His unlikely victory created great hopes and, inevitably, those hopes have been disappointed.
So many wanted to believe that he would change the world, that the great intractable issues his predecessor had exacerbated or failed to resolve, an unprecedented economic crisis, universal health care, constitutional rights, Guantanamo, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process, to name but a few, would be addressed forcefully, rationally, and, at last, successfully.
This has not happened, and it does not matter that we were foolish to expect that it would, in his first year in office.
The disappointment is real, even if it is in many ways unfair.
You know, on the heels of that victory over a year ago, there were some who suggested that somehow we had entered into a post-racial America, all those problems would be solved. There were those who argued that because I had spoke of a need for unity in this country that our nation was somehow entering into a period of post-partisanship. That didn’t work out so well. There was a hope shared by many that life would be better from the moment that I swore that oath.
Of course, as we meet here today, one year later, we know the promise of that moment has not yet been fully fulfilled, the President said, in a speech delivered on Sunday at the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church, in Washington, in remembrance of Martin Luther King.
Our disappointment is simply a consequence of our great faith in Obama’s ability to create that America so many in the US and around the world craved for: a beacon of progress and justice, exerting an enlightened and benign influence around the world, dedicated to resolving conflicts, not provoking them…
And yet, millions are jobless, the health care debate grinds on, Guantanamo is still not closed, US troops remain in Iraq, the war is escalating in Afghanistan, a new front may be opening in Yemen, the Middle East peace process is dead, and Obama has shown little interest in resuscitating it…
Yet, that, in fact, is the very frustrating nature of politics.
In a democratic society, it is very difficult to change reality durably and rapidly.
The forces pitted against you, such as an opportunistic political opposition, saturation and often demagogic media coverage, vested interests, conventional wisdom, a society’s inherent conservatism, apathy and inertia, these forces are formidable and demand vast amounts of energy and public support to overcome. They also exact great political capital, which explains Obama’s mediocre poll numbers. Victories are rare, and usually diluted due to the concessions awarded to obtain them, a process that even alienates one's own supporters, without attracting any new ones.
We must do our utmost to reform society, Obama claims, but we must also refrain from scorning the progress that we are able to achieve, even though it falls short of our hopes and expectations. A little progress is better than no progress. Sometimes, I get a little frustrated when folks just don't want to see that even if we don't get everything, we're getting something, the President said. It’s not enough, he said later in the speech, but it’s progress. Progress is possible.
This disappointment and frustration, the recognition that the progress being made is insufficient, when not altogether absent, must not lead us to give up on the idea that politics is a vehicle for change. In a democracy, it is the only one, and thus must be fostered, respected and cherished.
The political process is frustrating and slow because every initiative taken by the President (it is exactly the same thing in France) is immediately attacked, resisted and ridiculed by a host of antagonists.
The Chinese autocrats do not have that problem, and are able to impose change much more quickly and effectively. Yet, freedom and democracy is the price of such efficiency...

In a democracy, the pace of change is much slower, as a variety of forces must be dealt with and accommodated. The task demands great energy, determination and patience.
An abundant supply of self-confidence is also vital.
There are times when progress seems too slow. There are times when the words that are spoken about me hurt. There are times when the barbs sting. There are times when it feels like all these efforts are for naught, and change is so painfully slow in coming, and I have to confront my own doubts, the President admitted.
Yet, those who have faith must plod on, even if the results are sure to be imperfect.
Some even consider he has exerted too much energy in his desire to transform the country. But his has become a voracious pragmatism. Driven by circumstances and self-confidence, the president has made himself the star performer in the national drama. He has been ubiquitous, appearing everywhere, trying to overhaul most sectors of national life: finance, health, energy, automobiles and transportation, housing, and education, among others, wrote the NYT columnist David Brooks.
The very same thing has been said of Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been dubbed l’hyper-président.
However, change, even when limited, comes at the price of drive and ubiquity.
Sarkozy himself was elected on a platform of rupture with the past, the conventional and failed policies of his predecessors.
His ambition was to revitalize the country by rehabilitating the work ethic and curb the excessively intrusive role of the state in the economy…
Yet, the financial meltdown of 2007, followed by an unprecedented economic crisis doomed that ambition, and he was compelled to use all the resources of the state to limit the effects of the crisis, and protect jobs and living standards, the reverse of what he aimed to do…
As a result, he has also disappointed a great many in France, and the prospects of the President’s party, l’UMP, look dim in next March's Regional elections…
Both Obama and Sarkozy will be up for reelection in 2012.
Much can still be achieved during those two years. Then shall we be able to make a genuine assessment of their performance.
Undoubtedly, much support will have been lost along the way, but the cause they serve, progress, is still a noble one.
In the end, as citizens, we shall have to determine if what they have achieved has any lasting value, and deserves to be rewarded with a second term.
Furthermore, do we believe that, under the circumstances, John McCain or Ségolène Royal could have done better?
It remains to be seen however, if the cause of progress can find more effective and efficient promoters than Obama and Sarkozy…
(the photograph is by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)