Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Progressives and Obama: The Clash of Narratives
By now, across the progressive spectrum, some familiar storylines tell us the meaning of the Obama campaign. In a groove, each narrative digs its truths. But whether those particular truths are the most important at this historical moment is another story.
We can set aside the plotline that touts Obama as a visionary pragmatist who has earned the complete trust of progressives. The belief has diminished in recent months -- in the wake of numerous Obama pronouncements on foreign policy, his FISA vote to damage the Fourth Amendment and the like -- but such belief was never really grounded in his record as a politician or his policy positions.
A more substantial narrative concedes that Obama has "compromised" on numerous fronts but assumes he has done so in order to get elected president, after which time his real self will emerge. This kind of dubious projection is as old as the political hills, and inevitably becomes a kind of murky exercise in armchair psychology. All in all, projection is not useful for assessing where political leaders are and where they're headed.
In contrast, quite a few on the left -- some from the outset of his presidential race, others beginning more recently -- express appreciable disdain for the Obama campaign. The critiques of Obama's positions on issues are often on the mark. Overall, the fact that Obama brings civility and intelligence to public discourse that would be a welcome change in the White House does not alter the corporate centrist core of his espoused policies.
No matter how much we might like to think that people's reasoning and logic are the essence of political judgments, actual experience tells us different: The political stances of many people, including on the left, are contoured around their own internal emotional terrain. And there may not be a lot of sorting through contradictions or analysis of the current historical circumstances.
Yet we're in great need of willingness to acknowledge contradictory truths, to sort through them as a means of finding the best progressive strategies for the here and now. While some attacks on Obama from the left are overheated, overly ideological and mechanistic, there's scant basis for denying the reality that his campaign and his positions are way too cozy with corporate power. Meanwhile, his embrace of escalating the war in Afghanistan reflects acceptance rather than rejection of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."
To some, who evidently see voting as an act of moral witness rather than pragmatic choice (even in a general election), forces such as corporate power or militarism are binary -- like a toggle switch -- either totally on or totally off. This outlook says: either we reject entirely or we're complicit.
Such analysis tends to see Obama as just a little bit slower on the march to the same disasters that John McCain would lead us to. That analysis takes a long view -- but fails to see the profound importance of the crossroads right in front of us, where either Obama or McCain will be propelled into the White House.
Any progressive who watched the "faith" forum that Obama and McCain participated in on Aug. 16 would have good reasons to be negative when assessing some of Obama's answers. But McCain's responses were vastly more jingoistic, militaristic, fanatical and pro-corporate, while also making clear his enthusiasm for the worst of the current Supreme Court justices.
In an odd and ironic way, progressives who are unequivocal Obama boosters and unequivocal Obama bashers embrace similar concepts of limited alternatives in electoral work. They seem to rule out candidly critical support of a candidate -- viewing such an option as either a betrayal of the candidate or a betrayal of principles.
But supporting one candidate -- clearly preferable to the Republican -- should not require a lack of candor about the preferred candidate's defects. And progressive interests are not advanced by claiming, against the evidence, that it doesn't really matter which candidate wins.
We suffer from way too much political argumentation that seems to be on automatic pilot, either puffing up Obama as a paragon of progressive virtues or denying the real differences between him and McCain. The pretending that follows from faith or dogma is no way to mobilize a progressive movement.
Norman Solomon is an elected Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention. His book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. He is a national co-chair of the Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.
246 Comments so far
Show AllJim Glover, a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.
At best you are stupid, at worst dangerous to humanity.
You are not real progressives if you vote for a corporate shield like Obama.
The winner take all system is the system we're voting in because of idiots like you.
You are Cry babies and like spoiled children have no concept of how much damage you're doing to this nation.
McCain or Obama are tools of the Ruling Class, and you're advancing their cause.
Until you get a brain, the Greater Evil is what think is the Lesser Evil.
Voting for yourself or Mickey Mouse will have as much influence as voting for McCain or Obama.
Winner take all is the system and you are being used by the regressive forces in the system because all you morons will vote for is either one of their hand-picked candidates.
Obfuscate all you want but the choice isn't just between McCain or Obama, we also have Nader, McKinney, Barr.
That is why Rush and Rove love Dem Party Apologists so much. They know that between the real Republican and a fake one like Obama, the real Republican will always win.
Safiya, Why is Obama preferable to having McCain in office?
Because the first words out of McCain's mouth are militarism, jingoism and pandering to the highjacked notion of patriotism; it's what makes him tick. What makes me tick is eliminating the occasions for war; I didn't support Hillary for that reason. And I'm a fiscal conservative, but his blind insistence that he doesn't want to tax and take money from the rich but raise everyone up to be rich (note his inablility to answer Rick Warren's question seriously about what defines rich with a flippant "5 million") is evidence of shallow thinking, no concepts of exploitation, abuse, greed, cloud his understanding. Highly unlikely, so what's the conclusion? Could it be fundamental dishonesty?
And that idiotic "We are all Georgians" Should we be thrilled or thunderstruck? As far as I'm concerned: U.S. STAY OUT OF GEORGIA!
For all the perceptiveness and intelligence in the posts today (refreshingly free of obscene insults) there's also a puzzling degree of naivte, dare I say childishness. Even at this fairly optimal moment for policital change Democrats, Progressive or otherwise, are NOT A SHOO IN. if you want to pick up your marbles and go home, it'll be another retro four years while we again try to persuade enough people we really, really need a change in the White House.
Politics is about compromise - not necessarily backwards. If our efforts have been for nought, how do you suppose a young black man of 'dubious' provenance is a candidate for the Presidency. Breathtaking really.
The horizon is what you can't see beyond standing still - or going backwards!
Well Obama is officially on the DEFENSIVE about Iraq even while 70% want out.
Let the fake left appologists explain that one. Im sure they can scrible some reasons.
Meanwhile read about the history of the CIA funded "leftist" magazine Encounter Magazine and the role it played in funneling dissent back into the loop during the cold war. Study communications hisotry ...or we must die.!
From these posts, I infer that I can't be "progressive" and a Democrat. I just want to beat McCain; I'm reactionary, I guess.
I'm a progressive. I'm a liberal. I'm an FDR Democrat
That's why I support Ralph Nader
Obama liberal ?
Why would a liberal support a conservative who has destroyed the liberal movement by stealing it with empty flashy words then shortly thereafter taking a giant dump on it (liberalism), effectively destroying the liberal movement that was finally starting to take hold again.
Why not just say you're a conservative(maybe a self-hating liberal mental case).
Conservatives should vote for Obama. Be true to yourself Mr. Conservative
Several people have suggested that the democratic party is really nothing but the republican party in drag, and that this is evidenced through the person and positions of Barack Obama.
But the problem is that ordinary Americans elected Obama during the primary, not the Illuminati or anyone else. And, most of his support came from left wing progressives and liberals . . . like yourselves!
The real question isn't what is wrong with Obama, nor is the real question what is wrong with liberals and progressives that they would vote for and be excited about a candidate, only a few months later view the same candidate with utter disgust and contempt. The real question is WOW! Everyone has flip flopped! Why aren't we laughing?
It is as if his base voters are a direct reflection of the candidate they chose. Flipflopping from extreme enthusiasm to great disappointment overnight with the same ease with which he shifted on FISA. No grounding in anything solid or reliable, they shift and shuffle -- like their candidate -- as if the movement itself were the only thing stable. That they were going to shift on Obama was inevitable when they voted for him, because they had nothing solid which they were voting for, only shadows.
The base left wing supporters who gave us Obama in the first place are not angry because Obama manipulated or decieved them by pretending to espouse their beliefs during the primary . . . they are angry because he is no longer pretending to espouse their beliefs during the general. They don't accept the possibility that in actuality he does share their beliefs, because they don't distinguish between what a person actually believes and what that same person says they believe. The truth, for such people, lies in the surfaces, not in the depth. Is it no wonder, then, that we got a candidate who is all about the surfaces and whose depth utterly eludes everyone, including his own base?
Disenchanted Obama supporters are angry because they are still convinced that in the flatland world of ideas, if you just hold onto one set of ideas hard enough truth will finally emerge. Obama was the savior who was going to do that for them . . . but he didn't, and so people feel he betrayed their essence. But nothing could be further from the truth, for their essence does not lie in rigidly holding onto one set of ideas among the dancing landscape of the mind, but rather in the very phenomena of shifting surface ideas all struggling to find the core goodness which is intuited but never realized. Obama is precisely that.
It is precisely this fault line in the Progressive movement that the pro-McCain sockpuppets coming onto this board are trying to exploit by urging voters to abandon Obama in favor of fringe candidates.
While some of these folks simply claim that Obama and McCain are identical, many pose as far-left dogmatists arguing that Obama has abandoned his positions.
When you can't win the argument, obfuscate! :(
jj
"It is precisely this fault line in the Progressive movement that the pro-McCain sockpuppets coming onto this board are trying to exploit by urging voters to abandon Obama in favor of fringe candidates." You see. Here is why progressives who want a progressive change part company with liberals. Whenever a progressive disagrees with a Democratic candidate they are labeled a "pro-McCain" sock puppet, a troll, or worse. And that is why Obama will lose. He will lose because of this insulting inability to come to terms with and address the dilemma that corporate and non-anti-war candidate Obama has created. Look here. Obama cannot win without this progressive vote which is fast going to Nader and McCain. So, go on then, marginalize with your insults, inuendo and self-defeating tripe. And then, watch as more progressives who can't stand it any more abandon the Obamatanic. Look up and see the iceberg up ahead.
To wit.
jj
Oh, I agree completely with jj's comment.
The "When you can't win the argument, obfuscate!" part, that is.
The lesser-evil perspective, whether voiced by an intelligent and articulate writer like Solomon or the dumbed-down version presented by a group of regular commenters, is typically as deep as an oil slick on a mud puddle.
And the "knowing" attribution of sock-puppetry to dissenters is a self-confirming childish myth reinforced by groupthink.
The most striking feature of analysis like Solomon's is the absolute paucity of imagination it reveals. It's truly a "flatlander" vision that insists upon coloring inside the lines-- or like a medieval mapmaker filling in great gaps between known territory with "There Be Dragons!".
Although the tiresome phrase "thinking outside the box" has long since been hijacked by corporate culture and passed into cliché, it seems that Solomon and his fellow lesser-evilists have never heard of the "nine-dot problem":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outside_the_box
Is there any question that Obama is a big liar? Why should he keep any promises if it does not matter and you'll vote for him anyways because the other guys are worse? Vote for a liar and you'll be a slave of liars. If the voter has no principles in voting for his or her candidate, why should the candidate have any principles?
Wow can anyone think Obama has any "progressive " ingredients. He has said less than nothing. THe function of the Corporate Dems is to keep the opposition to our psychotic government voiceless. THey are doing great work.
Obama has said nothing, at just the moment when the country is ready to hear substance.
Obama has said nothing at jsut the moment when the coutry is ready to hear substance.
The country is a tinderbox.
Wall Street to Dems "Heres twenty more billion dollars: piss on the matches!
Bash the dems on mainstream websites or you have just completely wasted the last four minutes of your existence.
If independents use their votes strategically in decided states, this is a result I could be happy with. obama 46% ( constituents anti war - obama qustionable ) mccain 36% ( constituents mostly pro war - mccain pro war ) Nader 6% ( all anti war) Mckinney 6% ( all anti war ) Barr 5% ( anti war ) other 1%. This would be a 17% anti war, anti status quo ruling class, constituency.
bottom line might be.. there is no way mccain will have any accountability toward the progressive liberal political spectrum. that is not his base.. we-they are not the ones he will need to get him to the white house. obama, at least.. will have some onus of responsibility (word?) accountability.. as we are part of what will help him win an election and/or keep him there in 4 years. mccain would laugh off the progressives trying to hold him accountable. obama will ( should) have to take pause and consider his actions and possible consequences of them.
maybe
Solomon is just utterly convinced that voting for the slicker and more competent corporate candidate is somehow vital to the public interest! But he is dead wrong. There is absolutely nothing of progress in Obama to make us think that McCain is more an 'iceberg' (as lesser of 2 evils reader Josef put it) than Barack Obama is.
Solomon touts that Barack is clearly preferable to having McCain put into office, but why, Norman? Are you out to save American capitalism from itself? Some of us act not as advisers and counselors to the US Empire as you do and there is nothing about being morally pure or not about that.
To be a political force a group of people have to be able to consolidate themselves into a political entity. People like Norman are always trying to subvert that though by having us on the Left go with total compromise towards the middle. The middle is corporate control though, Norman. You pose absolutely no challenge to the 2 party corporate con game that we have all grown up with.
Instead of urging people to participate in this fraud of a democracy, how about telling people that it is a fraud? That will be the day though. Norman Solomon is more addicted to voting Democratic Party than any smoker to their cigarettes. ....and with the same results, too.
jozef August 18th, 2008 11:35 am
"He will lose because of this insulting inability to come to terms with and address the dilemma that corporate and non-anti-war candidate Obama has created. Look here. Obama cannot win without this progressive vote which is fast going to Nader and McCain."
Do you seriously believe that a candidate who is openly anti-military and anti-corporation could get elected President in todays America? Let alone win a single primary contest? Look what happened to Kucinich or Dean.
locust will only speak for himself.
If the Democratic party wants my progressive vote then it must be progressive.
I'm waiting but all I hear are insults and excuses.
Sounds just like Republicans, except for the excuses. That seems to be a Democratic thing.
Hey, there's a difference!
Apparently, my first comment hit a bit to close to the mark for poor Little Brother.
I like the way he claims to agree with my comment about obfuscation and then blithely proceeds to . . . obfuscate. :)
Sure a lesser-than-evil analysis is shallow. Guess what. So is most of the US electorate.
The attempt to disparage Solomon and anyone who agrees with him (i.e. anyone still supporting Obama) would be a bit more convincing if it weren't so painfully obvious that Little Brother does not understand the article.
jj
There are an infinite number of ways to think about an unbounded problem such as those presented in the political arena, whether one thinks about minimizing damage in the short-term or in the long-term, about keeping the windows open for real change just a little bit longer (e.g. stopping a candidate who would soon shut down the political organizing and communications on the Internet and trashing the rest of the Bill of Rights), about maximizing the momentum of leftist political movements over the long-term (e.g. voting for a leftist alternative), about minimizing the threat of thermonuclear war over the short-term or the long-term that could not just wipe out the US left but the entire human race, about sending a signal to the real powers behind the curtain that they are trying to implement fascism too fast and they better slow down, and on and on ...
There are no clear answers for such unbounded problems with unlimited variables, especially when there are not even any clearly stated and agreed-upon goals. There are arguments to be made for "lesser-evilism" and for its rejection.
What worries me is that the authoritarian right has an easy time directing its pissants, as they enjoy being told what to do, while organizing the left is like herding cats. Hierarchies appear to be more powerful in politics and in military operations. I do not know how the non-authoritarian left ever hopes to deal with that.
This piece is flawed at its core. Using the phrase "... The clash of narratives..." Solomon implies that the key differences are ones of perspective and story-telling.
The key differences, in any political campaign, are ones of interests -- primarily, but not solely economic interests.
There are presidential candidates who have defined those interests in a substantive manner: Kucinich, Nader and McKinney, among others.
The fact that Solomon ignores those candidates and the very real issues that they have raised -- having to do with class, race, gender and economic issues -- by default allows him to fall upon the "lesser-of-evils" position.
In that case, Obama -- or any other human being on the face of the Earth who is not a Republican -- wins.
Back to much ado and we've seen this scene before...
We don't really have a democracy. We don't control foreign policy or important money matters. I'm sure the 'contest' will be made to look close up until the last minute, with breathless pundits giving us the lastest 'news' on election day. Then someone will take office (I'm betting McCain), and it won't have anything to do with how you voted.
So vote for either one and you have been suckered into wasted your vote. Or you could vote for a candidate that is telling the truth so that real democracy is promoted, at least a little bit. No he probably won't win. But you will sleep better, and at least your vote counts for something.
RichM August 18th, 2008 12:24 pm
- Note how similar this is to Bush's "You're either with us or against us," & his labeling of all dissent as treason. When faced with principled dissent to the Left, Dem Party Apologists resort immediately to the very same tactics — anyone who won't toe the Dem Party line is a "pro-McCain sockpuppet."
Excellent point! And applicable elsewhere too.
Great article Norman.
josef said:
"Here is why progressives who want a progressive change part company with liberals."
Thanks for pointing out that there is a difference between progressive and liberal. Conservatives have no problem adopting the handle of progressive. They gave us liquor prohibition among other things.
Like USAn pointed out, conservatives will adopt "liberal" too when it suits them, as in the conservative Australian Liberal Party. Or as implied in the name of our conservative right Libertarian Party that would increase wealth/power inequality. Their commonality is authoritarianism.
Other than any fascist Repugs or Libertarians lurking here, Obama bashers seem to be left conservative "progressives" or radicals. Most hide their conservatism by confusing or dismissing the definitions of liberal and conservative while bashing liberals.
Even Buddhist liberals may react by applauding radical's monkeywrenching such as Greenpeace's actions. Hypocritically enough, I do, though I'm a liberal.
But a real liberal will turn the other cheek. Action by inaction. That often takes more courage than returning violence to others. And it works too.
Liberal--humanist like Jesus, Ghandi, Einstein, Lennon
Conservative--bestialist like Bush, Cheney, McCain, Dahmer
MiMiCcS said that Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" was written by a ghostwriter. Please produce proof of your statement or I will have to assume you are a shill.
Anyone who has read "The Audacity of Hope" will have the clear impression that Obama wrote it all by himself and will become an Obama supporter.
Why accept anything less than Obama's own words?
"But supporting one candidate — clearly preferable to the Republican..."
And there's the lie. It's the same lie repackaged with a nice guilt wrapping to make it new and improved. Sorry, no sale.
If we actually had a choice between a Democrat and a Republican, I might be able to buy crap in a box without "thinking". However, the choice between Republican and "Generic Republican posing as a Democrat" only leaves me with one alternative... "neither of the above".
However, although I have never voted for a Republican, I have NOT ruled out a protest vote. Sometimes events have to get much worse before they get better. If you want to pretend that makes me a Republican troll, so be it. There are many other mistakes in your logic, so why not add one more?
Obama will not get this Independent's vote. Period. He is just more of the same. CHANGE is not repackaging... no matter how "pretty" it is.
jj, you can't reason with these assholes. Some of them are working with Rush Limbaugh in "Operation Chaos", and the others are "Purists" opting for suicide/martyrdom/sacrifice on the altar of "Lesser-Evilism". In any event, the MIMIC (Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex) will most likely insure an Insane-McSame inauguration in January - Enjoy, but all of you outspoken leftist, home-grown-terrorists, should prepare to leave the country, go underground, or pack light for the cattle-car train ride!
The Democrats set the same trap every time. They produce a candidate that is just barely, slightly less horrible than the Republican alternative. Then they demand that everyone support their horrible candidate.
If we only look at one election at a time, it may seem we have no choice but to support the Democrats horrible candidates. But that choice changes when you look at a longer time span. Then, the answer becomes obvious that we must build our own political movement independent of the Democrats. Then, the Democrats can no longer try to force us into supporting a candidate that is only marginally less horrible than the Republican.
If we elect McCain, we lose.
If we elect Obama, we lose.
If we build a new political movement that represents us, then we can win.
You can see what total bull the Dems spit out in support of their horrible candidates by this constant lie that anyone who doesn't support their crappy candidate must be a Rush Limbaugh supporter.
That alone shows the complete moral vacuity of the Dems arguments. They've got nothing but BS to toss around.
Sorry, I left out the "Racists" that are also bashing Obama!
Those would be the ones that support Nader over Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party for obvious reasons.
jozef: "Do you seriously believe that a candidate who is openly anti-military and anti-corporation could get elected President in todays America? Let alone win a single primary contest? Look what happened to Kucinich or Dean."
You're right jozef, with your attitudem nothing will ever change. Both parties are made-up of warmongering thugs and corporate thieves.
I'm tired of yours and others self-defeating attitudes. You and the writers like Solomon are just as guilty of murder as George Bush or Blackwater, USA. Just as guilty, because these are your people, your guys (and gals), and its yours and others like you who made it all possible.
How many times does it have to be said: At the end of the day, there is no difference in policy. None. At the end of the day, the bullets are fired. At the end of the day, money is stolen. At the end of the day, the we lose more of our privacy. At the end of the day, the Fourth Estate becomes more of a protector of the State, and less of a protector of the People. At the end of the day, we are back to a hideous healthcare system. At the end of the day, our schools, public infrastructure continue to crumble. At then end of the day, our money becomes more worthless. At the end of the day, more homes are foreclosed. At the end of the day, more jobs are shipped over seas. At the end of the day, our Military Industrial Complex makes bigger and more destructive deals to inflict death and carnage upon yet another defenseless and poor people who already are the edge of civilization to begin with.
At the end of the day, Norman, josez, and others, we are back to square (at best) of every single one of these issues. Every stinking, single one.
Now, do you (all) think this is progress? Do you really think so? If so, what do tell, am I missing here?
I'm emotional alright. I'm damn tired of hearing the same lies and reading the same sickening storyline from the likes of Soloman, The Nation (including the recent most disgusting -- but not surprising -- list of "signers" to their usual bend-over and give-it-to-us-again master, dog & pony show they stage every 4 years, and the rest of 'em.
Obama is no John F. Kennedy. Obama is no Dr. King, Jr., Obama is no man of the streets, nor of the heart.
What he is, is the perfect man for the job of conniving us into believing something will change. It will not.
Believe him at your, the nation's, indeed, humanity's peril.
In fact, I am amazed that the Democrats aren't more pissed off at Obama than they are.
Obama basically made a complete fraud of any pretense of democratic process inside the Democratic party. He did this by lying and misrepresenting himself to the party during the primaries.
This shows what a completely horrible and dishonest party the Democrats have become. They basically just ran a big con on their own party members. They presented a phony candidate offering a phony alternative to Hillary, then when the party members chose that candidate, they said 'surprise!' and revealed that Obama is as bad or worse than Hillary on the issues of importance to the Dem party members.
If I was still a Democrat, I'd be mad as heck about this. The Democratic leadership and Obama just ran a big con, lied their rears off to the party members, and are now busy running around saying that its too late and there is now no alternative to electing thier lying, basically Republican, pro- war candidate as President.
The mistake people made was in not realizing that for most major national Democrats, you can know they are lying whenever their lips are moving.
5280, Jozef is on your side asshole!
5280, well said.
"You're right jozef, with your attitudem nothing will ever change. Both parties are made-up of warmongering thugs and corporate thieves."
It's way past being about which party to choose from; it is about whether or not democracy survives.
Note also how the Democrats refer to the people to their left as 'assholes'.
If you listen closely, they often show their hatred of us. How many times has an open mike or a camera caught references to 'idiot liberal's? Or to their wishing they could have us arrested for loitering for daring to try to get a message to them?
What is very, very clear is that the Democrats hate the left, and have no intention of ever doing anything the left wants. The catch is, they need our votes.
The part I can't figure out is why anyone would ever vote for a candidate that clearly won't support an agenda we want, and who clearly has disdain and hatred for our positions.
It seems clear that if there is anything self-defeating, its continuing to elect such candidates in the vain hope that they'll represent us once elected.
jlocke123 August 18th, 2008 1:31 pm, we've never had a democracy here, it's about survival now!
Ugh. I am extremely tired of reading about narratives (all of which know by heart) and would like to see some empirical or historical facts attempting to show which one is true!
article: "A more substantial narrative concedes that Obama has "compromised" on numerous fronts but assumes he has done so in order to get elected president, after which time his real self will emerge. This kind of dubious projection is as old as the political hills, and inevitably becomes a kind of murky exercise in armchair psychology. All in all, projection is not useful for assessing where political leaders are and where they're headed."
That's great. But the fact that it's "as old as the political hills" doesn't say anything about whether it is right or wrong.
In another thread I tried to show through comparison that if a young, change-minded JFK allowed Jupiter missiles to be installed in Turkey, then a young, change-minded Obama will probably allow the stupid, expensive, undemocratic missile shield to be built against the wishes of most Americans and the vast majority of Polish citizens. I've seen several other posters make extremely useful posts full of facts trying to prove their point. At times these have given me information I wouldn't even have known where to find myself.
Why are CD readers having to make all such detailed comparisons while the published articles merely present "possible truths" over and over and over?
With Obama, we'll get slightly better judicial nominees (think Kennedy vs. Roberts or Alito), slightly better agency appointees, slightly more support for alternative energy and environment. We'll get slightly better people at the State Dept. We'll get people whose agenda is not to destroy the agency they are nominated to lead, which is what we always get with the Repubs.
Other than that, the empire, now percieved as cranky and out-of-touch, needs a charming new face. Prince Hal to the rescue! The Clinton DLC crowd will be running the show; they are already at the highest levels of the Obama campaign. The actual thinkers will be purged, now or later.
That's what we will be called upon to decide in Nov. Nothing more. I suppose, thinking strategically, better judges are important. But change anything big, anything important? Nope. Not this way.
This is "Change we can believe in", not actual change we can see, feel, measure, verify.
Excellent posts jesusofjonesboro, kivals, madcow and others.
kivals said:
"I do not know how the non-authoritarian left ever hopes to deal with that."
Good point. Non-authoritarian liberals driven to the egalitarian left can often have a hard time dealing with their authoritarian left counterparts, the conservatives and radicals who espouse violence and absolutism.
But there are peaceful liberal ways to resolve things. Direct democracy is for me the best and proven way.
Obama's platform includes increasing public participation in government. Who is more likely to accede to letting people make laws via the referendum, Obama or McCain?
MikeBinSC's last sentence at 1:12 pm seems to be an echo of Jane Harman's bill HR 1955--Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
There is NO ONE posting comments on CD that holds views further left than my own. There is a big difference between being a pragmatic progressive and being a left-wing-suicidal-idiot!
MikeBinSC, from the way you write, I sincerely hope you are a potty mouthed pre-teen or a paid hack, I suspect the former. The thought of someone making it into maturity with your level of stupidity, or is it ignorance?, disturbs me.
"we've never had a democracy here, it's about survival"?
Is that supposed to mean something?
Jareilly: "With Obama, we'll get slightly better judicial nominees"
Even that is open to debate. What do you mean by "better"? With either of the corporate party candidates, you risk turning US democracy into more of a hollow shell.
Btw, as to the real point of the article, it's not exactly hard to explain why people fall into two sharp camps with regard to a major party candidate like Obama. It's called cognitive dissonance reduction. When the debate is done, and it comes down to actions, there are only two choices: vote for him or vote for someone else. Obviously, people are going to adopt beliefs and a "narrative" that support their choice, both to make themselves feel better and because they will have spent a lot of time defending their choice against people who chose differently. Sorry, but you're never going to find a widespread phenomenon of people having "candidly critical support of a candidate". That is not human nature. People don't endlessly criticize their own choices--they try to justify and defend them. That's psychological, not political.
Moreover, Solomon does nothing to defend Obama's progressive potential against the countless actual arguments which have been levelled at him by progressives. Nothing. He merely tries to argue for a muddy middle ground of critical support, then slips in at the last second the statement that people who have such critical support should pull the lever for Obama on election day. XD Nice try, Solomon, but not good enough. I could just as easily write an article is identical for the first 2/3rds, then replace the last 1/3 with a proclomation that, while we should all vote for McKinney, "we must not slip into believing that there are *no* differences between Obama and McCain. We must be candidly supportive non-supporters."
This article acts like its being nuanced and fair-minded, but in the end no amount of words can change the fact that there are only two ways to vote in November. There won't be an "I'm candidly critical but ultimately supportive of Obama" chad to punch on the ballot.
jlocke123 August 18th, 2008 1:52 pm, let me spell it out for you - There is not NOW, nor has there EVER been a democracy in the US!
MikeBinSC:
The conservative in me appreciates your reaction. The liberal in me appreciates your wisdom and humor.
I'm proud of anyone who votes for McKinney or Nader, period! There is no excuse for voting for Obama. How about if we only vote for those who we actually agree with on most issues? This leaves us with very few candidates to vote for, which is fine with me. I'm more interested in getting more and more independents and greens elected to offices and ending the tyranny of the Repubs and Dems.
It's easy to be "pragmatic" when the people you hurt don't enter your thinking. Obama will simply kill different people than McCain will kill; their lives will still be lost. Obama will simply do terrible things to our economy that will be different than what McCain will do at the margins, but it will still mess with poor people's lives, among others. And Dems unfortunately worry about the wimp factor, which often makes them MORE dangerous. I don't have any respect or admiration for Obama's supporters - I've read his books, listened to his speeches, looked at his record, and he's a disaster for all of us.
Good post jimmyjazz.
Rich Griffin says he read Obama's books. I don't think so because if he had, he would be an Obama supporter.
"On the one hand, he's already changed his registration from Green to Dem so he could go to the Convention as an Obama delegate. That means that this passionately antiwar, and usually insightful & perceptive guy, got snookered by Obama's fake stance in the primaries, where he positioned himself to the "left" of Hillary. It took Obama all of one day to shed this disguise, in early June. Since the AIPAC speech, he's become a full-fledged Republican in all but name (Hillary already was a Republican in all but name, but wasn't as clever about disguising it as Obama was)."
Any leftist unacquainted with Woodrow Wilson's adminstrations, his development of U.S. foreign policy around liberal capitalist interventionism, ought to set aside some reading time. It will disabuse anyone of the notion that the Democratic Party is somehow betraying itself. Against reactionary nationalists, the Democratic statesmen proposed & worked to create the international order in which human rights were supposedly the inevitable outcome of capitalism. Just as the right resisted Wilson's internationalism & liberalism 90 years ago, the left resisted his elevation of international banking & the abolition of trade restrictions as if the new type of imperialism would be morally better than the old.
No candidate for the presidency can change the game from above or within. FDR and LBJ never had any intention to abolish the system; in order to reform or modify it, they had to create agencies and employ those who had the desire to do more. Both eventually came up against the much deeper & broader demand that inudstrial militarism necessarily imposes. Had he lived through the end of WWII, Roosevelt would have faced the choices & fate of LBJ, albeit earlier.
Given the impossibility of liberal capitalist states to alter the basis for their functioning, one has to decide whether one wants someone who seeks to widen conflict and one who would prefer to defer or contain it.
"Do you seriously believe that a candidate who is openly anti-military and anti-corporation could get elected President in todays America? Let alone win a single primary contest? Look what happened to Kucinich or Dean." Well, there you go. You make my case for me. The DEMOCRATS killed off Kucinich. THWY threw him out of the debates and now, you want to reward them. Bravo! You are stuck in the "race" and in the "winning" of the contest and miss the point. The point is to present to the corporate Democratic Party a notice that we have had enough. A huge showing for a Nader would move the Democratic agenda out of necessity and perhaps be the event that moves us toward another political force. Voting yet again for those that screw ya is going to do what? Wait. I know. It's going to screw ya! When does it hurt enough to stop bending over? Run Ralph. Run!
Norman Solomon says near the end that Obama is "clearly preferable to the Republican". At the same time he says the vote is a choice of principle vs pragmatism.
If you go with principle, Obama losses easily to Nader and McKinney, I don't think many here would question that. What progressive position has Obama not betrayed in his short career? If you go with pragmatism, wouldn't it be more pragmatic to vote Green and independent anyway to build an alternative to the more or less "jingoistic, militaristic" McCain/Obama?
Saint-Just, good post, can you recommend a book on left & right opposition to Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy ideas?