Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
From Our Archives: What Would Howard Zinn Say If He Were Barack Obama?
The Return of Howard Zinn, and Company: A packed house hears a left-wing critique of Obama
CommonDreams.org Editor's Note: This piece originally ran on CD in October of 2009. It seems appropriate as we mourn his passing that we reflect on some of his most recent wisdom. In light of President Obama's State of the Union address this evening, we hope that somehow this sage advice reaches its intended target. In the end, however, Howard's words compell all of us to reflect on the wisdom that he was kind enough to offer throughout his life. Again, we thank him.
In the video here, Howard Zinn answers a question from the audience: what would he urge Barack Obama to do? Photos below by Frank Curran.
BOSTON UNIVERSITY - With the Tsai Performance Center filled to its 500-seat capacity, many in the audience remembered when that hall was named Hayden, the University was in turmoil, and Howard Zinn was both lightning rod and radical catalyst.
Much has changed. The Howard Zinn Lecture Series, kicking off Alumni Weekend on October 22, now celebrates Boston University's distinguished professor emeritus of political science. As Virginia Sapiro, dean of Arts & Sciences, welcomed all and introduced three intriguing writers gathered around the man of the night, cordiality rather than conflict ruled.
"To have a kindly relationship between us and the BU administration," said Zinn, his nod to Sapiro drawing swells of laughter, "well, we're still trying to get used to it."
Yet some things haven't changed. The topic was The Promise of Change: Vision and Realty in Obama's Presidency. And the analysis came hard from the left, with Zinn staking out the far post.
Just as intriguing were the positions of his fellow panelists, each nuanced, each approaching Obama at least a little more sympathetically. They were:
James Carroll, a National Book Award winner and Boston Globe columnist, who first met Zinn during his years as Catholic chaplain at Boston University, from 1969 to 1974, before he left the priesthood.
Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize winner, who has been writing about social change in America since 1976 and whose column appears in more than 300 newspapers.
Mary Gordon, New York's official state author, a stuffy title for a writer whose work marries a piercing intimacy and religious and political explorations.
Zinn gingerly took up the cudgel.
"It's a very delicate question," he mused. "Why? Well, it's not easy to talk about." Everyone wants to support Obama, he continued, or at least everyone in his circle. Everyone wants to love Obama. But let's face it: "His presidency doesn't measure up. I have to say that. But why? How? How come?"
Militarism, he answered. Obama has kept the troops in Iraq. He's sent more troops to Afghanistan. "He's continued a military foreign policy."
Not to be a know-it-all, Zinn said ("though I do know it all," he joked), but those who expected great change from this president were fooling themselves. Look at history, he urged, invoking his mantra; Democrats are as aggressive as Republicans.
"They're all in this for war," he said. "That's what we call bipartisanship." Those surprised or disappointed are those who "exaggerated expectations, romanticized him, idealized him. Obama is a Democratic Party politician. I know that sounds demeaning. It is."
"There's an enormous weight left over by the Bush administration," Zinn said. "Unfortunately, he has done nothing to begin to lift that weight." Change can happen only by grassroots protest strong enough to move entrenched interests.
"I'll say it: turmoil," he concluded.
Carroll weighed in.
"President Obama's administration began in January," he said, then paused. "January of 1943."
Carroll ticked off four events that year: the Allies insisting on unconditional surrender to end World War II, massive bombings of civilian sites by the American and British Air Forces, the creation of the Pentagon, and the forming of Los Alamos National Laboratory to build a nuclear weapon. Those events put in motion "a current running below the nation ever since," he argued, and "President Obama is at the mercy of this current."
This is a permeating force, he said, strong enough to stall antiwar protests and nuclear disarmament. Its momentum has stopped us from taking advantage of opportunity after opportunity, from the Cold War's end to this singular moment. Call it "the military industrial complex," as President Eisenhower did, Carroll said, but see it as even more pervasive.
Still, he was not as dark as Zinn. Obama's speeches, raising expectations and changing perceptions, also count, he said. "While it totally freaks me out to disagree with Howard Zinn, I think the words matter. I think the Nobel Prize went to the right person ... as an invitation to greatness."
That said, Carroll seconded Zinn's call for protest and pressure to change foreign policy. "Nothing happens without the grassroots," he concluded. "That's Howard Zinn's point."
Goodman
said she found it "shocking, but I'm going to be the resident
optimist." The man hasn't been president for a year, let alone a term.
"We're very impatient," she said, and that's not fair.
Yet her hope for more public civility has died away. Goodman sees an organized, bitter, and in many ways fabricated right-wing attack on Obama: the "birthers" (who insist that the president was not born in this country, despite proof to the contrary) and the "kill granny group" (who have said that national health care would lead to euthanasia). They're akin to Holocaust deniers, she said, and they have powerful sway in the country Obama leads.
"There's an underlying anxiety," said Goodman. "Can you be a healer and a politician?" While she doesn't feel hopeless about the president's agenda, "I'm not hopeful about the rise of civility." And so she returned to the theme of the evening, and made it personal:
"The gap between hope and reality is very much a gap inside ourselves."
Gordon
invoked Henry James: "Things are much more complicated than you ever
think," she quoted, then adding from Voltaire to build her perspective:
"The best is the enemy of the good. The perfect is the enemy of the
good."
She listed what she sees as major Obama accomplishments: growing acceptance of the Muslim faith within our nation, changes in reproductive rights for women, the prospect of a much-improved health-care system. Each of these is "enormous," she said, but even more, Obama "opens up our imagination. He reminds us that the world is a complicated place."
And, she continued, "what will never go back is that African-American kids will look at him and say, ‘The world is different.'
"He didn't say he was going to pull a rabbit out of a hat and there will be no more original sin," she said. And then she closed a writer's circle begun with Henry James: "He's not Gabriel García Márquez. He can't do magic realism. He has to write a realistic novel."
After a round of questions, panelists and posse adjourned to the Castle for drinks, food, and more conversation. The ornate building was packed with people and energy and a sense of how history - including University history - is full of surprising turns.
Sidney Hurwitz, a College of Fine Arts professor emeritus of art, who taught at BU for more than 30 years, a colleague of Zinn's and fellow activist during stormier times, summed up:
"When I see Howard up there, giving a lecture, celebrated as he deserves to be - well, I never thought I'd live to see this happen."
The Howard Zinn Lecture Series, made possible by the gift of Alex MacDonald (CAS'72) and Maureen A. Strafford (MED'76), is an annual talk on contemporary issues from a historical point of view.
Seth Rolbein can be reached at srolbein@bu.edu.




70 Comments so far
Show AllBring America Back !!!!....!...Good 'ol Zinn, getting up in years but realizing wisdom has attached, if he could be Obama for a Day , would say Get out of Iraq; Get out of Afghan' stay out of Iran==Bring our troops home==NOW, but safely--they have suffered enough !!!
Let the investigations of the Bush/Cheney War Crimes begin !
Gotta love Zinn.
"A People's History of the United States" should be required reading in high school civics classes.
Amen.
high schoolers in america today for the most part would be intellectually
unable to accomplish this task. today this would be more of a grad school
type of exercise. plus in a post ronald reagan us what teachers could
explain the difference between democracy and what now is "democracy"
here now? if their under 45 they wouldn't understand how it was before
he took office!
It is simply unbelievable that three of these four leftist still wish to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Carroll even believes that Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize. They should be urging the antiwar movement to protest against Obama and his wars instead of lavishing praise on Obama.
Yeah, this bunch is about as "leftist" as my belly button.
I'm sort of half-listening to "Democracy Now" as I sit at the computer.
I have to keep hitting the "mute" button when Amy shows lengthy clips of Obama-- I have developed the same Aversion to the Obama Persona as I had to the previous Unitary Executive.
Anyway, it's a round-table on the current health care debacle. It's all pitched on the horse-trading minutiae so-called "realists" consider the be-all and end-all of politics.
The panelists aren't as lame as the "leftists" on Zinn's panel, but they're in the wretched position of having to sift through the bewildering complexities and find "positives".
I'm not blasting this group, but one still hears what amounts to justification for, or at least acquiescence to, the half-assed-- hell, not even sixteenth-assed-- No Insurer Left Behind debacle because The People are too fearful of "radical change" in the tanking Main Street economy.
Ironically, Amy began by quite correctly noting that "the man on the street" is likely to be utterly bewildered and confused about the legislation currently under consideration. She asked one of the panelists to summarize them.
Now, I freely concede that I glaze over at obfuscatory technical language, especially when it's produced by the truthless criminals in Congress. But once this panelist got about thirty seconds into her "summary", it became what my late father would have declared "clear as mud".
The common denominator to both panels is that they evoke a seminal joke used by Woody Allen in "Annie Hall": a man mentions to his psychiatrist that the man's brother thinks he's a chicken. When the psychiatrist suggests that the man bring his brother in for treatment, the man replies, "Well, I would... but we need the eggs."
Whether its the comforting fantasy that Obama is basically a "good egg", or the fantasy that our criminal political overlords will leave a few "eggs" in the anti-healthcare legislation hyped as a Big Win for the Good Egg, the consensus is really that... we need the eggs.
· Yr Obd't Servant
they are FIRST AMERICAN-ISTS ..."leftists" only a distant second.
they think they have found a "leftie-like" president - so they want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Howard Zinn may have voted Obama in - likely wanting to hope that something in america's RACIAL history would be Obama's guidepost in eventually following the path Dr Martin Luther King, JR pointed to - DISMANTLING the WARFARE state which BEGAN in ENSLAVING obama's OWN fellow africans. BUT Zinn makes his amends by saying it as it is: OBAMA is a DISAPPOINTMENT.
that is different from these other "leftists" who are FIRST OF ALL AMERICAN-ISTS and simply by finding :"leftlike" obama -think their OWN americanISM is going to be "better" for being "leftlike"......they think.
they are dreaming even as obama DISMANTLES their OWN delusions..which at least Howard Zinn acknowledges through his criticisms.
Well said. They'll be howling pretty soon though. Let's not forget the zionist factor. These folks would, most of them, rather die than criticize Zionist Israel. The connection from Israel (the thesis mentor of Bernake is the head of the Israeli central bank) to Wall Street to US agression is painfully obvious. They don't want to go there. This compromises their otherwise sterling credentials.
exactly!
the funny thing is - for DECADES - the arab world had always accused the US economic system as largely also a body parasitised by Israel and israeli "interests" - much. the same thing that nixon reportedly disliked for which he was accused of being "anti semitic" (whatever else the differences in US and Israeli interests) ...
and that has always been part of the counter accusations of "anti semitism" in order to suppress it from becoming a more consciously known , and perhaps even acted-upon , matter for americans.
and then - as time goes on - the MORE exposed it becomes - it turns out -- the ARABS WERE right all along.
As others here have pointed out, for what it's worth, Zinn did not vote for Obama. Towards the end of the campaign he realized Obama was tacking to the rightwing. He couldn't support that.
So many were hopeful because Obama did drop some carefully placed progressivisms, so different from GW was the consensus. But upon scrutinizing his record, I and I imagine Zinn as well, realized it was all theater, scripted to fool we the people .... again.
Will progressives be fooled again? Of course they will! It's American human nature to think small, to be ignorant, to be led like sheep. Two official Obmama volunteers in my town had no idea what his record was. They thought "he voted against the Iraq war," they were stunned when I told them he voted for every funding bill. They didn't believe me.
As JFK once said, and Gore Vidal reiterated recently: It's appearances that matter.
Zinn voted for Ralph Nader! As did I.
Obd't Servant
I'd say you and Erroll are pretty much right in the glide path.
"I have to keep hitting the "mute" button when Amy shows lengthy clips of Obama-- I have developed the same Aversion to the Obama Persona as I had to the previous Unitary Executive."
Me, too. For some time, now, I have been unable to listen to his voice on the radio without feeling sick.
If it's any consolation to you, nosurrender, I can't even look at Obama, let alone listen to his voice, without my stomach turning.
Nor can I. I find that I've exactly the same feelings about him as I've had for every psychopath in that office since 1980: complete, visceral revulsion.
I suspect we're far from being alone in that.
Brand Obama is just another poison pill meant to lull us into complacency while the economy and ecology crashes around us.
ho hum...
Us rabble down here haven't got a problem calling it what it is, but see how the experts are always rationalizing, justifying, excusing and with the VERY SAME BREATH state it is up to the Grassroots to press for change--after they have concluded there is no reason or it is too early to press for it.
How surreal to think that they will conjure up excuses or ignore the evidence for the next 4 or more years.
Zinn would point to the lessons of HISTORY!
This unusual and unexpected 'anti-war' Op-Ed allowed by the NYT may be the 'Walter Cronkite moment' for the Afghanistan War.
Much thanks to the NYT for publishing this compelling lesson of Soviet EMPIRE history today:
Op-Ed Contributor
"Transcripts of Defeat"
By VICTOR SEBESTYEN
Published: October 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29sebestyen.html?ref=opinion
Such advice and sanity today is better than waiting for the NYT to have to print the "Pentagon Papers 2.0" later --- disclosing that our deceitful ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE knew the truth about the Afghanistan War's trajectory all along.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
PS. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana
" Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it ". The definition of insanity: doing the same thing the same way over and over and over and expecting a different result!
Too bad the other panelists had to dilute Howard Zinn's message.
A couple panelists fewer would have made a better evening.
I'm confused. Zinn says he would urge Obama to say, "we're getting out of Afghanistan because we're not doing any good over there". That would assume that doing good was why we were there in the first place.
Negotiate with the Taliban? That would be something that would require CARING about the people of Afghanistan. And it wouldn't get you any oil.
We're in these wars to control and steal oil reserves and to prop up the military industrial complex. And this panel knows that.
That he would even mention these fantasies makes me think that Zinn is merely having a political wet dream, one he himself scoffs at people for thinking Obama could deliver. ("Those surprised or disappointed are those who "exaggerated expectations, romanticized him, idealized him. Obama is a Democratic Party politician.")
Zinn says "those who expected great change from this president were fooling themselves". Not all by themselves, they weren't. This president and his staff made change THE basis of their campaign. They charmed, cajoled and bullshitted us into believing they they wanted change too. Turns out they just flat-out LIED. Zinn apparently still believes that change is possible with this president, if only there's enough "turmoil", if only the grassroots could mobilize, if only. Ah, the audacity of hope.
Hope is the opiate of the people.
Those that still think that Obama's okay, realize that everyday there are more and more people regretting their vote for Obama. I don't think you'd find one Nader or McKinny voter regretting their vote.
single payer or single term
Public option is not an option.
Obama is a Democratic Party politician. I know that sounds demeaning. It is."
Thank you for that inescapable truth.
This would seem to speak to the problem:
Go! Stalk the red deer o'er the heather.
Ride! Follow the fox if you can.
But for pleasure and profit together,
allow me the hunting of man.
Kipling
How come Zinn voted for Obama if he knew he was another Democratic pol? (He admitted his vote in another piece) I'll answer the question: Even though chances for progressive change were essentially nil, he voted for Obama for the sake of every minority child in the country. That was my reason for voting for him, too.
Nanoo
Zinn had put his support behind Obama, but very close to the election date he changed his mind and voted for Nader. I read this here on Commondreams.
Zinn voted for Ralph Nader because of Obama's tack to the rightwing. Noam Chomsky voted for Cynthia McKinney.
And I too read it here on CommonDreams.
Jesus. What nattering "liberals". (I'll except Zinn, but he's getting to be a master of the understatement. "[Obama's] presidency doesn't measure up." Also, it doesn't help the instigation of "turmoil" to say, basically, "It's *wrong*, I tell you. WRONG.)
Carroll is all screwed up. The "military" current (of which Obama is "at the mercy") is not running "below the nation." It's right up there front and center and Obama heading the parade.
Goodman quoting Voltaire, ""The best is the enemy of the good. The perfect is the enemy of the good." Isn't the worst or near worst the enemy of the good, too?
Vern has a good point.
Carroll weighed in.
"President Obama's administration began in January," he said, then paused. "January of 1943."
===========
CARROLL is WRONG.
Obama's War Presidency began in the European Discovery of America.
then it began formally in 1776...starting with George washington...et al.
actually it began also when they started to call something a country called "america".............
AMERICA = WAR
I really appreciated Zinn's comments about "big government". Right on.
For more independent views you can visit:
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com
http://chriscommons.blogspot.com
The difference between the Dems and Repubs
Clinton oversaw the death of somewhere between 1.5 million- 3 million Iraqis. We will never know the exact number.
Bush the younger will ultimately have somewhere between 2- 5 million Iraqi deaths on his hands. We will never know the exact number.
That bloody story, ongoing and bi-partisan, about sums up the difference between the Dems and the Republicans.
If you had to guess how many Iraqi deaths Obama will sign off on what number would you throw out there?
If you had to guess how many Afghani deaths will Obama sign off on...?
If you had to guess how many Iraqi children do you think will be slaughtered during an Obama presidency? Afghani children?
etc...
Should we start a betting pool? Color it red.
I'll say it again:
Supporting Democrats is a serious political disorder, like alcoholism or returning again & again to an abusive spouse who repeatedly lies to you. It's easy to fall off the wagon, to make excuses & rationalizations for it.
Even many whose views are developed enough to recognize such truths as the fundamental rottenness of the 2-party system & the complicity of Democrats in all of the Republicans' major crimes, are still unable to draw the logical consequences of these insights. (Those so naive that they still conceive of Democrats as being the "opponents" of Republicans are another case altogether.)
The central point is this: capitalist society permits the Democrats to be one of the 2 allowed parties for a very definite reason. It's not because the Democrats "serve the people." It's because in a subtle but effective way, they help the capitalists keep the populace under control by providing them with the illusion of possible change. TPTB don't want the people "served." They want them managed, or controlled.
It is the job, the central social function of the Democrats to always be dangling before the people's noses vague pseudo-hints of possible change, so as to keep them from bolting from bourgeois politics altogether. It is the Democrats' intention to never deliver meaningful change, but rather to keep dangling hints of it alluringly forever. This produces control -- a populace habituated to remain safely within the lines required by ruling class interests.
This is why the Democrats NEVER paint a picture of US history that's the slightest bit accurate -- they want a brainwashed population every bit as much as the Republicans do. This is why they NEVER are willing to set forth an honest socioeconomic analysis of why things are as they are -- they much prefer that people not understand such things.
As long as a large chunk of voters can be deceived by the seemingly "nicer guy" act of the Democrats, there is no hope whatever of coming to grips with the core problems of our society. The most dangerous trends -- a wasteful consumer society, environmental destruction, grotesque social inequality, and an uncontrollable propaganda/war machine -- cannot even be approached within the framework of bourgeois politics, because they all serve ruling class interests. This is what is really being protected, when people opt to support Democrats just because they seem less blatantly cruel on TV.
The greatest mistake this administration and this President are making, is that they confuse Diplomacy for a Foreign Policy.
Two out of three of Goodmans points concerning Obombers accomplishment have not happened yet ( a decent Healthcare reform) or are too intangible to attribute to any one person or thing if it has in fact happened better citizens attitude towards Muslims ( even though we kill lots of them every day for no apparrent reason.)
Have womens reproductive rights improved substantially because of the Bomber (I am uninformed).
He has given Medical Cannabis some slack.
But he still is prosecuting Hero Environmentalist Tim DiChristerfer for disrupting, a D. of Interior declared, illegal oil auction.
cons = war
libs = anti-war
repubs = cons
democs = cons + libs
democs - cons = libs
democs - libs = cons
What will it be?
Greens. That was too easy.
Quixotic
Simplistic
Realistic
libs = insipid talk, no action; part of the problem
progressives or leftists = marginalization; not part of the problem
dems - (cons + libs) = not much + zero support from the party establishment = undems
undems = a new party = Greens
My motto (as many folks have no doubt suspected):
"Dare to be foolish".
If enough people dare to be foolish, there is a new political force; and, voila, it's not so foolish after all.
We will be in Afghanistan until it is safe enough to build the Pipe-Line that will control the oil and gas from northen Asia.
We will stay there to protect the pipe line...for many years.
Why is this being kept a secret? The other excuses are blatant lies, and Obama seems to enjoy the game. The Ivy League trained him how to make money for the established order. How much money have the Ivy League Schools invested in that area? in oil?
I would hope that Howard Zinn would say to Obama I approve of your ending the production of the obsolete fighter jets but you forgot to make sure that the ones that have already been produced are not for sale, but must be demolished. Then I would hope that Howard Zinn would tell Obama to end the production, use of (and ban any sale of) Unmanned aerial Vehicles (UAV)'s or drones. Howard should agree with Obama on his stance on banning nuclear weapons and encourage him to not use the production of nuclear weapons as a reason to go to war against Iran, either militarily or economically. Lift the economic sanctions on Cuba. Nobody knows how many bodies Obama has been responsible for in the short time he has been in office. But when I hear about the collateral damage of the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan,Iraq I am concerned about the reality of "Yes we can change". Howard Zinn should tell Obama that if we are to change, America must end the U.S. leadership in the Arms Trade business and retool for jobs with justice and peace as a basis.
what an exercise in futility
I would concur. Its become the left's practice to complain and complain without actually doing something. Personally, I hate listening to Democracy Now! and reading this website because its makes one want to slit their wrists in it dystopian and pessimistic world view. Frankly, CD nor its like minded cohorts didn't care much for any mainstream candidate, so this is no surprise. What is a surprise how little we have changed since the election -- we cry that no one listens to us but we do little to make anyone hear us. Its easy to pontificate about how Obama isn't a lefty. Its another issue to get organized and hold his feet to the fire.
Late me make this clear -- we have watered down policies because no moderate politician (read anyone right of Feingold or Kuicinich) in his or her right mind would take on the tea baggers and the birthers without a strong progressive wing who will show up to the polls!! Its easy for someone like Kuicinich or Anthony Weiner to talk smack -- they're running in safe seats and can say what they want. Want a congressman to vote the way you want? Don't just threaten to throw the bums out -- offer to give them political cover when the Faux News goon squads show up with their AK-47 and bomb threats.
This panel is no different than Tavis Smiley's "Black State of the Union" conference, another way for rich old 'lefty icon' to bilk money out of like minded intellectuals and hear themselves talk.
I would concur. Its become the left's practice to complain and complain without actually doing something.
----------------------------------
"Liberalism, austere in political trifles, has learned ever more artfully to unite a constant protest against the government with a constant submission to it."
--Aleksander Herzen, the 19th-c. radical who started the movement in Russia that eventually ended serfdom
As wretched a panel of bourgeois 'leftists' as could be assembled.
At this stage any beseeching admonishments to be 'patient' with Obama should be treated with utter disdain and contempt. He is no longer worth referencing, 'centering' the discourse around, or even listening to.
As predictable an example of the conceit of 'responsible' bourgeois 'realism' as one could hope to find. Practical realists, my ass!
A barely concealed apologia for the status quo and ruling class fascism masked under the imprimatur of 'progressivism.'
In fact the panel is indicative of the new decadent progressivism, where liberalism shills for and does the dirty work of fascism.
Could Howard Zinn have had someone like Chris Floyd on the panel instead of these superannuated moldy figs and clichéd, proprietary New York battle axes?
–(Jill Bains)
brilliant.
Some great writers posting!
Thank you.
In U.S. culture, political opinion is typically molded by PR, advertising and mainstream columnists like Ellen Goodman (or worse). Carroll's not much better, though he's a Common Dreams editor favorite.
Along comes a Howard Zinn, and all of that is blown out of the water - that is, for those who can still think.
Liberal thought is not progressive thought. And you can see that very clearly from this article.
Obama has continued the outrageous policies of the prior Bush administration: extraordinary rendition, three wars, warrantless wiretapping, bankster bailouts. In response, we hear three "liberal" panelists talk about giving the guy a pass. They're more interested in Obama's rhetorical stance than in the tremendously harmful actions he's taken - often in direct opposition to public opinion.
People should not get confused here. It's not negative thinking to be direct about why we object to Obama's policies. It's our responsibility as citizens to engage in critical thinking, which means assessing Obama's deeds, not his words.
-TIA