Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLefties for Obama: The Final Round
My column "Lefties for Obama" evoked a storm of criticism from readers who see no real difference between the two major parties. "Lefties for Obama: Round Two," listing a bunch of issues where some real difference seems apparent, got a somewhat better reception. Since I see a trend here, and since desperate times call for desperate appeals, I'm moved to offer one last round of Lefties for Obama.
This one is for those of you who live in battleground states and still say that, when it comes time to make policy decisions, the two parties will almost always act as one. OK. Let's suppose that's true.
But the President of the United States does a lot more than make decisions about specific policies. He (or she) is an immensely powerful symbol, doing more than any other person to set the mood and tone of political life for the whole nation, as well as signaling to the whole world what the USA is really all about.
Symbolism and mood-setting are a huge, though often overlooked, part of the president's role. On that score, there would be such a huge difference between a President Obama and a President McCain, it seems impossible to overlook.
The biggest difference of all is the most obvious one: race. Though any mention of race opens one up to the charge of "playing the race card," there are some more or less objective facts to be considered.
Racial barriers have always been the social foundation of American life. We have had so little class consciousness because we didn't need it: The economic as well as social hierarchy has been pretty firmly shaped by racial distinctions since the first British immigrants set foot on North American soil. White superiority has remained etched in the stone of our social structure. Even the tremendous gains of the civil rights movement made only relatively small dents in that stone.
But just the sight of a black family moving into the previously oh-so-White House would be by far the biggest step ever toward smashing our historical legacy of racism. The minute that the Obamas enter the White House might do more to change the tone of American life than everything else a President Obama could do in four, or even eight, years.
And it's not just about race. The racial barrier is merely the most firm and towering of a whole set of barriers that keep some Americans down, while those on the "right" side of the barrier can rise to the top of the socioeconomic ladder. You know the list: gender, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and all the rest.
The huge crack in the racial barrier symbolized by a President Obama would be a revolution of literally incalculable magnitude. An African-American president would make it seem not just legitimate, but inevitable, that we will move much faster to dismantle all those other barriers. That would be a major blow to conservatism in this country, regardless of what policies an Obama administration did or did not pursue.
On the other hand, the symbolic message of a McCain victory would be unmistakable: White privilege triumphs again. White privilege would seem more unshakeable than ever. By extension, all the other oppressive barriers would seem equally unchallengeable. All the gains made by movements for social and economic justice since the ‘60s would be set back. By how much? No one can predict. But the national mood would feel stuck firmly in the past, with all its injustices.
Yes, that's unreasonable. But symbolism always is. There's no way to stop such irrational psychological effects from taking their toll.
Speaking of the ‘60s, look back to the symbolic impact of John F. Kennedy. Though the 1960 election was virtually a tie, Nixon and his conservatism were quickly forgotten for a few years. From his first day in office, JFK symbolized a mood of youth, change, and new beginnings. Though none of his policies offered any radical change, the mood was stronger than the policies. Many factors contributed to the radical tone of the late ‘60s. But without the symbolic impact of JFK, it's hard to imagine that decade turning out as it did.
When Nixon made his comeback in 1968, the election was again a virtual tie. But again the loser was quickly forgotten. Though a Humphrey administration might not have differed much from Nixon's own policy, the tone was dramatically changed. Instead of the wishy-washy mood that Humphrey symbolized, a nasty, take-no-prisoners, Nixonian law-and-orderism came to dominate American political life.
When Nixon fell, Ronald Reagan was ready to take his place. Once again, even those who see little difference on policy should admit that there was a major difference between the tone of a Carter and a Reagan. Once again, it was the symbolic difference between a mood of somewhat flexible boundaries, signaling at least the possibility of change, and rigid boundaries keeping the oppressive hierarchies firmly in place.
Every presidential election since the ‘60s has really been a choice between those two symbolic styles. And there is no middle ground. It's a winner-take-all contest. The loser pretty much disappears.
On September 11, 2001, for example -- just nine months after the Supreme Court robbed Al Gore of the presidency he had actually won -- no one paid the slightest attention to him. All eyes turned to George W. Bush, making him the single most important person shaping American life for years to come.
True, the once-mighty Bush has now fallen so low. But in that respect, too, he is the most potent symbol of the prevailing mood about our public life. Gore's impressive successes in the last few years, culminating in a Nobel Prize, are still just a small blip on the radar screen of American politics compared with the tremendous scale of Bush's failures.
In the same way, if Obama loses he won't disappear. He will still be a senator and a contender for the 2012 Democratic nomination. But everything that he symbolizes will disappear, or remain just a small blip, totally overshadowed by everything that McCain -- and Sarah Palin! -- symbolize.
Don't forget that if the 73-year-old McCain wins, it will also send a message to the American public and to the world that someone with all the appalling qualities of a Palin is acceptable as President of the United States. The bar for public office will be lowered so far that we may as well just throw that bar away and let anyone at all take charge. And the kind of crude, redneck conservatism signaled by McCain's choice of Palin will be legitimized, while the thoughtful consider-all-the-possibilities style of Obama will fade back to the left-hand margin of society.
Yes, these are all very intangible considerations compared to the hard facts of a war in Afghanistan or multi-billion dollar bailouts for the corporate sector. But intangible mood plays a great role in determining how much the public will stand for the conservative policies of the Republocrat ruling elite and how much the public will consider progressive alternatives.
The story of American political life since the Nixon presidency has been pretty much the same: On specific issues, the public is usually well to the left of the ruling elite. But the pervasive mood of conservatism -- the fear of moving or even questioning the familiar boundary lines -- makes the public afraid to stand up and demand that its will be turned into policy on those specific issues. That can't begin to change until there's a widespread perception that the political center is moving back to the left.
An Obama presidency would not guarantee any progressive improvements, unless we the people demand them forcefully enough. But the day Obama steps into the White House would signal that the political center is moving back at least a bit to the left. That symbolic message would begin to open up real possibilities for change that we could capitalize on, if we know how.
The symbolism of a McCain presidency would move the center even more to the right and insure that the conservative tone of American life would continue for years to come. It would force us to use all our energy, not to work for positive change, but just to respond to emergencies and try to prevent the very worst excesses. We've had eight long years of that. Do we really want another four, or more?
448 Comments so far
Show AllI can only imagine the let down, the absolute crash that many will go through after Nov. 4th passes and the truth of who will be our next president emerges.
Thus while many will be trying to recover from the 'vote', the president elect will only just be beginning to rule the world.
Not putting such god awful importance on the vote, but instead saving most for after the vote seems a lost art. People are at such a high emotional state at this point my guess is they will probably need months to recover, while those months following an election are the ones where our input is needed most. Whomever wins will be at the whim of K-street, and Wall-street and looking toward Main street all they will potentially see is a bunch of emotionally wasted and exhausted folks unable to point a finger to give direction to our newest federal civil servant.
Will civil participation again die with the vote??????
I hope I am proven wrong on this point.
Great essay, Ira! As always, discussion-provoking! 400 posts!
Not mentioned, though, is the nature of the vile insult that is such a staple of the Rethug candidates in this election. Who are they trying to impress?
Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa is running for re-election. Harkin is true-blue Democrat, from the late Senator Paul Wellstone's "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," a true progressive populist. In Harkin's debate with his Rethug challenger last Thursday, his challenger actually accused him of aiding Al Qaeda, called him a "Tokyo Rose," for Harkin's expecting a timeline for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Reprehensible! Yet this is out of the Palin playbook; Rethugs routinely turn to these tactics!
Harkin should win 90% of the vote. We'll see how well he does on election day. The same for our candidate Obama.
Harkin, you'll remember, delivered Senator Wellstone's eulogy during the mass wake service following Wellstone's untimely death. Wellstone died six years ago in a plane crash.
And posts will insist there is little or no difference between a Democrat Harkin and a Rethug McConnell!
Neither camp is going to convince the other that they're wrong at this point. If you vote 3rd party aside from Barr or Paul, good on ya. If your voting for Obama, hey you do what you have to do. Right now, I just don't want McCain in there. As long as we block McCain, there's a fighting chance for all of us.
And Obama deserves the criticism. Keep it up and pour it the hell on. I know I will. I love reading all the firebrand posts. It's the only way he's going to do the right thing. We need to get in his ear and we can. We can all push. It's happened before.
I agree. We have to counter the idea in the popular mind that military force and troops solve all problems. Afghanistan is no different from Iraq in that respect.
The people of this country need to know how pointless, brutal and cruel it would be to flood Afghanistan with our young and lost troops. They would not know the language(s) nor be able to tell who they are supposed to be protecting from whom. They would wander through the beautiful mountains and poppy fields, burn something here, kill something there, wish to be home. Their commanders would be little equipped to chart a course, because there is no course. Talks and intelligence may not solve the problems, but at least they do not kill innocents in our name.
Joe
No, actually, there wont be a "fighting chance" for people in Afghanistan with Obama. Some of the 'lucky' ones who survive airstikes will, however, get a "chance to fight."
Who is this "we" you speak of? Weak, selfish pseudo-liberal Democrat apologists?
Well, Chernus has got me on the symbolism argument. I thought we were talking about a real election, with real issues.
Actually, I think black political thinkers deserve a far bigger break than Chernus' essay allows. Obama doesn't fit the mold of great U.S. black leaders. He's said nothing about the problem of race in the United States. Would he do so if elected? Actions speak louder than words, so let's look at one example of how Obama did react when given a chance to enact positive change.
Obama specifically left out helping subprime loanees from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, according to Dennis Kucinich. We know that the mortgage companies targeted blacks, despite their inability to pay adjustable rate mortgages under unfair terms. The reason: the brokers could pocket the fees and the debt was simply obscured by stuffing it into securities that others would have to pay. The loanees would be left with the stress of losing their homes. In that climate, Obama declined to help the victims of that fraud, many of whom were black.
I think this example shows how the big historical breakthrough on race issues that Chernus longs for will not happen under an Obama Presidency. Obama could have seized the opportunity to talk about how everyday people get screwed, or ignored, by the big financiers. Instead, Obama bailed out his investment banker buddies (who incidentally fund his campaign).
As I've written before, class trumps race in the United States.
Let's not have the first black U.S. President be a warmonger bailing out the rich. Is that the symbolism you want to convey? That's what you've got so far.
-TIA
I suggest voting Cynthia McKinney for president. Obama has no excuse to lose this election, he is running against John McCain who wants to continue the policies of the most hated president of all time. He also has recieved far more money in campaign contributions than McCain. He has no excuse to lose. Progressives should use their votes (and money) to help build an opposition party that actually opposes the neo-liberalism of both the Democrats and the Republicans!
http://www.votetruth08.com/
http://www.gp.org/
Ira prudently did not mention third parties or bash Nader this time around. This is the kind of pro-Obama article I can tolerate. It tells me why he thinks Obama is the way to go, and makes me think a little, without slamming Nader or McKinney.
This is more like it. Doesn't change my mind, but at least it's respectful.
I just want to say I find this forum as rude, crude and completely non-conducive to civilized discussion as a right-wing board. It is a shame that those who (I thought) espoused the values of compassion, empathy, tolerance and pluralism speak to each other in this manner. We cannot even agree to disagree and discuss things in a mutually supportive fashion. Shame on us. We are no better than the raving lunatics at the Palin rallies.
We are a little better. : )
Joe
Okay Ocean Girl, report it to your kindergarten teacher!@
Yeah! We kick ass here! No place for sissies. Sissies don't type as hard as we do!
Ric. You are part of the problem. Like the progressive movement doesn't need thoughtful and considerate people in it's ranks.
No, it just needs tough guys like you.
It wasn't always this way. The comments here used to be largely serious and intelligent. It seems everything went to hell when they changed the format.
How is Obama not right-wing, and how is this site not filled with right wing apologetics? Any website that carries water for a guy who promises war and works for his Wall Street campaign backers seems pretty right-wing to me. And ignoring war and civil liberties in favor of "positive symbolism" is a page right of the Ronald Reagan playbook... we know how Obama loves Reagan: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263
Before you scold us for not behaving like lefties, I think you need to establish issue by issue how the Obama-supporting site is lefty.
Oh, please, ocean_girl. Anyone can use his or her browser find function to see how you've debated. Stop whining, already.
And don't include me in your we. You don't mean "we," you mean "all the people I'm pissed off at." See, if you write "we" it just comes off as snivelingly faux-self-critical. Why not just say: You and you and you. Then you'll feel better and we can all move on. If you want a support group, there are plenty around. This is a political site for debate. Elbows get thrown. If you don't like it, take your ball and go home already.
Of course, your post is a transparent attempt -- even if you didn't consciously mean it -- to label any non-Obama-supporter as a person as nutty as folks at Palin rallies who yell "kill him," "terrorist," and suchlike. I don't recall anyone doing anything like that here. Or, you may mean pro-Obama posters as well. In which case, see above.
Sigh.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Adult, here are two more pieces of interest:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/the-least-worst-trap_b_138568.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081110/greider
And, those who disagree: go ahead and go postal on me. I promise not to cry.
I see you are too puerile and myopic to understand my point. I shall attempt to rephrase: my point is not the disagreement, or the opinions. My point is the TONE. You (and yes now I include you, mr. ruler of Planet Adult) and many others on this supposed "liberal" site (though not all) resort to playground insults instead of "true" and civil intellectual debate (and when did elbows being thrown="good debate"... seems more like making up for inadequacies to me!).
Whether or not I agree with you is immaterial. I have no trouble with many different Truths, perceptions and POVs. I enjoy discussing them. How communication is undertaken is that with which I take issue. Personal, name-calling, childish, combative language indicates fragile self esteems that need to propped up on the equally fragile language of hate and disdain. That smacks of all the things I dislike about the right-wing, non-empathic, non-inclusive, mainstream, unthoughtful jerks who unfortunately abound too liberally in this country (it appears on both sides of the "line") to me... perhaps you should go to a Palin rally (and in that I mean that they seem to throw out quite a bit of "elbows" and name calling).
Telling me that I am whining and "crying" is just well ...f-you. As you can see I said "we are no better" "shame on us." If I get smacked down, don't think I am not going to smack back. I have been through more I can guarantee it personally than you can imagine and I am quite sure I could take you out in a heartbeat.... care to step outside?
I just prefer not to descend to the lowest common denominator of human interaction. I thought we as a society were trying to move in that direction. Apparently "true lefties" (sic) didn't get that memo. Or maybe they are too much like their right-wing cousins than they care to admit.
"Personal, name-calling..."
***Such as: "puerile," "myopic," "unthoughtful jerks," "f-you,"
"...childish, combative language..."
***Such as: "mr. ruler of Planet Adult," "I have been through more I can guarantee personally than you can imagine..."
"indicates fragile self esteems that need to propped up on the equally fragile language of hate and disdain."
***Such as: "...I am quite sure I could take you out in a heartbeat...care to step outside?"
Some of the examples above could have been put in any of the three categories you so helpfully set up for us.
Basically, at this point, you're self-refuting.
Next.
PS: Just to skip the obvious retort, when you write that you only descended to the kind of lowest-common-denominator language you say you prefer not to descend to because I did it first, note that I or anyone else could accuse you of the same. In other words, I actually didn't care about your snarkiness, and I don't know, but when you add whiny-ness to it, setting one standard for yourself and another for others (as you continue to do in the post above), that fact annoys me.
OCEAN GIRL-
Yeah good one tarnopol.
Common Dreams is the site. Common Dreams as in we have common dreams about being master debaters.
Please don't try to bring civility to these proceedings.
This place is for real progressives like tarnopol who are in the real world getting stuff done.
He sounds like a rough rider. He probably is quite a man.
I mean to pick on someone with your moniker you would have to be pretty tough.
I wish he would come to Texas and join the rest of us cowpokes in riding the range.
I bet he could show us a thing or two.
Wink wink.
See ya around I hope.
Gay-bashing ("rough rider," "wink wink")? Or just idiocy? And from the super-tough "highkarate" moniker. Funny stuff. Now try responding to actual arguments, not acting like some kind of knight in shining armor who thinks women who post on a political site should be treated with more deference than men -- especially when they whip out the insult as often as anyone.
Whatever.
But do you realize the irony of this? I posted a long reply to the Alex Cockburn (please do not read into this, it was before all this chivalry mind you) article that you posted before I defended ocean girls honor with a highkarate kick.
Your imagination is vivid to to say the least but not so for your intellect I am afraid.
Sorry, no gay references intended. I did not realize "rough rider" was a gay reference. Maybe you could enlighten me some more.
Honestly though, why pick on the little lady for basically begging us to work together more. In fairness to her I don't think she is boo-hooing the language or the vindictive, just that it is directed at each other and not the dragon we all say we are trying to slay.
You think she is dishonest? I think her tone is one of hurt and not of insult.
Toodles.
It's a common term, rough rider, in that sense. It doesn't much matter.
I don't think the "little lady" was begging us to work together more; I think she was playing at being victimized. That annoys me.
I don't think she's being dishonest; I suspect she's not conscious of how passive-aggressive she is.
But frankly, I don't really care about all of that, so I'll get to your Cockburn response now:
I don't AC is quite saying M/P is no worse than O/B, just that he can't find a positive reason to vote for O/B rather than a host of negative reasons to vote against M/P.
You may have a point about promise-prisoner, etc. The thing is, will Obama be anything other than what he's always claimed he is, as far as I can tell: a conservative Democrat/liberal Republican (not in those terms, of course, but he wasn't Lieberman's protege for nothing)? Possibly events will push him to be FDR II, as they did FDR, but perhaps not.
There are Democratic neocons; started with them, actually (Scoop Jackson, e.g.), but it looks as though he'll have the old Clinton crew, not the crazies, around him. How much better that is, is up to the individual to decide.
I think we had a Dem govt across the board in 1993? Not sure if both houses were Dem.
I fully agree with the internet comment and the last line of your post. Perhaps on that we can all agree?
Thanks for that. I just hate to see us all trash on each other, especially when people seem to be hurting. We all make mistakes.
It just seems like we are going to have Dems in power for awhile and while I agree with everything Nader and McKinney said, what are we going to do after the election is the question I think.
You seem like a cool guy and I apologize for any ruffled feathers but I just think that this site does not have to be just about hardcore politics. Yes, politics is ugly but we don't have to be also.
I just think we do not need to replace right wing anger with left wing anger. Of course there is anger but why direct it at each other?
I just envision that this site could be a really useful and positive meeting area for progressives to commune and move the debate forward into direct positive action.
I for one hope most of these so called third party supporters who have nothing to do but bash Obama are gone after the election so there will be more room for real discussion and organization around here.
I don't know. We shall see. Take care and thank you for the feedback.
Hey, no worries, and no need to apologize! Nothing wrong with a little conflict, and no feathers were ruffled. It's all good.
More here, on this issue, from Matt Gonzalez: http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html (scroll down past the fundraising graphic).
Loved the kick. Thanks for the chivalry. Wow did I think that was dead. ;-)
My tone is one of indignation. And as per above now of insult (to Mr. Adult).
My point is civil discourse should be used with everyone, regardless. Tarmapol and others don't think that anyone who disagrees with them are "Lefties." So I am "not one of you" and therefore the dragon.
My point is always that we all have the same vision but different opinions on how to get there. If we can come to the table with that understanding, I think things would be much more progressive (as in going somewhere).
Last comment on this --
Do you realize you wrote that you tone is "...now of insult (to Mr. Adult)" and then immediately wrote the following: "My point is civil discourse should be used with everyone, regardless."? Do you not see a wee disconnect there?
Anyway, I never accused anyone of not being a lefty based on this issue, so the whole us vs. them thing doesn't fly.
Sorry only human. OF course there is a disconnect there. Duh.... thus the "we" that I peppered through my post. I have not stepped outside the realm of civility in any words used (except f-you) and have only responded in kind to someone who is calling me "whiny" crybaby and basically weak (would you say that to man?), nor have I attacked someone for their views calling them "not one of us" and much worse. In your own defense, I have been primed already by "out of line" emails previously... so my issue is not with personally but with the overall vibe of the board. And you betcha *wink* I am gonna be takin' my toys to another sandbox.
My original post was to lament the tone of this board. And it was responded to by two very obnoxious posts (as have others of mine). Sorry, this arab girl's blood boils a little to quickly and I am not going to respond with "Oh I am sorry that you perceive me to be whiny and weak, my intention is only to foster a measure of unity and civility, let's look over the rainbow and hold hands" when such ... really just rude, ridiculous attacks... are sent back to sincere emails. ((tell me how does smacking someone "play the victim" huh, huh, huh? I take FULL responsibility for my actions (victims don't threaten you with a jaunt to the parking lot :-). I am NOT going to take abuse verbal or otherwise without fighting back --- esp from people who proport to want the same culture of peace, civility and equality that we are supposed to be sharing-- (common dreams... should be called common zings)
Anyrate.... this is all very silly to be generous at best.
Best to you and peace.
Alexander Cockburn: Obama, the first-rate Republican
Is there anything the front-runner will not say to become President? No progressive cause would have a chance with him in charge
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Independent.co.uk Web
As a left-winger I might be expected to be supporting Barack Obama. And indeed, in these last days I've been scraping around, trying to muster a single positive reason to encourage a vote for Obama. Please note my accent on the positive, since the candidate himself has couched his appeal in this idiom. Why vote for Obama-Biden, as opposed to against the McCain-Palin ticket?
Obama invokes change. Yet never has the dead hand of the past had a "reform" candidate so firmly by the windpipe. Is it possible to confront America's problems without talking about the arms budget? The Pentagon is spending more than at any point since the end of the Second World War. In "real dollars" – an optimistic concept these days – the $635bn (£400bn) appropriated in fiscal 2007 is 5 per cent above the previous all-time high, reached in 1952. Obama wants to enlarge the armed services by 90,000. He pledges to escalate the US war in Afghanistan; to attack Pakistan's territory if it obstructs any unilateral US mission to kill Osama bin Laden; and to wage a war against terror in a hundred countries, creating a new international intelligence and law enforcement "infrastructure" to take down terrorist networks. A fresh start? Where does this differ from Bush's commitment on 20 September 2001, to an ongoing "war on terror" against "every terrorist group of global reach" and "any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism"?
Obama's liberal defenders comfort themselves with the thought that "he had to say that to get elected". He didn't. After eight years of Bush, Americans are receptive to reassessing America's imperial role. Obama has shunned this opportunity. If elected, he will be a prisoner of his promise that on his watch Afghanistan will not be lost, nor the white man's burden shirked.
Whatever drawdown of troops in Iraq that does take place in the event of Obama's victory will be a brief hiccup amid the blare and thunder of fresh "resolve". In the event of Obama's victory, the most immediate consequence overseas will most likely be brusque imperial reassertion. Already, Joe Biden, the shopworn poster boy for Israeli intransigence and Cold War hysteria, is yelping stridently about the new administration's "mettle" being tested in the first six months by the Russians and their surrogates. Obama is far more hawkish than McCain on Iran.
After eight years of unrelenting assault on constitutional liberties by Bush and Cheney, public and judicial enthusiasm for tyranny has waned. Obama has preferred to stand with Bush and Cheney. In February, seeking a liberal profile in the primaries, Obama stood against warrantless wiretapping. His support for liberty did not survive for long. Five months later, he voted in favour and declared that "the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool".
Every politician, good or bad, is an ambitious opportunist. But beneath this topsoil, the ones who make a constructive dent on history have some bedrock of fidelity to some central idea. In Obama's case, this "idea" is the ultimate distillation of identity politics: the idea of his blackness. Those who claim that if he were white he would be cantering effortlessly into the White House do not understand that without his most salient physical characteristic Obama would be seen as a second-tier senator with unimpressive credentials.
As a political organiser of his own advancement, Obama is a wonder. But I have yet to identify a single uplifting intention to which he has remained constant if it has presented any risk to his progress. We could say that he has not yet had occasion to adjust his relatively decent stances on immigration and labour-law reform. And what of public funding of his campaign? Another commitment made becomes a commitment betrayed. His campaign treasury is a vast hogswallow that, if it had been amassed by a Republican, would be the topic of thunderous liberal complaint.
Obama's run has been the negation of almost every decent progressive principle, with scarcely a bleat of protest from the progressives seeking to hold him to account. The Michael Moores stay silent. Obama has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He is more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain, and has been the most popular of the candidates with Washington lobbyists. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful.
So no, this is not an exciting or liberating moment in America's politics. If you want a memento of what could be exciting, go to the website of the Nader-Gonzalez campaign and read its platform on popular participation and initiative. Or read the portions of Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr's platform on foreign policy and constitutional rights. The standard these days for what the left finds tolerable is awfully low. The more the left holds its tongue, the lower the standard will go.
Alexander Cockburn co-edits counterpunch.org, the US left-wing website, and is a columnist for 'The Nation' and 'The First Post' (alexandercockburn@asis.com)
I respect Alexandre Coburn's point of view but he is pretty much asking us to believe that McCain/Palin will be no worse than Obama/Biden.
Of course any of the independent websites will seem great compared to Obamas but to say he could run with the language of Kucinich is a little naive.
Cockburn says:
"Obama's liberal defenders comfort themselves with the thought that "he had to say that to get elected". He didn't. After eight years of Bush, Americans are receptive to reassessing America's imperial role. Obama has shunned this opportunity. If elected, he will be a prisoner of his promise that on his watch Afghanistan will not be lost, nor the white man's burden shirked."
Progressives are not comforted at all by Obama's direction but to say that he does not have to play to the media and the powers that be and then complain that the government is owned by corporations is dishonest.
Not enough people in this country get the majority of their information from outside the MSM. Has Obama and his advisers miscalculated, maybe but why is what he said in the primaries irrelevant now? If he moved to the right for the general election why can't he move back to the left when he gets in office, especially if as you say the people want that?
Why is he a "prisoner of his promise". My god Bush promised no nation building and we got nation building and destroying up the yazoo.
I think people are a little wary of "there is no lesser evil" when you start thinking about what would have been the difference if Gore got in. I mean Dems aren't that great but they are not neo-cons. With Obama we have a chance now but with McCain none.
I think it would be easier to demand change from the Dems than to try and build a third party to rival them. If I could be convinced otherwise then I would support that.
Can anyone tell me when the last time we had a Democratic Prez and Congress? I just have to add that we can now use the internet on a far wider basis than in the Clinton years and the grassroots is much stronger.
We just have to be smart, believe me if the Dems don't come through, if we come together and demand change and they balk then there will be no more progressive democratic apologists left.
I gave some money to Obama during the primaries, and as soon as he wrapped them up he sent his over two million online donors a long questionnaire about what positions we had on a full range of issues. Then he made his move to the right. It looked to me like he was responding to his supporters.
Maybe, if more progressives were behind him from the start (instead of Kucinich and others) he would be more aggressively progressive.
So all progressives should send Obama a couple dollars to get into the influence game.
Hey madcow, I have a deal for you!
How about you mail me $20, and later I'll send you a questionnaire about what you'd like me to do with it. Maybe I'll listen and maybe I won't.
I also own a bridge and some magic beans I'm looking to unload - any interest?
I agree with silvacene insofar as there are purists who comment who fail to see that even small differences are important. Sure both candidates are corporate capitalists and imperialists-- I am with you in denouncing these ideologies. But I think Chernus is right to emphasize the ethos that will come with an Obama presidency. I don't buy not voting for Obama for moral reasons. I think it's ok to see a vote for Obama as a vote against McCain. I don't think that implicates you in Obama's future warmongering, etc anymore than a vote for Nader would implicate you in Bush's crimes. Nor do I think that voting for the lesser of two evils is endorsing a broken system. Voting for Nader or McKinney might, as Howard Zinn says be worse for the progressive movement as it will show how weak the progressive movement is.
The culture of the Republican party is a scary thing. Republicans scare the shit out of me. While I don't always (or even often) agree with my democratic friends, they are clearly not fascists. The people at McCain and Palin rallies really are proto-fascist racists. I don't want these people to be the symbolic heads of my country.
As far as Obama listening to progressives-- I don't buy it. He probably won't listen right away. But if we look at history he might be forced to be more progressive if circumstances and a strong progressive movement demand it. He might also be better on civil liberties which is certainly good for everyone especially progressives.
How are you equating voting someone who advocates peace (Nader) with voting for Bush, and then on top of this excusing Obama voters when he advocates war?
If Bush voters are responsible for the actions of Bush, and McCain voters are responsible for the actions of McCain, how do Obama voters get a free pass? This is base hypocrisy, the hallmark of the Democrat.
Any vote for Nader is really a vote for Ron Paul (that bobbing head action you saw was Nader going down on his knees and getting old Ron off). How is it possible to respect Nader when he was more than willing to accomodate Ron Paul ? According to Nader ANY third party candidate, including Ron Paul is better than Obama. It just goes to show Nader is in this for revenge against the Dems and nothing more.
Really? Because last I checked, Paul isn't running, and Nader is, and Paul actually was helping boost Nader and not the other way 'round.
And hey, glad that the best argument an Obama-pologist can make is an awkward blowjob metaphor. I'd reserve that for Clinton, but that's just a style point.
Nader's been very interested in building broad coalitions with libertarians and Reform Party people over isses we can agree upon, like NAFTA, wars and civil liberties. For all of the bitching that Democrats do on here about Nader people's "purity" issues and how Nader doesn't work well with others, here we have:
- Obama working with Bush to bail out Wall Street and kill in the Middle East
- Nader building some bridges with libertarian types to fight bailout and end war
Who has the tactical and moral highground here?
Ha !! You need to re-read your own post. How hypocritical ! So if Obama moves to the center/right and reaches out to undecided voters he is a baby-killer (morally compromised) while Nader holds hands with Reform Party (yeeesh) candidates and he is just 'making friends' (tactically brilliant) !! Do you even believe your own crap ? Talk about being an apologist.
My only statement is that one shouldn't necessarily vote for a candidate because he supports all of your values. To do so is, I believe selfish and moralistic.
I think it's important to look at the big picture when voting and also to remember that electoral politics is not the only form of politics.
Right on.
But believe me that for most of these Nader supporters voting for Nader is the only thing they do.
I actually fear they are Republican Trolls or teenage hooligans.
Common Dreams has really helped to open my eyes over the years and I hope we can all come back after the election and tell our stories, organize and plan on what to do with the next four years.
I am really filled with angst and am nursing an injury so if anyone has the time I will offer as much pseudo-intellectual stimulation or ridiculously hopeful rhetoric as you can stand.
How about all you third partiers? What are you gonna do for the next four years?
I was planning on joining Obama's expanded military to go waste some towelheads; kick their ass and take their oil. Y'know, work WITH Obama, work WITHIN the system. For Change(TM).
No President will ever make it into office without advocating war. The people accept the notion that a peace loving President is weak. If Obama denounced war, he certainly would not have gotten this far…we have to KILL Bin Laden and all other terrorist, remember? Look at the crap he took for saying he would talk to our enemies.
Then there are of course those peace loving Americans who advocate war themselves. How many “support the troops” stickers have you seen?
This is the mosty cynical of reasons to vote for Obama. Of course he could come out against the terrorisms we are perpetuating in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly why he is critiqued by so many for not being that different from McCain.
One cannot be "peace loving" and pro-war--that is an oxymoron. What many of you insulting those who vote for candidates like Nader or Barr who actually do advocate the end to all international aggressions is that you are shutting down dialogue and behaving rather badly in the process. I don't see that people advocating for peace are saying there is NO difference between McCain and Obama, they are saying there is not much of a difference.
And if you look at the fact, the words from these two candidates, it is undeniable that with both candidates we will be facing prolonged military incursions and colonial presence as we are now; that with both candidates we don't see plans to revamp public education (ie. pay raises for teachers, a 15 to 1 student/teacher ratio, or attempts to confront directly the problems of poverty in the USA). What we see are both candidates saying pretty much the same thing with some vague differences at best.
If you want to advocate Obama, fine. But do not dissimulate the truth here. There are far too many pieces of information--on each candidate's website--which demonstrate that with either McCain or Obama, we are going to get more of what we have had this past administration.
If Obama actually ends the US sponsored terror, then we can eat our words. I strongly suspect, however, it will be us watching you having to swallow humble pie as Obama continues McBush strategies with a kinder smile on his face.
What happened to Kucinich then? It is the media stupid! Not you, just a saying.
I am afraid most people get their info from the MSM and until that changes those of us on the enlightened side of the fence are for the most part screaming at the choir.
If this isn't a progressive site then what is?
Kucinich got his cyclical beatdown by the Democrats, including and especially Obama. He's just become a tragi-comic figure.
Note that this is what happens when you "work within the system"; we still have McKinney and Nader running and making campaign stops, and Kucinich just made a speech at the convention FOR Obama who bailed out Wall St weeks later and made Dennis all miffed.
The Democratic Party has no place for progressives unless you're willing to wear a clown suit and take a beating.
SkIDOG-
Right on dude.
This will help heal the country too. Empower people of color. Help eliminate white guilt. Help break color lines with progressives and americans in general.
Maybe bring a little more heart and soul into the used to be all White House.
Many of our best progressive leaders are in the African American Community and they will be empowered and emboldened despite what the naysayers on this site say. Yeah, I don't need to hear another post on how ironic it is that McKinney/Clemente are running green. People of color are not stupid. They cannot afford to be divided by the issues. They are experts in the oppression that is starting to happen now to lower and middle class white people.
I don't need to hear any condi-cension about Rice or Thomas or Powell. Please. People who say that sound like Hannity.
What Ira is talking about here is a paradigm shift. It is like riding a wave. We are ready and we are fighting a large contingent of media rabble roused ignorant conservatives. And believe it or not so called "progressives" on the left who would deny the momentum and new found organizational tools we have now. Who have nothing better to do than bash Obama, as if he is the real enemy.
I am tired of hearing so much psycho-fantic gibberish from lazy arm chair quarterbacks. Yeah, a vote for Nader absolves you of what the US does. Please.
Get in the game or get out of the way. We are all disappointed in Obama and the Dems but I am tired of debating rabid third partiers who sound like Repug Trolls. We will see what you have to say after the election besides "Obama sucks".
skidog
Well said Ira.The symbolism of an OBAMA victory would be HUGE.
A KICK in the groin to the racist/redneck crowd.
As usual, we have a crop of comments that argue that there is no real difference between Obama and McCain. Of course, there are differences. I'm sure everyone who reads CD knows the differences that both candidates put forth. So I won't get redundant here.
What I start to wonder is, if those who claim there are no differences have been isolated in their progressive communities from the broad spectrum of political perspectives for so long and ensconced in their own ideals for so long that they see everything other than what they believe as "the same." (Ironically, you may have more in common with the extreme-right than you think).
The reality, folks, is that America is not ready for YOUR candidate and the more stubbornly you cling to your ideal with no negotiation, the more you isolate yourselves.
Take a trip down south and see how different things can be. Attend a McCain/Palin rally and then attend a Obama/Biden rally and tell me there are no differences.
I have yet to hear Obama or Biden divide America into a "real America" and what is presumably a fake America. I have yet to hear chants of "terrorist,""traitor" or "get him" at an Obama/Biden rally with either of these candidates subtly goading his crowd on. If nothing else, you have to at least look at these read-meat people you're dealing with.
The differences in policy may not be as broad as you or I like, but do you expect the vast majority of the American public to change its political belief system overnight?
Perhaps those on here who claim their are no real differences and will vote for a third party candidate are waiting for things to get so bad, there will be a revolution. Sure . . . but who will climb to the top at the end of it all?
Are you sure the outcome will favor your candidate or some crazy dictator with complete control of the military?
Right On! Finally some sanity amongst the ultra-left chatter.
Obama's environmental plan is identical to McCain's: off shore drilling, bio, nuclear, and coal will lead the way with crumbs offered to sustainable energy, solar, wind, and geothermal. It is just as astonishing the level of denial on this issue by people who support Obama. Life as you know it will never be the same again because of this issue, and those like Obama who will always offer nobel platitudes at the same time marching down a road of no return with his corporate pals. Nothing can change this - not even Obama.
Well said.
SILVACINE-
Right on man. Believe me I have tried every which way to give the so called third party supporters and Obama bashers the benefit of the doubt but to no avail. Not one of these fake cats have told me what they do for independents except vote for them every four years.
They actually believe that voting for Nader absolves them of any responsibility for what the US does. Very immature.
I think they are dishonest for the most part. I think some if not many are Republican trolls. I think they are actually nihilists posing as progressives.
I warn you to not go down the dark spiral of debating them.
Think about this. They will call you an "Obama lover" Ok? Get it? Substitute the N word.
Here is the icing I think. A common term for Obama voters is "Kool aid drinkers" I think this is a Jim Jones reference and if you dont know the victims were Black.
I wouldn't cast all of them in that light but the others just seem like master debaters who have no real world experience. It is scary to think that a real progressive would sound like a right wing troll though.
They kind of have the effect of the people who used to throw rocks in the civil rights marches so you have to wonder. They and their ilk are a gift to the media and right wingers everwhere and they do nothing for real change.
"A common term for Obama voters is "Kool aid drinkers" I think this is a Jim Jones reference and if you don't know the victims were Black."
Huh? The residents in Jim Jones cult-camp in Guiana were nearly all white hippies. The Doobie Brothers had a hit song about his first camp in Ukiah, California, back when they thought Jim Jones was just a harmless guru of communal, back-to-the-earth living.
In point of fact they drank Flavor-Aid (no one remembers this!) and it was a pretty mixed race group. In fact I think this makes it a better metaphor for the Obama people, a rainbow coalition of zombies following Fearless Leader to their own destruction!
FALSE. Why not just WIKI it man before posting?
Ah, yes. It is a dark spiral indeed. Good point.
What, you just copy and paste this on every post?
STILL waiting for you war criminal apologists to list the differences. Let's hear 'em.
Why not? I see the same type of comments. Why not just repost?
You guys know the differences and we all know how small they are - relatively speaking.
But I'm curious to hear your strategy on how to take down the machine. There's got to be an alternative to voting for a third-party candidate, this year at least. Maybe we can do it in 2012, if McCain/Palin haven't turned the US into (more of) a police state. Last time, I felt confident about voting for a third-party candidate was in '96. Since then, it's been more about voting against the extreme-right.
The Obama supporters can do wahtever they want. We aren't stopping them.
But some of us have personal moral convictions that prevent us from voting for Obama, particularly with regard to the murderous foreign policy both of them support.
And as far as attending the rallys, the differences are largely style rather than substance. Liberals are just for a gay and lesbian friendly, secular version of US imperialism and neoliberal economics.
The only principled stand that a beliver in nonviolence can really take is to ignore the presidential part of the ballot.
I wouldn't even credit the Dems with being gay and lesbian friendly. Obama agrees McCain that there shouldn't be gay marriage, and last I checked when we had Dem majorities in both houses & Clinton in the White House..? "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL!"
The Dems have slightly better rhetoric on the issue, that's all. It's incredible that all the Dems have is a paper-thin veneer of relatively humane identity politics separating them from George W. Bush!
An actual civil response. Thanks USA.
I respect your opinion. But I think simply the secular version is a step in the right direction.
So you would rather have an athiest gangster kill you than a catholic one?
UH... I am sure you are making sense in your own mind... but I don't get your drift. Where did gangster come up? And why make that association with a professor of law? Hmmmm.....
You said that a secular warmongering imperialist would be preferable to a religious one.
Oh... and I do believe you used the word "gangster" ... where is that from?
Perhaps I said it poorly (or more than likely... I hate this space... dunno why I am returning) but what I intended to infer was that I think someone who supports gay rights, education, women's rights, education, and an end to the Iraqi war (and NO I don't support other foreign policies) is a STEP in the right direction.
Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas are black, too. How has their being in powerful positions helped African-Americans or anyone else? The argument that the symbolism of having black faces in high places means anything much compared to the POLICIES that those individuals pursue is ludicrous. I'd say nice try, Ira, but really it isn't, it's just sort of dumb. As was the analogous claim that the "symbolism" of electing John Kennedy (a warmongering moderate/conservative like Obama) somehow led to the political movements of the '60s. Care to try a fourth round and see if you can say something that makes sense for a change?
REDGREEN-
While I agree with you that IRA may overstate the impact of symbolism versus policy it is pretty ignorant to compare Rice and Thomas to Obama. Why not mention Alan Keyes while you are at it? I don't know what people of color you hang around but Rice, Thomas, Powell, Keyes were seen as Uncle Toms long before they got in office. Maybe Powell got some respect as a moderate but with all due respect that is disrespecting people of colors ability to tell who is on their side.
And how about this one RG "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what can you do for your country." Could this be construed as a call to political activism. Oh, no of course not, you need to hear, "america is a fascist state" from a presidential candidate. Nader can't get near the White House. Even Kucinich wont go that far because he knows it would be the death of his political career.
I know that JFK started the peace corps and I think we all know he was assassinated for a reason but you and your cohorts just want things your way I guess. There is no room for points of reference in your ideology. It is all just black and white in your world. But you want to tell me that the first Black President, the former community activist, who is smarter than most of those around him in Washington, wont try to enact real change if we push him too? No possibility whatsoever? He probably wont be our best friend but at this point he is certainly not our enemy no matter how you portray him.
Right now he is our only chance. So go celebrate with your "I voted for Nader" friends and toast to your absolution to what the US does now but the rest of us progressives will be working hard and crossing our fingers.
What will you be doin?
True…
But Connie and Clarence were not in touch with many social issues. Clarence denounced affirmative action and Connie’s color is green (big money).
Neither of these two represented any kind of leadership for social movements.
BO is s different story or at least tells a different story, we will have to wait and see if he is elected.
His race is unimportant. He is the antidote to Bush.
Again, what ISSUES that Bush pushed does Obama differ upon? Obama spent the past few years in the senate VOTING WITH BUSH.
1) Obama will roll back tax cuts for rich...namely the dividend payments for investors.
2) The Iraq war, Barack was for an immediate withdrawal until pubs said it would be careless etc. This is why BO now says a responsible withdrawal.
3) HealthCare, although I do not agree with BO's healthcare plan...it is different than GWB.
Does the above answer your question?
From the WSWS:
"Democratic Party leaders are already issuing excuses as to why a lopsided Obama victory should NOT be interpreted as a mandate for a significant change of policy, and why NO such change will be forthcoming....What will an Obama victory mean? It will not be long before the campaign platitudes about “hope” and “change” and the “fierce urgency of now” will be exposed for what they are. The American people will confront an administration committed to relentlessly pursuing the interests of American imperialism at home and abroad. It will become apparent that the chief difference between Obama and Bush is not the right-wing character of their policies, but the skill with which these policies are carried out."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/pers-o28.shtml
I bring this argument for voting for Obama over and over again and it fails to elecit discussion. So, let me try again.
The best argument for voting for Obama is a dialectical one (look it up and add "Marx" to the search term").
Put simply, the purpose for voting for Obama is not because any policies he may propose, but because of the dialectical checkmate we impose on liberals like Chernus once Obama is elected. Once Obama and the Pelosi/Reid Congress is elected, and continues the US imperilaist project, throws a few bones to the working class - then charges forward with the full capitlast program (a-la Clinton), the liberals will no longer be able to tell us that all we need to do is elect more Democrats! Consequently we can more the agenda and organizing leftward, hopefully with a new popular party (like Sheehan is proposing).
Sure, some liberals will still insist we line up behind Obamas repugnat imperialist policies, like the cruise-missle left (Corn, Cooper, Gitlin, MoveOn, et.al) did when they attacked the anti-Iraq sanctions, anti-Yugoslavia bombing, and global economic justice movements, but overall, with a little organizing, we can seize the podium, like we did (albeit briefly) in Seattle and DC.
But all this starts with getting republicans out of the Presidency and Congress, and taking away the liberal's argument.
Ah! This is a very clever and insidious argument. Reminds me of B'rer Rabbit and the briar patch. "Oh please, please, please don't throw me in the briar patch!" said B'rer Rabbit to his enemies, knowing that they would do that which they thought would hurt him the most, but which, in fact, didn't hurt him a bit and was exactly where he wanted to be. So we "lefties" are told that if we want to "hurt" the Dems we should put them in office so that when they fail, as of course they will, we, of course, will throw them out in favor of a third party. Cute.
However, when Clinton failed to advance a progressive agenda, even before the Reps took Congress, we threw the Dems out alright, and put in, not progressives, but Reps. We knew Gore was a free trader when we marched in Seattle, and voted for him anyway, because of the "scary" Rep. who got even scarier 4 years later. So nice try, USAn, but there is a fatal flaw in your argument and that is, for chicken progressives, there will ALWAYS be a scary Rep, so no matter how badly the Dems fail, the Rep alternative will always appear worse to them and necessitate voting for that only "viable" alternative - a Dem. For me the best course, instead of this convoluted pseudo strategy, is to take Reagen's (Nancy, that is) advice and "just say NO." The problem with theory is that too often facts have a way of gumming up the works.
I don't know if you are seriously advancing this argument in the name of a progressive cause or whether you are doing a B'rer Rabbit. Either way, I do believe the argument fails. There IS no good reason to vote for Obama.
"...the purpose for voting for Obama is not because any policies he may propose, but because of the dialectical checkmate we impose on liberals like Chernus once Obama is elected. Once Obama and the Pelosi/Reid Congress is elected, and continues the US imperilaist project, throws a few bones to the working class - then charges forward with the full capitlast program (a-la Clinton), the liberals will no longer be able to tell us that all we need to do is elect more Democrats! ..."
- I completely agree. It's tragic that liberals are so stupid. They are truly thorns in the ass of progress.
The Obamabots are already getting the Republicans out. They don't need any help from "lefties." What needs our help is the effort to build an independent force (both electoral and non-electoral) to the left of both major parties. Voting for Nader or McKinney is a small step toward doing that; voting for Obama undermines that effort.
Please read this ... it might help you.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
Of course you should read the WHOLE thing, but Lenin's analysis of the situation in Germany at the time and the behavior of the ultra-left, pretty much sums the whole thing up ...
"It is obvious that the "Lefts" in Germany have mistaken their desire, their politico-ideological attitude, for objective reality. That is a most dangerous mistake for revolutionaries to make."
and more ...
"Here again we find that the "Lefts" do not know how to reason, do not know how to act as the party of a class, as the party of the masses. You must not sink to the level of the masses, to the level of the backward strata of the class. That is incontestable. You must tell them the bitter truth. You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements)."
and more ...
"Tactics must be based on a sober and strictly objective appraisal of all the class forces in a particular state (and of the states that surround it, and of all states the world over) as well as of the experience of revolutionary movements. It is very easy to show one’s "revolutionary" temper merely by hurling abuse at parliamentary opportunism, or merely by repudiating participation in parliaments; its very ease, however, cannot turn this into a solution of a difficult, a very difficult, problem."
It fails to elicit discussion because it's so dumb.
No, you don't understand it, it used long words like "dialectics", and draws on Marxian theory - and we all know how ignorant liberals are of Marx!
It is also very curious that it is the _Obama-supporters_ who are attacking it, even though it is an argument for voting for Obama, and it is even consistent with their argument that we must vote for Obama not for his policies, but for the orgainzing opprotunities it brings.
Lol. I'm a Marxist (not a "Marxian"). But dialectics are pseudo-religious crap.
Your confusing it with "dianetics" and L. Ron Hubbard. The dialectic has nothing to do with pseudo-religion whatsoever. Look it up.
I find dialectics to be pseudo-religious, sorry dude. If you claim to have a comprehensive social theory, as Marxism does, that's a big claim and you have to provide some pretty good evidence. (I believe this has been done satisfactorily). But if you claim to have a comprehensive social theory AND a new method of logic, that's cultish and stretches the limits of credibility.
Anyway, no I am not talking about dianetics; I'm talking about dialectics. And I've talked with many Marxists who agreed with me.
They must be "marxists" like you then, because the dialectical process is central to Marxism. I suggest you go back and read Marx again, if you ever did the first time.
Don't you have some Obama lawn signs to put up? XD
Actually I'm not an American, thank gawd. What's your excuse?
You can not be assured of what Obama will do--but you can be confident that McCain will be unspeakably worse. But what will you do--who will you rail agaisnt and complain about if Obama does improve the landscape? Whatever will you do?
But, it seems to me that some on the Left have their own "end-times" scenario. Much like the Religious loons or the Milton Friedman cultists practioners of disaster capitalism, certain Leftists anticipate a socialist paradise emerging from the ashes when capitalism crashes. McCain represents the final curtain--whereas Obama would simply prolong the scenario. It is basically a fantasy entertained by those who are still comfortable enough personally that the suffering of others would be worth the risk.
How can I be confident of this? None of the preceding Republican Presidents have been that much worse than the Democrats of the same era for at least the last 60 years, and the only reason Roosevelt was substantially better than Hoover is because the American people put a huge amount of pressure on him. And Obama's record in Congress and his public statements certainly don't give me any confidence that McCain would be much worse. One thing that I am confident of is that without a strong social movement in opposition to both parties, things are going to keep getting worse regardless of who is elected President.
Other than stating a fact that McCain will be "unspeakably" (!) worse, how about giving us even ONE issue upon which McCain and Obama diverge? Obama's record is already "unspeakable," so make it good. This is just empty rhetoric.
Well assuming they are identical to each other in every which way (they are not but im indulging your stupid ass argument) ... assuming there are no differences whatsoever ... why not give the black guy a chance ... after 250 years of stupid white men ?
I am old enough to have seen the trends over several Democratic presidencies, and there is no reason to believe that a Democrat will "improve the landscape".
Clinton, who Obama will probably resemble, ran a sanctions and low-level war against Iraq that killed up to a million Iraqis, and presided over reactionarly domestic legislation and expansion of neoliberal 'free market" extremism far beyond anything even Reagan accomplished.
This bears repeating - Clinton probably has the murder of more Iraqi children on his soul than Bush, and the neoliberal economic policies led by Clinton has resulted in untold additional suffering in the global south. Domestically, Clinton made the US the one industrial nation with near-third world levels of maldistributed wealth (only Mexico and Turkey are worse), and set the stage for the curent economic crisis. Obama is proposing a few minor tweaks but is not proposing anything like he change needed - and when we fill the streets to demand this change, he will respond with exactly the same police brutality that Clinton and Bush did.
I'm beginning to have a clearer understanding of why the right has dominated American politics all these decades. The so-called "left" in America is totally clueless! At least the self-described "left" that hangs around CD. The fact that these "leftists" have missed the central point of this article completely, shows a total lack of understanding of the steps necessary to move this country to the left.
The challenge to this group of "leftists" is that the election of Obama would then shift the political paradigm completely over to the "leftists" to actually organize and act. An election of Obama would break the right wing stranglehold on the nation and the world that they've enjoyed for far too long. It would open the door to real change that never comes from the TOP but always from the BOTTOM. I'm afraid the "left" around here are afraid that opening this door would then put the responsibility for change directly on their shoulders.
Only a political moron would believe that in America, after all these awful years of right wing dominance it is ready to elect a leftist leader like Chavez and from the TOP bring about real change. The election of Obama is just a step towards real change. But not a small step, but as the article points out a political shift that opens the door for the left to organize and rally to push the policies to the left. Unfortunately, the "leftists" here, that are so much up in arms against this article, completely misunderstand the process.
Progressive change HAS ALWAYS come from the bottom, from the actions of the people through the process of class struggle. To have any hope of this happening the first step is breaking the right wing dominance. The election of Obama is this first step. Then all the responsibility shifts to the grassroots who will either organize and fight for a progressive victory or do what it is so good at doing ... continue to shoot inwards forever challenging each other as to who is the real "leftist".
I agree. Well said. What folks seem to disagree on here is not WHERE we want to be, but how to get there. I find your thoughts linear and effective. As I have said before extremists on the right always vote for the "right" candidate. Leftists somehow are not so adaptable and focused NOT more on effectiveness vs. "what is perfect/right"