Taking Politics Seriously: Looking Beyond the Election and Beyond Elections

We have nothing against voting. We plan to vote in the upcoming
election. Some of our best friends are voters.

But we also believe that we shouldn't make the mistake of
thinking that the most important political moment in our lives comes in the
voting booth. Instead, people should take politics seriously, which means
asking considerably more of ourselves than the typical fixation with electoral

First, we won't be coy about this election. Each of us voted for
Obama in the Texas
primary and will vote for him in November. We are leftists who are consistently
disgusted by the center-right political positions of the leadership of the
Democratic Party, and we have no illusions that Obama is secretly more
progressive than his statements in public and choice of advisers indicate. But
there is slightly more than a dime's worth of policy differences between
Obama and McCain, and those differences are important in this election. The
reckless quality of the McCain campaign and its policy proposals are scary, as
is the cult of ignorance that has grown up around Palin.

Just as important, the people of this white-supremacist nation have a
chance to vote for an African-American candidate. Four decades after the end of
formal apartheid in the United
States, in the context of ongoing overt and
covert racism that is normalized in many sectors of society, there's a
possibility that a black person might be elected president. Even though Obama
doesn't claim the radical roots of the anti-apartheid struggles of recent
history, the symbolic value of this election is not a trivial consideration.
This isn't tokenism, but a sign of real progress, albeit limited.

But even though we make that argument, we will vote knowing that the
outcome of the election is not all that important, for a simple reason: The
multiple crises facing this country, and the world, cannot be adequately
addressed within the conventional political, economic, or social systems. This
is reflected in the fact that neither candidate is even acknowledging the
crises. The conventional political wisdom -- Democrat and Republican, liberal
and conservative -- is deeply rooted in the denial of the severity of these
crises and hostility to acknowledging the need for radical change. Such a
politics of delusion won't generate solutions but instead will lead us to
the end of the road, the edge of the cliff, the brick wall -- pick your
preferred metaphor, but when the chickens of denial come home to roost,
it's never pretty.

These crises are not difficult to identify; the evidence is all around

Economics: We aren't facing a temporary downturn caused by this
particular burst bubble but instead are moving into a new phase in the
permanent decline of a system that has never met the human needs of most people
and never will. It is long past the time to recognize the urgent need to start
imagining and building an economics based on production and distribution for
real human needs, rejecting the corrosive greed that underlies not only the
obscene profits hoarded by the few but also the orgiastic consumption pursued
by the many. We can't know whether McCain or Obama recognizes these
things, but it's clear that both candidates -- along with their parties
and the interests they represent -- are not interested in facing these

Empire: The way in which First-World nations have pursued global
empires over the past 500 years to grab for themselves a disproportionate share
of the world's wealth has never been morally justifiable. The recent
phase of U.S. domination in
that project is particularly offensive, given U.S. political leaders'
cynical rhetoric about democracy. But whatever one's evaluation of the
ideology behind the U.S.
attempt to run the world through violence and coercion, the project is falling
apart. The invasions and occupations in Afghanistan
and Iraq
are not just moral failures but pragmatic disasters. While McCain and Obama
have slightly different strategies for dealing with these disasters, neither is
willing to face the depravity of the imperial endeavor and neither argues for
abandoning the imperial project.

Ecology: It's no longer helpful to speak about
"environmental issues," as if we face discrete problems that have
clear solutions. Without major changes to the way humans live, we face the
collapse of the ecosystem's ability to sustain human life as we know it.
Every basic indicator of the health of the ecosystem is cause for concern --
inadequate and dwindling supplies of clean water, chemical contamination in
every part of the life cycle, continuing topsoil loss, toxic waste build-up,
species loss and reduced biodiversity, and climate change. Unless one adopts an
irrational technological fundamentalism -- the faith-based assumption that new
gadgets will magically rescue us -- this means we have to downsize and scale
back our lives dramatically, learning to live with less. Yet conventional
politicians continue to promise to deliver a lifestyle that constitutes a form
of collective planetary suicide.

So, we live in a predatory corporate capitalist economy in a world
structured by the profound injustice produced by an imperial system that is
steadily drawing down the ecological capital of the planet. The
domination/subordination dynamic at the heart of this world is rooted in the
ideologies of male domination and white domination. This belief in the inevitability
of hierarchy grows out of thousands of years of patriarchy, reinforced by
hundreds of years of white supremacy. Any meaningful progressive politics also
must address not just the worst behaviors that come out of these systems -- the
overt sexism and racism that continue to plague society -- but also the
underlying worldview that normalizes inequality. Yes, Obama is black, and
McCain selected a female running mate, but neither candidate ever speaks of
patriarchy and white supremacy.

There are two common responses to the analysis offered here. The first
is to condemn it as crazy, which is the response of the majority of Americans.
The second, from people who don't find such claims crazy and share the
basic analysis, is that we have to be realistic and tone down our arguments,
precisely because most Americans won't take seriously anyone who speaks
so radically.

But if being realistic has something to do with facing reality, then
arguments for radical change are the most realistic. When problems are the
predictable consequence of existing systems and no solutions are plausible
within them, then arguing for continued capitulation to those systems
isn't realistic. It's literally insane.

We live in a country that is, in fact, growing increasingly insane. Fashioning
a strategy for political organizing in such a country, and shaping rhetoric to
advance that organizing, is indeed difficult. But it must start with a
realistic description of the problems we face, a realistic evaluation of the
nature of the systems that gave rise to those problems, and a realistic
assessment of the degree of change necessary to imagine solutions.

Taking politics seriously in the United States today means
recognizing the limits of electoral politics. Voting matters, but it's
not the most important act in our political lives. Traditional grassroots
political organizing to advance progressive policies on issues is more
important. And even more crucial today is the long-term project of preparing
for the dramatically different world that is on the horizon -- a world in which
an already unconscionable inequality will have expanded; a world with less
energy to deal with the ecological collapse; a world in which existing
institutions likely will prove useless in helping us restructure our lives; a
world in which we will need to reclaim and develop basic skills for sustaining
ourselves and our communities.

These challenges are daunting but also exciting, presenting us with
tasks for which the energy and creativity of every one of us will be needed.
Can we find a way to talk about that excitement which could encourage others to
explore these ideas? Can we develop projects to put those ideas into action,
even if only on a small scale? When we have tried to articulate this worldview
in plain language in recent political lectures and discussions, we have found
that a growing number of people not only will listen but are hungry for such

We don't pretend that number is large right now -- certainly not
a majority, and not anywhere near the number needed for a mass movement -- but
one wouldn't expect that in this affluent society in which many people
are still insulated from the worst consequences of these systems. But
that's changing. As more and more people, from many sectors of society, face
these realities, they join the search for a community in which to confront this
together. Our political work should focus on connecting with people on common
ground, articulating a realistically radical analysis, and working from there
to construct a just and sustainable society.

So, we will vote on Nov. 4, without hesitation. But more importantly,
on Nov. 5 we will be realistic and continue talking about the radical change
necessary to build a different world.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.