Good article, along the lines of what I was saying earlier but more articulate and constructive. Basically, Obama and the Democrats pandering to the right wing, especially with this "post-partisan" excuse, not only doesn't help working Americans but even allows some of the most outrageous friends of big business and laissez-faire capitalism paint themselves as populists and get away with it! Republicans never pander leftward while Democrats post-LBJ consistently capitulate to the right. Why? They consistently remain highly organized and principled reactionaries and its time to start swinging back, remaining true to our progressive principles, and not letting Obama get away with his rightward pandering.
I'm still voting for him because I believe he does represent a positive change in attitude with the American people, has it in him (we've seen it in major speeches) to effectively and articulately analyze and challenge racism and neoliberalism, and as corny as it sounds, the first African-American president is significant considering that in the whole history of this country there have only been 5 black senators (Obama being one of them) and I don't want to be on the wrong side of history. But this doesn't mean when he's elected everything will change, we need a strong ground movement that keeps a torch to Washington's ass and ushers in an era of far-reaching reform. Lincoln would have been nothing without the tireless work of the Abolitionists, FDR's New Deal would have been impossible without the New Deal coalition with the CIO and CP, and the Civil Rights Act would have never passed without Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement. Hell, even take Obama's words for it - change comes to Washington, not from it.
Like Lincoln, FDR, and Johnson, I believe Obama could be a candidate most receptive to this change and usher in a new era of needed government activism. But for every powerful progressive speech he has made, there are five more Wall St. lobbyists and conservative pollsters at his side telling him to "play it safe". Will he take the middle road or make history? Time will tell, but I can guarantee that nothing will change without a principled, popular, groundswell of a movement that holds Obama accountable and maybe will even embolden him to really fight the entrenched interests of Washington and Wall St. Anyways, I totally digressed, really read Thomas Frank's article right below this.
Posted using ShareThis
In Solidarity,
-Steve
Posts
14 comments:
I have to ask why you're voting for Obama. We're all in agreement that Obama's candidacy symbolizes a positive change in people's consciousness, but I don't think it puts you on the wrong side of history if you were to not vote for him.
I'm only asking you this because you're a socialist, someone not only with a highly developed understanding of where change comes from, but also someone politically principled.
Don't you think that even by voting for an important symbolic event (American's first black president), you are also symbolically compromising your political principles on the important issues like the war on terror and universal healthcare which Obama is more than clear about? Especially when there are third party campaigns out there who are championing those causes?
The idea that it advances our movement to have receptive politicians in office hasn't always played out similarly to the FDR and LBJ examples. I wouldn't call Richard Nixon receptive to anything progressive, but more was squeezed out of him than any Democrat to follow.
Personally, voting for Obama fits more with my principles than betraying them. I want to say that I voted for the first black president of the United States. I believe in it symbolically and tactically. The amount of racism that has sprung up during his campaign frightens me and has put me on the defensive. We need this as a country. He represents too much and I sincerely believe that if McCain/Palin won the election it would represent some of the biggest steps backwards in our recent history.
My anti-war beliefs and my strong belief in universal health care would only be compromised if I held illusions about Obama following and delivering an according policy. I will continue to be on the streets to force those changes. I also believe that our movements stand more of a chance in growing more popular and achieving results with an Obama presidency. Put simply enough, you have John McCain who is ideologically anti-government and boasts of himself as a "career de-regulator." He belongs to a party that has dominated American politics since Nixon, and these extreme laissez-faire principles have only grown more rigid (especially during the past eight years). The current financial crisis does not mean an automatic end to neo-liberalism and extreme right wing policies domestically. Newt Gingrich's platform solution already includes sweeping tax cuts, cuts in social spending, and introducing school vouchers. McCain and Palin have already taken some of these talking points. Just like Reagan, after inheriting the Carter recession, used the crisis as an excuse to severely reduced "bloated government" and to wage a lasting ideological war against government regulation and expansive public outlay. The bailout plan has opened a huge gap into neo-liberal logic, and that gives us a powerful impetus for the necessary struggle it will take to change things.
At the very least, Obama has been able to articulate philosophical arguments supporting progressive taxes, social programs, and stauncher government regulation. Are his plans enough? hardly, but they are good launching pad and basis for the American people, whom many have spent their entire lifetimes in this era of thinking that regulating the markets and social programs are harmful and wrong. His health care plan at the minimum begins to point the finger at greedy insurance companies and argue for the need to involve government in health. On the other hand, you have John McCain who continues to support the status quo in health and argues for further cuts in social security and medicare.
Obama's position on the war on terror is terrible, and he further disgusted me in the recent debates. Symbolically, having a president that voted No to the War in Iraq, represents a popular rejection of the Iraq war. I also believe he will bring a troop reduction in Iraq and set a timetable. Again, opposed to McCain who talks a harder line on Iraq, Iran, and Russia and is a proven ultra-hawk. I know that an end to the war both in Iraq and Afghanistan needs a popular struggle to force it and I will continue to be a part of that under an Obama presidency.
I also stick to my argument about it being beneficial to have someone in the white house who is more receptive to progressive change. Obviously, I understand that change comes from the ground up and that if anything substantial is to happen it will happen, it will come from popular organizing and struggle. I don't get your point about Nixon - I understand that he was the last president with the largest social safety net - but that was only because he inherited it from forty years of New Deal/Fair Deal/Great Society Democratic dominance. As well as the fact that the movements from the 60's were not dead yet. If anything, he signaled the spiral downward, by staunchly supporting states rights, fucking up Cambodia before we left Vietnam, and presiding over the coup in Chile. During his presidency, power in Congress shifted from Democrat to Republican. So it still remains that America's greatest periods of struggle and achievements have been complemented with a more receptive president. FDR campaigned as a fiscal conservative, but within three weeks of his inauguration he changed his positions and initiated the first 100 days. Now, that was only provoked by the economic crisis and the struggle of radicals, the unemployed, and labor on the ground, but do you think Hoover would have mobilized and signed that great sweep of government-activist measures?
I think a McCain presidency would further depress the American people, leave no basis for anything to fight for, and would continue the right-wing assault on social spending and regulation. Obama, atleast puts arguments forward for their need and has a progressive past/voting record. His great speeches have also shown his potential to capture the moment and begin to reverse the dominating, Friedmanesque ideology.
Further, I've fallen for the personality cult. He loves Bruce Springsteen and hip hop, gives powerful speeches, is charming as all fuck, has a wonderful wife who seems more progressive than him and could hopefully have an active role (like Eleanor Roosevelt) as first lady, and plays basketball.
-Steve
P.S. anyone who votes for Nader or McKinney, is not on the wrong side of history, and are more forward thinking and will hopefully (someday soon) be vindicated. But that time is obviously not now.
Hey Steve, long time no see. You bring up some valid points, just not many big ones that would stir me into voting Obama.
As the anniversary of the Patriot Act is just around the corner (Oct. 26th), I am sure the CIA is happy to see that someone like yourself is voting such a guy as Obama into office, who which at the time of it's introduction, voted for the Patriot Act, and then again voted to reinstate it when it came around.
Just some thoughts mang.
I'm still a little surprised that you've come to see this election as a matter of Democratic lesser-evilism. I agree there's a difference from 2004 and the "anybody but Bush" candidate, but it's not doing you any good to say Obama is miles ahead of McCain in being progressive and that's the reason to vote for him. Of course Democrats have tended to be the more progressive party, but he's also explicit capitalist politician, and at no time is it tactical for a socialist to vote for one.
I hate to accuse you of succumbing to scare tactics when justifying getting Obama in and making sure McCain is out, but it really does sound like that when you say it would be a depressing setback for McCain to win. That's the argument used every election by the Democratic macheriny that appeals to the activist left.
I think you're getting it the otherway around when you see Democrats in office and periods of struggle: its because people get fed up with by being beating back in the class struggle that they will shift their consciousness leftward, and that usually means kicking out Republican crony capitalists (Hoover) or racist Dixiecrats (Civil Rights) from power; so I agree with you that Hoover wouldn't have produced a New Deal, but there's no way he would have continued to be president.
The Democratic Party has been the graveyard of the left. They're the party that rescues capitalism when its most oppresive abuses instigate outrage from below. We're talking about a poltical party that is funded by the ruling-class (who is moving most of their money behind the Democrats), and who will ultimately answer back to that class. We can't forget that during the periods of reaction, the New Deal/Great Society Democratic Party became enthusiastic Reaganites. That's because they're not principled reformists, they're doing what's best for capitalism.
There are important reasons to keep independent from Obama and the Democrats. To use an example Lance Selfa uses in the latest ISR, each election year unions spend millions to get the vote out for the Democrats; millions that could have been spent organizing Wal-Mart workers into a union, which would have a far greater impact on the labor movement than an Obama presidency (whose candidacy is getting half of Wal-Mart's contributions).
Voting Obama in isn't a tactic. If you think the level of racism used by the Right is getting scarier, or you feel that something must be done to utilize antiwar sentiment in this country to end the occupation, then Obama is not the place to start. The starting point is building the antiwar movement back from its disasterous policy of electing the Democrats in 2004 and 2006 only to find themselves in a demoralizing position. Joining the immigrants' rights movement and a new civil rights movement will make fightback should Obama and the ruling class resort to racist scapegoating. We cannot start with a politician who is not antiwar or antiracist in principle.
Jeff, you talk as if there's an activist left that's at all significant in this country. There needs to be, but there is not. In fact, i'd say that we're so far backwards as a country that it does not even seem like there's even a significant progressive/keynesian sentiment yet. To people on the surface, Obama seems like a radical departure from Bush and McCain, and to me that is significant in these times. If I thought Obama was a shoe-in, I wouldn't vote for him. It does scare me that this election could be so close still.
And I don't know how you could make the argument that some how 4 more years of McCain would produce enough immiseration that the American people will reject the two parties and lead a revolutionary revolt. In fact, if there was to be anything radical from below in this country, it would seem more likely that it would be a fascist movement than a leftist one. All I care about is if this country progresses, and Obama represents that. I'm tired of feeling irrelevant.
And in terms of your point about unions, while I agree that they shouldn't pour money into the Democrats, but I also know that they do put a ton of effort and resources into organizing wal-mart. The big problem there is the prominence of right to work states where Wal-Mart started and still flourishes, and the effective employer dismantling of the power of labor and the Wagner Act over the years. Obama has promised to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which will prohibit employer intimidation of organizing drives as well as recognize unions as soon as they sign a majority of cards. If that wouldn't be an impetus for revitalizing the labor movement i don't know what could be...
I don't think the activist left is significant in this country. I know that it is weak and part of that weakness its relationship with the Democratic Party in the last 40 years. This election is the perfect opportunity to talk to people about what a real movement is and what it is not (an electoral campaign).
I'm not secretly hoping for a McCain victory that would push workers into a corner and cause them to fight back. I'm with you on understanding that that isn't a politically serious way to see things. But that doesn't mean that an Obama vote is a tactic to realign the Democrats to jumpstart social movements and ultimately a united working-class challenge to capitalism.
If the race were closer (as it was a couple of weeks ago), would you argue to those committed to Nader or McKinney to switch their vote to the Democrats because this election, unlike others, is somehow more important (how many times have we heard that one?). Or would you tell a Muslim activist that despite Obama's Islamophobic statements, he should have our support because of the greater good of his potential administration? Would you let yourself be that guy?
I don't like telling people who really think Obama's going to deliver on some needed changes that they're wrong. But you're different. Our whole friendship is based on politics and protests, and I'd like to think we've matured politically. We both identify ourselves as socialist, so let's be serious about our ideas unless you see yourself now as a progressive Democrat.
I agree with Jeff and my contribution is only to reiterate the key points.
It is a short sighted approach to express dismay over the lack of a Left-wing in this country without asking why that is.
What happened to the major Left groups, both ideologically and organizationally?
The failure of an independent Left has everything to do with its relationship to the Democratic Party and the need for those leaders (Tom Hayden, Jesse Jackson, etc) to feel (as you put it) "relevant."
Obama's positions, rather than fortifying the future of radical movements, is disorientating them.
Protests have weakened because people aren’t sure if the U.S. can and should get out of Iraq immediately, and are swayed by Obama’s call for a “responsible” exit.
This change of face will only serve to rehabilitate the U.S.' ability to intervene around the world.
"Iraq was Bush's mistake, let's wipe our hands clean and go back into Afghanistan, into Pakistan, into Iran. Let's escalate Russia by bringing Georgia into NATO, let's ensure the suffocation of Gaza."
Lack of clarity means that the contradiction between rhetoric and reality are blurring. Our responsibility is to raise the debate amongst those who are genuinely looking for change.
And finally the "scare tactics" is an important point.
We thought the world would end if George Bush got a second term.
It didn't.
We're here, four years later having the same debate.
And as the Presidential Debates continue, I think it only vindicates our position.
One more comment about those "receptive" to change.
Tell those who sought to organize sit down strikes that FDR was receptive to change.
Or tell the Freedom Riders that LBJ was was their friend.
Your anxiety over a "fascist movement" taking over if McCain is elected echoes CIO's Hillman alarmist rhetoric of FDR were to be defeated. But as Lance Selfa points out:
"Hillman had predicted that a FDR defeat would send the labor movement in reverse. FDR had won, yet the labor movement by 1937 was going backward."
The arguments that you're making led to the CIO's Labor Nonpartisan League, which was meant to funnel the radicalism into the Democratic Party where it continues to stay buried.
Oh I'm sorry for being excited about the potential for the first black president of the united states and a fear that we could actually elect a Republican again after all this. How irrational of me. Things have gotten worse in the past 4 years and the left is no stronger. And don't act like I don't know about what happened during the depression and the 60's. I don't agree with everything FDR did at all, and I think his accomplishments came from the labor struggle. And especially don't think I agree with Johnson or credit him with the Civil Rights Act. That was solely the victory of the civil rights movement. The point I was making though was that a Nixon would have vetoed that and even if it was somehow passed would not have responded with a Voting Rights act a year later. A Hoover would have vetoed the NLRA. You act like if Obama got into office I think everything would be ok. I never said that, I just said that I think no matter what, even if it strictly boils down to symbolism it'd be a start for this country.
Also, I welcome the argument, but questioning of friendship and my intelligence? It's getting to the point where I don't want to talk to either of you anymore. And you can say what you want, but there are way more prominent leftists who have struggled and achieved more than anyone (especially you two) in your organization who support Obama. So don't act like I'm some baby killing retard.
Just to clear up, i never questioned your intelligence or our friendship. I love you.
And of course much more prominent leftists are supporting Obama. But that's the point! Thomas Frank, Jesse Jackson, Danny Glover, Barbara Ehrenreich, all supported Kerry too.
I think it's a misunderstanding of strategy. I don't think the inside/outside progressive takeover of the Democratic Party is possible.
And i'm excited for the first black president too! But I think as "revolutionaries" we need to differentiate between analyzing the implications of Obama's popularity, and supporting him.
I mean i wouldn't even vote for Dennis Kucinich for very serious reasons, even though it is arguable that if he were the nominee, it'd represent a much more progressive shift than Obama's campaign does.
Lastly, I'm aware that you know the history. You know it better than i do. I bring it up only to put my argument in perspective.
Pathetic response, Steve. Threatening to stop talking to me?
Leave the ISO out of this. Its been near demoralizing still doing this kind of work (while you blog about how important it is) to see our coalitions get smaller and people become more convinced of Obama because of the "necessity" of election.
you were the one who brought our friendship up, Jeff. Not talking to you was my response to that. There's no reason that should be involved. When you made it personal I responded personally.
Like I said, I welcome the argument, but I really do not see how this could have anything to do with being friends. And you act so astounded, like I just betrayed you or became a drug addict and was heading down a horrible path. So I just brought up that I'm in good company. Whatever, I couldn't care less what you think about me or not. I guess I'll only retract showing any concern that you put our friendship into this.
http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=GMVsHb44zD7eiBPdn_h9YjUxODYzMzg-&referred_by=11691672-Us64Krx
Post a Comment