Last week, I wrote of my cautious optimism for the new Obama administration. I was criticized for this by people who pointed out that he was just another ruling class politician. I responded that they were not wrong but that my hope rested less on the person of Obama himself and more on the possibility of building bridges with the millions of progressives who, for whatever reasons, voted for him. For example, millions of Obama voters support single-payer health care, even though the president himself does not. Instead of denouncing the president in week one of his term, why not engage these self-described progressives to put pressure on Obama to implement elements of the progressive agenda?
I also felt that being cynical (or whatever euphemism one wants to use), especially before he even took office, serves no purpose. In fact, it risks backfiring. If you convince someone that both Obama in particular and the system in general are irredeemably corrupt, then that person will instead go home and watch American Idol because they will view any action as pointless. They will see the situation as irredeemable. Hopeless people do not get into activism.
One of my fears all along is that an Obama presidency would neuter liberals and progressives. That they would give him a free pass for things for which that they would excoriate Bush. This is why I proposed that non-Obama voting progressives should engage those who did vote for the Democrat, rather than mocking them. Challenge them to make sure Obama lives up to whatever was their perception of what he stood for.
Unfortunately, my fear of neutering appears to have been well-founded. Already, a anti-war group in Potsdam , NY (the village in which I went to college) has decided to suspend its peace vigils after six years of having one every Saturday morning.
Somehow I missed the memo that either peace (or even the end of war) had come to Afghanistan and Iraq . In fact, last thing I read was that President Obama had promised to ESCALATE the war in Afghanistan , hoping to mimic the success the Soviet occupiers had in the same country.
Now, I understand from personal experience that Potsdam in the winter is frigid. When it's below zero outside with a bitter wind, the only place you want to be is inside under a blanket. But I have no doubt the last six winters in Potsdam have been bitter too and they continued to protest these moral monstrosities. The weather hasn't changed. The policies haven't changed.
I understand giving Obama a chance to do the right thing. I understand not calling for him to face a war crimes' trial. I understand not denouncing him. But how is the right thing going to happen, absent public pressure?
It really boils down to these questions. Were the Potsdam activists protesting Bush or protesting the wars? Was their number one objective to end the Bush presidency or to end the wars of aggression, the devastation and the killing funded by their and our tax dollars? The Bush presidency is history. The carnage he initiated continues.
The Potsdam group may be well-intentioned but do they actually believe Obama is going to magically buck the military-industrial complex if peace activists sit on their butt and hope for the best? You know very well that those who have a vested interest in endless war aren't going to sit on their butts and hope. They are going to be lobbying the heck out of the White House and the Democratic Party, including with their 'contributions.' If there's no counter pressure to the Boeings and the Blackwaters, how's anything going to improve?
Simply put: will progressives hope for the future or will we try to shape it?
The Potsdam group made the wrong choice.
Politicians will do whatever they're allowed to get away with, especially by their own supporters. It should be no more acceptable to give Obama a blank check than it was to give Bush one.
If Obama is really is the Messiah so many of his supporters seem to think, then now is the time to push the progressive agenda now, to strike while the iron's hot. Now's the time for his supporters to make sure he keeps whatever they think his promises were. Far from resting on laurels and patting oneself on the back, the Obama presidency should herald a Surge in progressive activism if we are to reverse the damage of the Bush-Clinton years.
Electing a black president does little good if he acts the same as the white presidents before him.
4 comments:
This is the sad legacy of the Democratic party; false and shallow leaders and members who willingly follow that lead as if incapable of independent thought.
The issue I have with their hope (one week in or one year later) is that we have already seen what the "give him a chance" crowd can do. We saw it during Carter. We saw it during Clinton. We need to remember that perceived intent and flowery rhetoric are largely irrelevant when placed next to corporate sponsorship.
HMO's will not allow single payer. It is the ONLY reason we don't have rational health care like the rest of the industrialized world.
The military industrial congressional complex will not allow an end to the murder of Muslims. Its highly profitable for them. Thats the ONLY reason we will continue to have constant war.
The big three and the oil companies will not allow hybrids and electric cars with off-peak plug-ins and solar rooftops. Thats why we will not reduce our dependency on foreign energy or cure our ailing environment.
To believe that the same people who fell for Obama's rhetoric are actually going to become politically active in some kind of meaningful sense or make some kind of real difference is naive at best. These are the point and clik crowd. Political activism is mouse clicking on MoveOn's website or calling their Congressperson to have their "voices heard".
These people think that anti-Bush and anti-Republican activity is the same thing as intelligent or progressive activity. They have bought the NPR/NY Times kool-aid and they see the Republicans as the problem, not the structural and systemic corporate control of the whole political arena.
People this simple cannot ever hope to win any kind of victory because they don't even know what they are fighting for. They don't know the difference between Single-Payer and HMO Care-for-All. They think that a war executed by Reps is an unnecessary and evil waste but wars proposed and executed by their own party are necessary and even noble. They think that 25 mpg CAFE standards are hard fought and that the 50-80 mpg we should have is not "politically feasible". So they continue to celebrate mediocrity.
Just as true progressives cannot HOPE that these naive Dems will ever fight any real battles to help solve our problems, we also should not give them any breathing space to think they are doing what is right when it clearly isn't. This is NOT a new era. Real change is NOT in the air and we know this to be true. We shouldn't pretend otherwise for any reason.
As hated as I may become for constantly saying it, Obama isn't Christ (and he's not Santa, either). He is just another man controlled by corporate death merchants. He is compelled by the same forces his predecessors were, like it or not.
With all due respect, Brian, those of us who understand this need to wake people up, not give them false hope. They already have plenty of that (which is evident anytime I have a conversation with one of them).
Matt, I'm not sure we disagree on much. I understand much of what you say and agree with it. It's not so much that I have a great deal of faith in 'point and click activists' (great phrase). It's that I see it as a potential opportunity to take advantage of. Or more to the point, I don't really see what other options there are. If all Republicans are inherently evil and all Democrats are dumb/lazy, then you're writing off 2/3 of the voters in this country as irredeemable. If you do, I'd love to hear it but I don't really see a viable progressive strategy without some of these voters.
Obama will not make the systemic changes needed. And to be fair to him, he never promised anything of the sort. He promised a less abrasive politics, which is style not substance. On substance, he will tweak around the edges (abortion, science) to appease Democratic interest groups and these will promptly be reversed as soon as a Bush-Palin-esque figure reoccupies the Oval Office. But Obama won't fundamentally change the dynamic.
The problem is that real progressive have spent 30 years trying to change the dynamic but whatever strategy (if there's been one) obviously hasn't worked. And I'm not sure writing off all Democratic voters is going to change that. I'd rather challenge Democrats who call themselves progressive to demand Obama push progressive programs. I'd rather call their bluff. Not because I'm sure it will work or even that I'm confident it will work but because I have no idea what else could work. Decades of progressives going at it on their own hasn't worked except at being the equivalent of fingers in the dike. Corporations are winning. People are losing, including many Democrats. Why not try to co-opt some of these Democrats, even if one selected issues? Say if you want single payer or living wage or whatever, then don't Hope for it, fight for it. These ordinary Democrats are under the illusion that they have power. I say exploit that illusion and dare them to actually use that power. Because I can't see anything challenging corporate governance other than some kind of popular uprising. You don't get that popular uprising by dismissing out of hand 2/3 of the country. Ultimately, if there's a better strategy, I'd love to hear it.
Brian, when the labor movement was in its early days, the workers who fought in it understand the issues of the day because they were the actual victims of corporate oppression and lack of regulation.
The average American today is far too fat and happy to fight the real fight. Point and Click activism is all most are capable of. They think it accomplishes something. I would most respectfully submit that they are not well-informed enough to fight on their own behalves (never mind those of actual workers).
I am not advocating writing them (or anyone else) off. I am simply saying that it would be much better to educate them about what they could actually accomplish by learning about the issues and the history of meaningful change in our country than by applauding their huge misstep in electing yet one more death merchant and thinking that this will fix anything at all (with or without computer lobbying).
If we continue to advocate for change and admit that we, in no way, feel that Obama is its delivery vehicle, we are just being honest. If we misrepresent our thoughts and say that we think we should waste a lot of time lobbying this guy and his party, what we risk is that these people will become disillusioned and not see any alternatives to the two party system and the war machine. How can they see third parties and independents as meaningful alternatives if they are working WITH these felons within this corrupt system rather than fighting it?
TV already does the work of making massive numbers of people believe that real change can come from evil people and conscienceless mechanisms. We don't really need to help TV, do we?
Matt: I'm not sure where we disagree. Obama was in no way deceitful. He never promised to make systemic changes to the corporate governance structure. And I have no doubt that he won't make such changes. Lord knows what he said that his supporters misinterpreted to that effect.
I've said many times that the main difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the latter will take you speeding downhill toward a cliff at 80 mph while the former will take you speeding downhill toward a cliff at 45 mph. They are not identical. One will take a little longer but the destination is the same. So they are really a distinction without a difference. What we need is someone who will actually apply the brake, to say nothing of then putting it in reverse.
I think somewhere along the line you misinterpreted my essays as some great vote of confidence in Obama. The Democratic leadership is hopeless, no doubt. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't have left the party 10 years ago. But I do think there is an opportunity to get at some of the rank and file members. Remember, there are Democratic voters out there that have sent to Congress people like Kucinich and Bernie Sanders (not a Democrat, but most Dems voted for him, which illustrates my point).
My point was that when you focus on Obama, immediately the discussion shifts away from the issues and toward the person. His supporters will reflexively defend him even if they don't agree with him all the time. I don't think that's what we want. The focus should be on the issues. These people think Obama's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I don't think anything can be gained by spending much time arguing this because it has no rational basis. It's like arguing religion with a Sarah Palin supporter.
Even if he will become a great president, he hasn't done anything yet. If he implements single payer, tears down the military-industrial complex and eradicates corporate personhood, then I suggest that would make him a great president. If he even did two of these things, I'd be pretty happy. But just as these things won't happen by sitting back and Hoping, they also won't happen if the focus is on Obama instead of the issues.
That doesn't mean we have to lie and say that Obama is the seconding coming of Eugene Debs. But it does means that a lot of his supporters say they agree with these goals. They need to be pushed to hold his feet to the fire. These supporters need to be told put up or shut up. They need to be reminded that supporting these things on paper isn't good enough, that their guys are in power so they should expect results, they should press for action. It seems that if even the bunker mentality DFA folks around here can turn on Gillibrand, then maybe there's an opportunity to be taken advantage of.
The problem in our society is that people view themselves as passive subjects to be governed, rather than citizens to play an active in role in what happens in their country. They think that if the right Leader occupies the White House (or whatever office in question), that if Their Guy/Girl wins, then they can go back to watching American Idol and everything will magically fall into place. We should be constantly hold leaders accountable and push them to act in our name, whether they're Democrat, Republican, Green or whatever. Citizenship doesn't end on Election Day.
As you know, corporations don't fund a candidate and then sit back to make sure s/he does their bidding. They work night and day long after the election to make sure they get what they want. Citizens need to do the same.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but unions, it seems, have lost the plot by becoming basically becoming part and parcel of the Democratic Party. Union leaders seem to have become part of the establishment and I think this ceding of union independence has significantly eroded their relevance and influence.
In fairness, I think a lot of people are resigned to the least bad option. They are anesthetized. Democrats have essentially ceded to Republicans on economics so the ordinary voter looks at the two of them and sees them nearly identical on economics so they end up voting on these wedge social issues. So you get a working class person voting for a fat cat Republican because they will (hold hand over heart) protect America from the mortal threat of men who want to marry other men and refuse to wear flag pins at the same time! As though a flag pin will put a roof over your head or faux 'patriotism' will feed your family. These issues may seem trivial but when they're the main difference between the two major parties, that's what decides it for people.
Unfortunately, in addition to all the external hurdles faced by smaller parties such as media bias and rigged electoral law, many of them have quite a bit of internal bickering, dissension and disorganization (as I'm sure you know all too well). So they're not in a position to capitalize on this.
The problems are a) convincing these people that it's not too hopeless to get involved and b) presenting a viable plan that makes them think it's worth it to spend their time and energy on it. Take someone like me. a) is not a problem for me because I'm too stubborn to stop caring. But I've yet to see any party offer something that really resembles b) and it frustrates me. I like the Greens' ideals and there are a lot of well-intentioned people among them but I don't see the discipline and organization needed for the party to really make an impact. I hope I'm wrong, believe you me but...
Post a Comment