More than two

Paul noticed last week that the msm was effectively freezing out Edwards. He came in second, for crying out loud, in Iowa. This same pattern of acting like he isn't there is continuing this week--as if the question of the Democratic nominee had already been decided, as if he didn't pull nearly 20 percent of those voting in the Democratic primary.

Who sent out the memo to ignore Edwards? The Clinton group? Or, the more likely culprits--media owners threatened by Edwards' anti-corporate stance. Seems like corporate media doesn't want to have to deal with an angry, divisive message (and they keep to this rule pretty well, having already frozen out Kucinich and Paul as conservative media works desperately to demolish Huckabee less the evangelical chickens come home to roost). This is politics, better stick with tears and buzzwords. No division here, no siree--we're one America now. That's Right.

We need Left--not an amorphous, feel good story about hope and unity, not another compassionate approach by a uniter, not a divider.

Comments

[Alain]

I have to respectfully disagree. If Obama was not as charismatic (or as "nice and non threatening") I suspect Edwards - and his anti coporatist message - would be getting more attention. And just for the record, not only has Edwards received millions of dollars from hedge fund managers, but his own personal wealth (which is estimated at $40 million) is overwhelmingly invested in a hedge fund for which he was a paid legal consultant.

While I like Edwards message, it is hard to believe his policies would be all that different from the other democratic candidates (with the notable exception of Kucinich). The Left, however it is to be defined, is not likely to find a real vehicle in the democratic party. But I think the country (and the world) will be a much better place even if one of the corporatist democrats is elected.

[Matt]

I too wish Edwards' message was allowed more prominent air-time and serious consideration....

But to be blunt, is it fair to even call it a message at this point -that is, I can't help but feel it resonates more as (largely borrowed, largely hollow) mantra...call this an impression manufactured purely by mass media, absorbed peripherally and in fragments, if you must.

I do hate to call his delivery tiresome...because in general the reverse-classist call-to-arms has never been more necessary. But you might consider that it is precisely his position (partly due to whatever Clinton-media embargo or likewise smarmy reasons) as a fringe candidate that allows him to make the "bold" rhetorical moves he does...without which he would risk disappearing from the front-runner spotlight entirely (embarrassing reality of our horse-race politics). Such was the popular "reality-community" wisdom, anyway, months ago. Now the strategy is obviously back-firing, and probably yes, in part for censorious reasons.

You can see I'm torn on this. Maybe his slogan would be treated more seriously if Edwards was willing to be more probingly specific and spontaneous (read: genuine?). Then it could be genuinely threatening! Instead there is a certain false and naturally restrained, head-in-the-sand quality to his performance, as is. (If, in other words, he had an original visionary bone in his heart (assuming Yeats was correct that the heart may have bones). I realize that may be too harsh; I just see him as trying to walk some opportunist line, and damnit the message itself deserves a better messenger/repeater.)

Suppose Edwards comes across as politically naive, really (or even cynical, if it wasn't for all the "I'm the candidate of hope" stuff - which seems designed to combat the cynic label). At the very least naive about how invested and over-identified the minority of population comprised of voters is, wanting to shop for a winner, etc. These people expect a little more honesty about the political reality any new President will face, and if it's all-out war that Edwards is truly proposing, well that's a pretty lofty goal...like Alain I have trouble seeing him actually engaged in rising to it, let alone accomplishing much.

Which may all mark me as a cynic, but that I also agree with Alain's final sentence.

In conclusion: I'm not convinced he wouldn't make a good President, or that he doesn't really believe in some form of economic re-adjustment. I think he might. Maybe my potential cynicism is as much a result of granting the meta-triviality/hyper-calculation of the process far too much credence/focus; perhaps the best we can expect from such a system is indeed mantras, ponies and ice cream.

[Joe]

I don't want to exactly rehearse our earlier discussion on my blog, Alain, but what do you propose we (as a small group of intellectuals and/or as a nation) do to combat neoliberalism? Are we going to hope it away? Is that anything like Edwards chiding Obama for trying to "nice away" corporate interests?

It seems to me that our political efficacy in the future (under whatever president) is at least in part, though probably much more than we give credit, forecasted by what we do in making THIS political decision. As I've invoked before, what do we have to lose but this loss?

[Jodi]

I don't think the world will be better off is Hillary is elected.

I don't see the 'head in the sand' quality of Edwards at all nor do I see it as simply a mantra; he's been emphasizing poverty and universal health care (although not single payer) for a couple of years now. And the wealth--all the candidates except Huckabee are wealthy. This is not a surprise (although it's yet another indication that there isn't anything like democracy here).

[Alain]

Joe I appreciate your sentiment - I think you know that from our previous discussion. But I just try to imagine a Republican president for another 4 or 8 years and think what that would mean. They all want to continue the policy of torture (except McCain), the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the extension of further tax cuts to corporations and the very rich, etc... These are not trivial differences. I think we have a great deal more to loose if the conservative movement finds a way to win or steal another election.

I should probably also clarify from where I speak: While I share much of what could be called a leftist perspective, I myself am not a leftist. I am too old, and perhaps too Bourgious, to fully embrace a radical political project. That said, combatting neoliberalism is a noble goal - but I believe it will be further set back by the election of another Republican corporatist.

I could be wrong but I think the election of any democrat in 2008 will begin the process of recommiting the United States to the welfare state. While you may think this is not going far enough, I would suggest that the recommitment to the social safety net could be an initial step in the reassessment of neoliberalism.

And I know this sounds too wimpy for most on the left but I think it would be an important change, if not a true political Act in the sense that Zizek describes.

[Kenneth Rufo]

The caricature of Obama is embarrassing. You may disagree with his policy ideas, but to pretend that they don't exist in some specific concrete form, that he is functionally no more than an empty claim regarding hope and unity, is just stupid. His website offers what is by far the most detailed proposals in the areas of economy, education, civil rights, and so on. You're welcome to think these details are lacking, in that they don't meet with your own desired actions, but this idea that Obama is merely "an amorphous, feel good story about hope and unity" is silly.

As for fighting neoliberalism, it seems painfully obvious to me that if we want to shift the rhetorical terrain of neoliberalism, Obama's discourse is significantly better at doing so, emphasizing values like community as the barometer of reform. Of course, maybe this doesn't amount to "fighting" in the sense that seems so essential to this/your conversation.

[Jodi]

Let's just make sure that no one gets mad, that we all stick together, that we have public-private partnerships that truly represent the good that corporations provide to all of us. Let's not be angry. Let us rejoice and be glad that we are one.

[patrick j. mullins]

"I could be wrong but I think the election of any democrat in 2008 will begin the process of recommiting the United States to the welfare state. While you may think this is not going far enough, I would suggest that the recommitment to the social safety net could be an initial step in the reassessment of neoliberalism."

I agree totally, and I wonder if you've noticed how different this is from what you were saying a year or so ago; it's much stronger, more realistic, and not involved with details which are more wishful than anything else. The arguments against it seem to imply that an endless sad mournful dirge about 'how bad the world is' is at least somehow more fulfilling than minor improvement, even if that's all you can get. I would guess that that's not why Jodi says 'the world wouldn't be better with Hillary, although I could be wrong: I would guess she just can't stand Hillary.

So the question Alain and I are forcing the people to answer is really, 'will the world be better with a Republican than with Hillary?' The only way to fudge that one is to say that 'none of the Republicans are as bad as Bush and Cheney.' Any other answer says 'yes, it would be better with any of the Republicans running than with Hillary.' This is not even assuming that she definitely gets the nomination, but rather that she is the most-hated of the Democrats. I suppose another answer might be, well, we did something by running a losing 'better, less-corporate Democrat than Hillary', even though we now have (at least) four more years of a Republican.'

But with that kind of an answer, the subsequent criticisms of a Republican machine continuing, whether by fair election or stealing by rigging, are not worth listening to. Criticism of a hated Hillary, Obama or Edwards winner would be listenable, with some obvious lunatic fringe exceptions. But people who want to be leftists also want to be ignored if they do not consider Bush and Cheney as being bad enough to be 'as bad as it gets.' It makes it seem as if a kind of 'leftist clubbism' is much more important for these very few, and it is these very few who say that they speak for the many, and who are often overtly Communist. It is defeatism, and they know it, but they don't say it, because actually saying 'vote for defeatism and lose' is another form of what they say the right is doing when they call it 'hiding in plain sight.'

[Jodi]

I don't think Hillary is committed to the welfare state. I don't even see where one can find that in her positions. And, because of this, I think she is terrible for the Democratic party.

I am against her because of her vote on the Iraq war, continued funding for the war, her vote on the Iranian guard, her vote on Gonzales.

Where would she likely be better than any Republican--staffing the justice department and enforcing the voting rights act. I'm not confident, though, of any of her potential judicial appointments or of her ability to do the best/right thing on health care--she will be too likely to compromise with insurance companies and Republicans.

[patrick j. mullins]

So you mean you think none of the
Republicans are as bad as Bush/Cheney, and that Hillary is, due to her previous and current weaknesses and faults, NO IMPROVEMENT WHATEVER on Bush/Cheney?

That Hillary is not committed to the welfare state is fairly obvious, but it is 100% obvious in the case of Republicans, isn't it? With all due respect (I usually don't mean that when I say it, and neither does anybody else--I think we learned it from the old 'LA Law' tv show as a tactic, but I think I mean it here), you don't answer the question I (and I think Alain) am asking, which is stark and harsh. But what do we have that isn't but huddling in the shadows?

There's always Qlipoth for president (sorry, couldn't resist.)

[Jodi]

Bush/Cheney aren't the option. So, that's not the standard--the standard is whether she is better than the other Democrats (no) and then better than any other Republican (this is where the discussion is, no?).

Hillary thinks that the president has the responsibility of determining the conditions under which torture might be necessary. This is the Bush/Cheney line on executive power. It is dangerous, wrong, and unconstitutional. (I sometimes wonder if one of the reasons the Democrats have not pursued impeachment is that they actually want to see how far Bush et al will go in expanding presidential power).

If you want me to consider whether Hillary is better than Bush/Cheney--I hate to say this, but I honestly don't know. Both she and NY's other senator have been absolutely horrendous in their votes.

[Alain]

"I agree totally, and I wonder if you've noticed how different this is from what you were saying a year or so ago; it's much stronger, more realistic..."

Yes Patrick, I agree with you - this is very different from what I was saying 12 to 18 months ago. And I think my reasons are similar to yours: I have watched in horror what has happened to this country like everyone else and want desperately to reverse course. With the Presidential elections now upon us, and a new administration scandal being revealed everyday, I realize that the stakes now are higher than at any time in recent memory (perhaps 1968?). We must do something - and if it is Hillary, Obama (who I prefer), Edwards or tiny tim - I don't think we can afford to be that choosy. The current Republican party is so reactive and destructive that they must be stopped. Ofcourse, the major candidates are in bed with big business and not sufficiently progressive. This cannot come as a surprise to anyone. But this is no time to stand by and let the new militarized gilded age continue unchecked. As lame as the democrats are they are the only current hope we have (even if, as Joe has said, it is a "forced Choice.")

And I understand Jodi's cynicism about Obama("Let's not be angry. Let us rejoice and be glad that we are one.") But he inspires people the way a Bobby Kennedy or MLK once did. For whatever reason, he makes people feel good, and that is essential in building a political coalition beyond the standard democratic base. And as Kenneth points out, he takes positions that you can choose to agree with or not - but it is silly to accuse him of being just the same Mitt Romney or Rudi.

For the record, I was not a big Bill Clinton fan. That said, he raised taxes on the wealthy, he increased the Medicare tax to apply to all income, and he passed the family medical leave act. While these things were not revolutionary, they made things better for most Americans. He appointed moderate to liberal judges, he expanded the earned income tax credit, he vetoed welfare reform twice until the Republicans included funding for daycare and medical insurance. These things matter, medicare and medicaid matter to people like me who have disabled relatives, elderly parents with little savings. The differences between the two parties are not trivial, with all due respect to Ralph Nader.

I am not a registered democrat in part because I share much of the cynicism of the Left. But I vote democratic because I know they are that stands between us and a return to 19th century laissez faire government.

I apologize for sounding over preachy - too much caffine today.
Thanks.

[patrick j. mullins]

"I am not a registered democrat in part because I share much of the cynicism of the Left."

I'm not either, glad you brought that up, and for the same reasons. You don't sound preachy at all (of course, that may be because I agree with most of what you said...)

[patrick j. mullins]

Bush/Cheney aren't the option. So, that's not the standard--the standard is whether she is better than the other Democrats (no) and then better than any other Republican (this is where the discussion is, no?).

Bush/Cheney aren't the literal option, but some people have become convinced Giuliani is so crazed it would be like having an intelligent Bush in office--and that is not comforting. But I do understand much of what you're talking about, but I'll just leave this for now that my position is exactly like Alain's, and I intend to vote for whatever Democrat gets the nomination.

[Joe]

Alain,

I don't think that electing the prized child of the media heads, which ever of them it would be, is remotely close to a political Act. This is largely because it is entirely conceivable, many expect inevitable, that any of them can win. It would not change anything about how we approach the problem of changing the political conversation, so to speak.

As I've repeatedly said in our previous discussion, the more salient change is not in Kucinich per se, but in the electorate (particularly the Democrats) shoving off this air of impossibility when it comes to electing him. Before we can do that, we will not be ready for a candidate like Kucinich, and we will continue to avoid him as we have and are saying we want to in this election.

In other words, our problem is that instead of confronting the practical problem of governing ourselves, we try and cut it in half, between our half-inclinations and some Big Other that speaks through the MSM telling us the right thing to do. What we fail to realize every time is that, like Hercules never quite catching up with the tortoise in Zeno's Paradox, we never actually confront our problem this way; we never catch up to it. At best we circle around it, but really we're avoiding it every time.

[Matt]

What Ken said.

[Jodi]

Who is Ken?

[Matt]

Um...seriously?

Ken Rufo, commenting above, thoughts echoed by Alain and myself...fellow member of group blog.

I tend to call people as they sign themselves in email, I suppose. (Care to set the record straight on current preferences, K?)

But I won't belabor this thread as my thoughts are pretty much already on Long Sunday.

[Jodi]

my bad, sorry Matt, I lost track of the thread and skimmed over his comment when I looked back--I thought you meant Joe or that you had meant to comment elsewhere (but, really, feel free to belabor if you want). Also, sorry to Ken for overlooking (but this is only retrospective overlooking since I responded right after he wrote)

[Wesley]

Wow, I think that the tone of this comments box has dramatically changed. I think that it's nice, though I don't know what to think of the change in the tone of Patrick's comments, whose writing I've always enjoyed. Patrick, isn't your tone a lot more restrained, or am I wrong?

[Jodi]

the feelgood hope and unity of the Obama people is rubbing off on everybody

[Kenneth Rufo]

Apparently not everybody.

[ugh]

(What Would Zizek Say? WWZS): Zizek has said he'd vote Obama, FWIW.

Also, any one bothered to look into Obama's economic advisers?

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/#comments

It's one to thing to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of evils (or to imagine Obama is the "centrist" force in an emergent popular front), but rushing to the "center" to defend him as "fairly liberal" merely shores up debate within the parameters of the MSM's effective hegemony.

Obama: "It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can."

I.e. "The white-washing of the continental ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples in the inexorable march to a global 'empire for liberty': Yes, we can."

"A proposed 100 000 more troops for a military-industrial complex already of world-historical proportions: Yes, we can."

"Continued support to the tune of *billions* of dollars in military 'aid' to a quasi-apartheid regime roundly condemned by Amnesty International and The Red Cross for subjugating, starving, and squeezing an aboriginal, ethnic population to death: Yes, we can."

You know you're a good American patriot when this stuff, from first to last, is shrugged off in an appeal to worse demons (Bush/Cheny). There is an unspoken paradox, a dark core, to progressive support of Obama: his nebulous appeal for hope and unity, far from an imminent optimism, depends on a (valid) terror of continued rule by those to his Right. It's "hope" cresting on fear and despair--without which the banality of its tepid reformism would have all the force of a stagnant puddle.

I may segue from Obama's devastating status quo position on Israel/Palestine, there is a growing chorus of progressives who understand that the only feasible future for both Israelis and Palestinians is some form of "one-state solution." That is, the only realistic, just solution is precisely that which is beyond the coordinates of present debate: what must be done is impossible. The courage and foresight demonstrated--by Ilan Pappe and others--in promulgating this vision is not greater than what which is required to break-up the 2-party hegemony of the most ideologically foreclosed "democracy" on earth: the American Republic.

"Yes, we can" DO BETTER.

[ugh]

Direct link re: Obama's economic advisers (above takes you to comments):

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/

[patrick j. mullins]

"You know you're a good American patriot when this stuff, from first to last, is shrugged off in an appeal to worse demons (Bush/Cheny)."

Thanks so much for that...ugh...you are a wonderful missionary and force for peace. As you'll notice, I personally shrugged off this 'imperialist Obama' stuff by an appeal to Qlipoth Consortium, where all truth lies and lices.

[Matt]

but, really, feel free to belabor if you want)

OK!:

http://www.long-sunday.net/long_sunday/2008/01/popular-respons.html#more

[John]

What Matt said.