Progressives and electoral politics

Democrats insist that progressives must fully support Obama. A McCain presidency just continues the nightmare of the last 8 years. It must be avoided at all costs.

With this insistence, Democrats want progressives to fall into line, refrain from criticizing Obama, wait to raise our criticisms and issues until after the election. Again, too much is at stake. So they deflect attention from the issues at stake--free speech (FISA laws), climate change (drilling), military aggression, economic collapse --and proceed as if the only issue is the election. Once the election happens, though, critique continues to be deflected and ignored. The new excuse will be: we need to work across party lines in order to get the country moving again.

The Democrats have used this tactic before. Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table. Winning the presidential election in 2008 was too important, as if anything like the rule of law or even an aspiration to some kind of constitutional ideals can survive the last 8 years without some kind of war crimes trial or truth commission. I suspect that the real reason the Democrats have failed to push for impeachment or a truth commission is that their leaders are culpable in the decisions to imprison and torture. Some of them likely knew about and approved administration policy (they confirmed administration appointments, for example; also, it is full public knowledge that the administration discussed torture techniques in the Oval Office and that these techniques are illegal). I would expect that Hillary Clinton knew. And I would expect that deals have been made such that Obama has promised not to push for a war crimes tribunal or truth commission but will instead ignore the criminal illegality of the Bush administration, again, 'in order to get this country moving again.'

Senate Democrats in 2002 handed over to Bush the authority to invade Iraq. They claimed that it was crucial to get through the November election; that's what really matters. They push this same nasty argument on progressives now, to get us to fall in line, not rock the boat. The Democrats were wrong to vote in favor of war with Iraq. Their reason--just get the election behind us--was a craven collapse of vision and principle. Their position--all that matters is the election--is just as wrong then as it is now.

Don't let them change the topic. There is more at stake politically than the presidential election.

Comments

[Joe Clement]

Why not highlight the distinction between voting for and supporting Obama? Glenn Greenwald is a good example of how these two positions can be parsed without being cognitively dissonant. As you say, Democrats want progressives, leftists and the like to support Obama because they believe we cannot afford to have him lose, but many progressives, leftists and the like who are voting for him are already doing it for this shamelessly pragmatic reason. More should take a note from Zizek's commentary on Cheney and torture, "yes, we know cannot afford to let Obama lose the election to McCain, despite our problems with him, but why are you telling us?"

Given these tensions, why not be make this injunction explicit and see what obscene supplements turn up? For those who are not, more or less, "won over" by Obama, they are not concerned with winning Obama support as much as votes. As we find out more and more undesirable facts about Obama's apparent interests and agenda, to say nothing of his corporate support, this distinction can only be sharpened for those willing to make it at all. The same problem remains, that we cannot afford to let McCain beat him, but at least as urgently we cannot let Obama beat the progressives, leftists and the like.

Demanding that progressives, leftists and the like support Obama is a kind of infinite demand that Zizek was criticizing last November; it has no finite limits, because as long as the bullshit keeps cropping up support will be demanded. The finite demand we should circulate is two-fold: not only should people vote for Obama for the pragmatic reason, however unsatisfying, but we should demand on this distinction between voting for and supporting Obama, or else the demand for supporting Obama will always echo: Critique or Vote!

[old]

I like the Obama candidacy and think the way he will have won, grassroots support, will have kicked off a movement even he isn't able to stifle, kind of like Kennedy and civil rights. On the flip flops:

FISA - absolutely despicable
Public Campaign Money - ho hum
Drilling - Brilliant machiavellianism, especially when combined with the demand for opening the reserves. It has basically ended what was becoming a grandstanding issue for McCain.

[patrick j. mullins]

Why not highlight the distinction between voting for and supporting Obama?

How can you argue with that? Clement has said the best answer to this petulant matter I have yet read. Otherwise, you consider voting important, but also don't, which means that nobody will be able to take it literally, given that it offers a hatful of rain.

[Jim Aune]

Just out of curiosity, did you vote for Nader in 2000? If so, "progressives" bear considerable responsibility for torture, FISA, Iraq, and so on.

[Jodi]

Yes, I voted for Nader. Given that the Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, have continued to fund it, approved Bush's appointments to attorney general etc, I think you are wrong in implying progressive responsibility rather than Democratic responsibility. The Democrats have not been a party of opposition.

[Seb]

Not only did the Democrats do bupkis to oppose the worst atrocities of the Bush administration, but how can voting for Nader in 2000 mean bearing responsibility for said crimes when the election was a bloodless coup? Bush lost the election! Did Nader voters put Scalia on SCOTUS? How is the '00 election their fault?

[Jim Aune]

No, but the incapacity to distinguish Gore from Bush demonstrates a certain lack of what used to be called phronesis. But it's all about feeling better about yourself than about actually accomplishing anything, isn't it? As if the Democrats weren't constrained by noise machine of the Right. LIke it or not, the Democratic Party is closer to being an authentic voice of the American poor and working class--ever meet an African-American who voted for Nader?--and "progressives" is another name for academics too pure for real politics.

[Jodi]

What a crazy thing to say. of course I know african americans who voted for Nader as well as for other third party candidates. The Democrats do not have to let themselves be constrained by the 'noise machine of the Right' and they never should have, particularly given the fact that they had a majority of the vote in 2000. They should have claimed that oppositional voice and opposed. Finally, the Democratic Party isn't an authentic voice of anything, except perhaps corporate interests, which was Bill Clinton's strategy for winning anyway.

[Alain]

"the incapacity to distinguish Gore from Bush demonstrates a certain lack of what used to be called phronesis. But it's all about feeling better about yourself than about actually accomplishing anything, isn't it?"

I think Jim sums up my biggest frustration with "the left" in the United States. Nader is an interesting example - if he really wanted to build a progressive movement in the US, he would stop running for president and start working toward either building a new party or reforming an existing one.

The most overstated meme of leftists is that "X candidate" - insert any recent democratic presidential nominee - is a corporate tool and neoliberal fascist - meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Thus, there are no pragmatic, practical differences between voting for them, as opposed to voting for the Republican branded neo fascist. Forget all the little differences between the parties, philosophically they are all the same.

i share the frustration of any American who believes in the rule of law and longs for true economic justice. But to not acknowledge the real differences between the parties, and the candidates? I don't get it.

[Richard]

"Nader is an interesting example - if he really wanted to build a progressive movement in the US, he would stop running for president and start working toward either building a new party or reforming an existing one."

I have problems with the manner in which Nader has run his 2004 and 2008 elections; he really does seem like a lone horse speaking the truth (which, it has to be admitted, he still largely does). But the 2000 election was different. People were excited about voting for Nader, because it really was about building some larger movement. Unfortunately this effort failed, since well under 5% of the vote went to Nader. Anyway, too much is made of this elision of the differences between Gore and Bush. No one who voted for Nader thought there was no difference at all, but the differences are so slight on a huge spate of key issues (over-arching foreign policy goals, for one).

I think people who continually bring up Nader in this fashion (blaming him and those who voted for him for Bush's presidency) are themselves refusing to admit that the system is broken, I imagine because belief in it is important to maintain. Why else do such people always ignore the points made by Seb above? After all, it remains true that, in fact, Bush LOST the election (and that he LOST Florida) but had it illegally handed to him.

[patrick j. mullins]

"Anyway, too much is made of this elision of the differences between Gore and Bush."

Oh, well, we're so sorry, since only Naderites make such an 'elision of differences'. When differences elide, which they customarily do only at the neutralization of these differences.

"No one who voted for Nader thought there was no difference at all,"

I had thought this was a good possibility, since they were all so much more intelligent than those who didn't elide the differences into one big Kapitalist Dah-link...

"but the differences are so slight on a huge spate of key issues (over-arching foreign policy goals, for one)."

I do hope if Obama wins (by no means likely now that the Nader vitriol is oozing out) that he will revoke First Amendment rights for Nader and all his minions. Nader never speaks the truth anymore, and probably never did. It is like Timothy McVeigh's biographer, who said 'except for blowing up the Murrah Building, he was a very nice person.'

[patrick j. mullins]

"he really does seem like a lone horse speaking the truth "

Oh GOD, yes!!!

Especially that, especially that!!!

Even St. Noam is no match for this martyr!!!

Except Richard! who is the other voice speaking the truth! You'd better watch out, because St. Ralph don't like him no competition...

I should point out to the webmaster here that St. Slavoj is voting for Obama. That ought to help some swing voters....

I'm personally writing in Leontyne Price, because the beauty of her singing in Tosca and Carmen has proved that art will solve the problem of Evil World Capital...yes, I really do appreciate you 3rd party + 3rd world independent thinkers. Yes, that's it.

MISSUS LEONTYNE PRICE FOR PRESIDENT!!!

And don't think I can't afford to do it either. As an inhabitant of a blue state, I can vote against Oprah (who one votes against if one votes against Obama), and vote for an 82 year old opera singer, because the electoral votes won't mind that Leontyne got only one vote.

Anyway, I'm much too much of a racist to vote for a black man for president. I just could never do it.

You're all just a bunch of racists secretly. Ralph Nader should be placed under house arrest.

[Hrm]

"I think people who continually bring up Nader in this fashion (blaming him and those who voted for him for Bush's presidency) are themselves refusing to admit that the system is broken, I imagine because belief in it is important to maintain."

Interesting, because I think people who describe the system as "broken" are themselves refusing to admit the system works perfectly well for those whom it principally serves (in keeping with key aims of the Founders ~ Fed Paper # 10, etc.).

It's a version of the old joke. The difference between a liberal and a Marxist is the liberal sees X (insert "beggar" for the original joke and something like "2-party corporate plutocracy" here) and says the system is broken; the Marxist sees the 2-party corporate plutocracy and says the system is working.

I do like Mullins' Nader/McVeigh analogy though. Wtf.

[Richard]

"Interesting, because I think people who describe the system as "broken" are themselves refusing to admit the system works perfectly well for those whom it principally serves"

Quite right, Hrm. I was using "broken" as a shorthand, but I should have been clearer. That's ok, though, I'm just a racist who should have my speech rights revoked.