Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

The Clash Between Progressives and Obama

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted August 20, 2008.


Support for Obama should not require a lack of candor about his defects.
Advertisement

By now, across the progressive spectrum, some familiar storylines tell us the meaning of the Obama campaign. In a groove, each narrative digs its truths. But whether those particular truths are the most important at this historical moment is another story.

We can set aside the plotline that touts Obama as a visionary pragmatist who has earned the complete trust of progressives. The belief has diminished in recent months -- in the wake of numerous Obama pronouncements on foreign policy, his FISA vote to damage the Fourth Amendment and the like -- but such belief was never really grounded in his record as a politician or his policy positions.

A more substantial narrative concedes that Obama has "compromised" on numerous fronts but assumes he has done so in order to get elected president, after which time his real self will emerge. This kind of dubious projection is as old as the political hills, and inevitably becomes a kind of murky exercise in armchair psychology. All in all, projection is not useful for assessing where political leaders are and where they're headed.

In contrast, quite a few on the left -- some from the outset of his presidential race, others beginning more recently -- express appreciable disdain for the Obama campaign. The critiques of Obama's positions on issues are often on the mark. Overall, the fact that Obama brings civility and intelligence to public discourse that would be a welcome change in the White House does not alter the corporate centrist core of his espoused policies.

No matter how much we might like to think that people's reasoning and logic are the essence of political judgments, actual experience tells us different: The political stances of many people, including on the left, are contoured around their own internal emotional terrain. And there may not be a lot of sorting through contradictions or analysis of the current historical circumstances.

Yet we're in great need of willingness to acknowledge contradictory truths, to sort through them as a means of finding the best progressive strategies for the here and now. While some attacks on Obama from the left are overheated, overly ideological and mechanistic, there's scant basis for denying the reality that his campaign and his positions are way too cozy with corporate power. Meanwhile, his embrace of escalating the war in Afghanistan reflects acceptance rather than rejection of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."

To some, who evidently see voting as an act of moral witness rather than pragmatic choice (even in a general election), forces such as corporate power or militarism are binary -- like a toggle switch -- either totally on or totally off. This outlook says: either we reject entirely or we're complicit.

Such analysis tends to see Obama as just a little bit slower on the march to the same disasters that John McCain would lead us to. That analysis takes a long view -- but fails to see the profound importance of the crossroads right in front of us, where either Obama or McCain will be propelled into the White House.

Any progressive who watched the "faith" forum that Obama and McCain participated in on Aug. 16 would have good reasons to be negative when assessing some of Obama's answers. But McCain's responses were vastly more jingoistic, militaristic, fanatical and pro-corporate, while also making clear his enthusiasm for the worst of the current Supreme Court justices.

In an odd and ironic way, progressives who are unequivocal Obama boosters and unequivocal Obama bashers embrace similar concepts of limited alternatives in electoral work. They seem to rule out candidly critical support of a candidate -- viewing such an option as either a betrayal of the candidate or a betrayal of principles.

But supporting one candidate -- clearly preferable to the Republican -- should not require a lack of candor about the preferred candidate's defects. And progressive interests are not advanced by claiming, against the evidence, that it doesn't really matter which candidate wins.

We suffer from way too much political argumentation that seems to be on automatic pilot, either puffing up Obama as a paragon of progressive virtues or denying the real differences between him and McCain. The pretending that follows from faith or dogma is no way to mobilize a progressive movement.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: obama, progressives, mccain, election 2008

Norman Solomon's latest book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State (PoliPointPress) is available now. For more information go to www.madelovegotwar.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Morning in America but in the other direction
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 20, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sen. Obama's problem-solving is exemplified by how he's running his own campaign: civility, inclusion and cooperation.

HOW a politician makes their policy decisions is even MORE important to me than the petty details of those choices.

Can you get people working together to find new and innovative solutions to America's problems?

Or do you think you know everything and no one else knows anything at all and so you're so deeply entrenched in your way that NOTHING can get done?

I think that most reasonable people would agree that Sen. Obama's attractiveness to the American voter is more than ANYTHING else founded on his willingness to reach out to the "opposition".

And that's a much better way to solve America's ENORMOUS problems! We made those problems in our divided thinking. We need to solve them as a unity.

And so, at least or me, it's not so much about Obama, HIMSELF, as it is about his message. He's what America WANTS to be.

During the primary, in Seattle WA, Obama packed the Key Arena with 18,000 energetic supporters. There have not been that many people in Key Arena since Michale Jordon and the Bulls played the Seattle SuperSonics back in 1996.

Obama's strategy of poaching Republican votes is smarter than pounding your head against a wall every four years and making no progress. Reagan stole Democrats and won huge. Then he had the power to reshape American politics as he wanted. He had a mandate.

Obama wants to win big. Then he has the power to actually do, instead of just waiving his fist. His tone may be concilliatory, but he policies would be great for the country. If only they had a big mandate to put them into effect. As you may have noticed, the typical Democrat playbook of warfare against Republicans hasn't been working for decades.

I'm afraid some progressives find it more emotionally satisfying to "fight" for a progressive agenda, rather than actually creating a mandate to make it happen.

Two things. One, Obama often talks about, not just his legislative successes, but his regrets. And these regrets were partly what propelled his candidacy, because he recognized in himself the potential for becoming a transformational leader who could reshape the playing field. I'm not saying he never behaves like a politician. If you want someone who entirely shuns political thinking, then support Kucinich or someone (and say goodbye to the White House). This is precisely what's so exciting about Obama. Yes, he understands politics. But he also understands leadership. Therefore he has a significant chance to actually move the location of "the middle of the road" (similarly to the way Reagan did with his "Morning in America" -- but in the other direction).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Specious Argument Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: Specious Argument Posted by: antiapathy
Hold Your Nose and Vote Obama ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 20, 2008 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Works for me ... But since I live in a state that will elect him by a large margin I'm voting Green.

McCain would truly be a disaster, but maybe that is what this country needs, to hit bottom. Then maybe real reform will happen.

Good Luck to all you Obama supporters but include me out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Since I live in a state..." Posted by: racetoinfinity
» RE: "Since I live in a state..." Posted by: pharoahticklesthesun
» RE: Hold Your Nose and Vote Obama ... Posted by: left_libertarian
Norm’s ongoing assault on dissent and electoral choice
Posted by: adamsja4 on Aug 20, 2008 3:19 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone pulled the string on Norm’s back again, and the song remains the same.

The progressive commissar is in town again with another thinly veiled attack on progressive dissent and 3rd party/independent politics. Behind the superficial intellectual rigor of this article lies the unstated, but nonetheless blatant thesis: Obama is the only rational progressive choice; to vote otherwise is to suborn the progressive movement.

Norm’s “narrative” has hit a crescendo; he has published the same terse, vapid, shallow, elitist, and desperate rationalization of Obama – and neoliberalism in general – every couple months for the last year.

Norm has enlightened us as to what constitutes a true progressive and how a progressive movement must, well, progress. Norm has let us peons know that we are the simpletons in the iron cage; trapped by our all-or-nothing counterculture ideology.

The fact is that Norm’s the one who has already accepted the big lie. Not only the big lie of Obama - dutifully outlined by people like Paul Street (Norm could learn a few things about supporting an argument from Paul) – but the larger mistruths and injustices under the neoliberal umbrella: corporate party control of our electoral process; the utter destruction of public-private linkages in government; citizen alienation from politics; the resultant amelioration of accountability for public servants; etc. Norm is the person who can only see the ONE predefined and sanctioned means to the progressive end. Norm is the one in the cage, and very little light is getting through.

Of course Norm can’t really explain why democrats are the chosen facilitators of effective progressive action; he can only tell us that they are the only ones that can win, they are not as bad as the evil republicans, and they are the only ones receptive to progressive pressure. What about all the pressure from the 2006 mid-terms? All those democrats and we got – nothing. Oh, that’s right – they are just innocent bystanders. The real solution is more democrats, and more democrats, and more democrats… Norm knows whose interest this supports, and it’s not the interest of progressives.

Norm is a slippery one; you’ve really got to connect the dots on his work to understand his true arc of lunacy. In one of Norm’s previous installments, “Let's Party Like It's 1932”, he let us know that Obama’s shortcomings aren’t really that critical because progressive action is really the responsibility of “we” and “us”, not the elected candidate. Somehow this doesn’t jive with the “to infinity and beyond” strategy of electing democrats to drive progressive change. Norm quickly disarmed the obvious fundamental flaw in the “we” and “us” argument by stating: “It's clear to me that Obama is now the best choice among those with a chance to become the next president.” This is the closest Norm has dared to come in stating his true beliefs: voting for any progressive besides Obama is not dissent; it is deviance.

In the larger context of the least-worst argument, the “we” and “us” focus reeks of an Orwellian affirmation of neoliberal tenets: personal responsibility and individual pathology. Obama et al. are essentially off the hook for any substantive, personal responsibility to progressive endeavors; consequently, his preordained failure is our collective responsibility and ultimately each voter’s individual failure (see last mid-term elections). Preordained because the least-worst, business party rubric shields us from the true barriers to an influential and participatory democracy, all the while positing that a minimalist or even regressive agenda is acceptable, if not inevitable.

href="https://www.msu.edu/~adamsja4/ns_response.htm#alternet">[Go here to
continue and read full response]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have already "hit bottom".
Posted by: MarkInOhio on Aug 21, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mmckinl says: "McCain would truly be a disaster, but maybe that is what this country needs, to hit bottom."

That is exactly what I said in 2000 about bush. The trouble is, we did hit bottom, then we sank below it. Now we're about to elect bush again. The country has a death wish. Alas, it just may come true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Critique OR Vote
Posted by: pdxjoe on Aug 21, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's like the forced choice, "your money or your life." It's not really a choice. So, when I see subtitled under Norm's article, "Support for Obama should not require a lack of candor about his defects," I wonder: 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. 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 Slavoj 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!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A vote for Mccain or Obama is a vote for a 3rd Bush term anyway or shall I say an 8th RAYGUN term !
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 22, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it. Picking between ding dong and ding bat for the past 16 years has gotten us NOWHERE. I live in VA, a swing state, and I'm not afraid to vote for Nader. I was foolish to vote for Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004 hoping that the Democrats would ever fight back only to see the party DEGRADE itself and live up to Nader's assertion that there isn't a dime's worth of a difference between the two parties. And every time Obama does another cave in to the rightwing, my wife and I DOUBLE and even TRIPLE our donations to Ralph Nader. You can call Nader a "spoiler" all you want but it is the Democratic Party that is a "spoiler" for not doing what it claims to stand up for. They had 8 years to stand up to the Bush/Limbaughian GOP and they FUCKING BLEW IT !! If the Democrats would have been their real selves and not pandered to the GOP, they wouldn't be worrying about Nader in the first place. By the way, they have no problem wasting taxpayer money keeping Nader off the ballot and yet they refuse to tackle the machine voting fraud. Don't come crying when your man Obama goes down in FLAMES.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What does "never criticize another of the same party"
Posted by: KDelphi5950 on Aug 23, 2008 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
remind you of? "Never criticize another member of hte party"--you guys gonnas take St. Ronald that faer? Obama mentionitbng him in a positive way was bad enoughg. If youre not careful--youre gonnlose!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right-on!
Posted by: racetoinfinity on Aug 24, 2008 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right-on target! I couldn't agree with you more, or have said it any better. I agree with every word you wrote, including "a", "and", and "the".

Prescription for progressives: Take one dose of this post and one of David Sirota's recent one against "Presidentialism", and apply liberally (*ouch* - couldn't resist the pun) for a healthy progressive movement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Realpolitik
Posted by: samba on Aug 24, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For decades so called progressives have had this ideological purity thing that is very easily spun as hatred of middle class mainstream values. The demagogues of the right love that stuff,they've used it very successfully to support their agenda.
If you can't work for step by step change,don't play ,cause the ideological purity test hands the prize to the right. Real change requires results oriented tactics that progressively widen the base of support. So far we've been progressively narrowing our base. Sure you can insist on your right to dissent,but if you use it to alienate others to the extent of having no power, rather than succesfully communicating what's the point?
We have to think strategically.
An all or nothing stance has gotten us nothing ,for years. I say shut up and vote for O,and once he's in office, don't let up for a minute,communicating about what we need to become an honest, fair, inclusive sustainable society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your "Realpolitik" is BS Posted by: PointMan
X-POLYGAMIST WIFE in ARIZONA
Posted by: X-POLYGAMIST WIFE on Aug 27, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John McCain hasn't lifted a finger to help the thousand of FLDS women and children trapped inside Colorado City, Arizona, the largest polygamous enclave in the United States.

http://www.bankingonheaven.com

Abraham Lincoln, a white man, freed the black slaves. Maybe Barack Obama, a black man, will free the white slaves, because that's what polygamy is, white slavery.

Vote for Change! Vote for Barack Obama!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's Cheney
Posted by: left_libertarian on Sep 1, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You've been warned

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama's Cheney Posted by: douglashoyt
An Oz Perspective
Posted by: David Baker on Sep 6, 2008 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I kind of like McCain, he comes across as a Presidential Campaigner in the 1940s or 50s and at one time might have had the potential to unite your bitterly divided country.

The Republican design people always get him slightly wrong: he should be filmed in black and white - he'd look really authentic that way.

Tragically he's been shackled with the Bushco-Barracuda and now looks like a Dead Man Walking. (speaking of whom: very impressed by her VP Speech. From the start she spruiked solid for that old Buschco favorite drilling in Alaska. Sold it not only as though it was her brilliant new idea (coming from Alaska n'all) but also as if it were some kind of patriotic vision. Was able to imply it would help solve the (unmentioned) unemployment problem. Very clever - both at the same time she's a Bushie AND a campaigner for change! I suppose they're all crossing fingers that a stitch-up-job like that will under normal circumstances take longer than two months to unravel, especially if you declare war on the media! What are the odds that most of the more lurid stories about her were planted by Repubs?).

Obama is - viewed from a distance - awesome. Love his crazy stunts like going on O'Rielly the night of McCain's Convention speech. Did a quid pro quo and got O'Rielly to volunteer that invading Iraq was a poor idea. Brilliant. Pity that hasn't been more widely reported in your liberal media.

I like best of all Obama's Community Organiser narrative. What your country needs, and it's obvious to everyone, is a top notch Community Organiser. It fits in with your history: time and time again the US has shown it's really good at communitarian stuff, especially in a crisis which this surely is.

A bit of a worry the Republicans make it a point of pride not to understand what a Community Organiser is! You should be hitting them with brick-bats over that one!

If Obama is as smart as I suspect he is and doesn't blink, he'll win big. If not, well, it's the Dead Man Walking with the Buscho Barracuda snapping at his heals. Not a pretty sight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Progressives/Independents make their own choices
Posted by: foius on Sep 6, 2008 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although the stakes are very high in this presidential election, it seems that progressives and independent voters require much more detail and explanation when it comes to policies and programs with respect to the issues that we americans face both domestically and internationally. There is no attempt to acquiesce the celebrity status that both candidates have but to hold them accountable to the positions that they ascribe to on the issues of health-care, education, the economy, Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, judicial appointments, and other executive level appointments (Cabinet positions). More often than not, the media (t.v.,print,internet) leads the discussions on the issues that matter to us and the candidates usually end up pandering to whatever constituency they are trying to win over. On the contrary, we progressives and independents like to consider the whole range of presidential candidates and not just the views of the two major party choices. What makes us more selective is the political independence that we have that enables us to make informed, intelligent, and independent choices at the voting booths across this country. When Sen. Obama or McCain begin to debate on the issues later this month, that will be the beginning of the progressive/independent voter analysis of their positions which will lead to a clearer contrast of their stated positions on the issues. I am a firm believer in the fact that Sen. Obama represents a new face of national and local politics that will replace the old one. There are many "outside the box" political novices who attempt to enter elective politics, but do not have the financial or organizational resources to compete with the entrenched incumbents. As progressives and independents voices become heard more and more, we will be able to influence the trend in electoral politics for more inclusion of candidates who extoll our views on the issues. How we go about helping them to compete politically becomes the new standard of participatory politics. Can bridges be built with the major parties? Will there be open reviews on the major issues locally and nationally? Can we work together to impact the presidential election on a positive note? If we choose to support a major party candidate, it will be because that person identifies with the issues that are important to us. Whether we are to the right or left or at the center, there needs to be a thorough and detailed discussion on the issues that impact our communities and the nation. That is what makes progressives/independents the new voices that must be heard on the political scene today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]