Newest Z Videos

Student Movement
Albert: Real Utopia
Tabb: Financial Crisis
Ali: Cracks in Edifice

Newest ZMag

Herman: Russia & U.S.
Westbrook: Italy Base Demos
Murray: Abstinence-Only
Kuzmarov: Economists w/ Guns

Blogs

Recent Albert ZNet Articles

Recent Albert ZMag Articles

Recent Albert ZStore Videos

Recent Albert Books

Recent Albert Commentaries

Recent Albert Blog Posts

Recent Albert Audio

Recent Albert Video

Reform, Resist, Revolutionize

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/malbert
Send Mail Message
Bio:
Michael Albert is a founder and current member of the staff of Z Magazine as... (More)

All Albert's Blogs

Election Thoughts

By Michael Albert at Feb 12, 2008

I keep getting asked what are you going to do about the election? Who do you like? What do you hope for? What does it mean? And so on.

Well, okay, I guess like everyone else, I ought to have an opinion or two - though I am not entirely sure why. And I guess these substantive questions are much better than more typical pundit pontifications about who is wearing what, or smiling at who, or getting nervous, or being confident. As to why I ought to care, of course I hear the bell tolling: The fate of the planet hinges on it. Well, I hear that,yes, but it isn't my bell. I doubt, first off, that the key factor in their being a future or not, or even in what shape that future will take, is who becomes president. It has never seemed all that central to me, and it won't become so, I suspect, unless there is really someone in place to win who would want to make a real difference, and who might have the means to do so. Not to mention voters being able to discern any actual honest differences amidst all the obfuscation, emptyness, and downright lies.

But Obama, some would say to me, he's the real deal. He's much much more progressive than Clinton. And then others say, in my other ear - I do have two, still - but Clinton, Clinton has the means and the heart for it. She is much much more able and schooled than Obama. The former person says, a black president, a black president, how can we not seek a black president? But in two part disharmony, at the same time, I hear, a woman president, a woman president, how can we not seek a woman president?

I think the claims querying my doubts are wrong. Neither candidate wants to matter - in the way that I mean the word, at any rate, as in truly serving the interests of the poor and weak, or even serving anyone other than the rich and powerful, save as a derivative necessity. In that sense, neither Obama or Clinton are particularly progressive. Obama is arguably, based on statements, a bit better on international relations. But contrary to what many on the left seem to think, Clinton appears, however, again based on statements, to be a bit better on domestic issues. But regadless of who is a little better or a ltitle worse on this or on that, the gaps between them, even if we take their words as gospel accounts of their real views - which only an idiot would do - are tiny. As to bringing real change, neither has any chance of doing that unless there is a massive outpouring of desire, or unless the country's condition literally requires change - which I happen to think is going to prove to be the case - and if both those conditions hold, either or both the candidates will bring change, whether it was their intention or not. But as to one of them making change that wouldn't happen in any case and wouldn't happen if the other was in office, neither candidate has the means for that unless one or the other really appeals downward, to the poor, galvanizing serious comittment and conviction and comprehension - for real program. And, sad to say - but of course, if it were otherwise they wouldn't have gotten this far - neither Obama or Clinton is about doing that. That difference, one that would really matter, isn't there.

On the other side of the coin, I admit that part of me is astounded - black/black, woman/woman - just like the comitted advocates. That a black and a woman are competing to be the candidate and that one is going to win is incredible, in my view, and a real indicator not really about them, or about the process, but about the massive historical gains accomplished despite all the left's problems, over the past few decades. The country is not nearly the malignant, overtly racist, overtly sexist, pathetic briar patch it was not long ago.

I think someone wanting Obama to be president, a black president, is fine. I think someone wanting Clinton to be president, a woman president, is fine. I think, other things aside - though in the end, other things matter too - it is wonderful that both are conceivable and one may happen. And I think either occurance will have very very positive effects for young people of all backgrounds, boosting hope and confidence in some constituencies, reducing fear and loathing in others. Absolutely. But all that, while true, is different than saying these particular candidates are the second coming of of Emma Goldman or MLK Jr. Those who say they, or at least Obama, echoes JFK have a much much better claim to accuracy - but that accuracy doesn't excite me. Kennedy was in substance a gigantic trojan horse horror for the planet and society, a kind of massive fraud: cute, clever, confident, and charasmatic, but system preserving in every other respect, and in many dimensions, system aggravating. You can hide a lot behind inspiring words and big smiles, it turns out. Saying Obama is cut from that cloth is not a testimonial, it is just saying he has better camouflage than Clinton.

But Michael, Michael, Michael - both ears are bombarded - I know you hate everyone who is associated with anything other than revolution yesterday - but forget that for a minute. What do you think about their relative merits? Shouldn't we all support one and reject the other, and decry as devils anyone who opts for any other view?

Well no. I can see a person of good will and understanding - a leftist - voting for Obama or for Clinton in a primamy, to become the candidate. And I can see a person then voting for either of them against The Bombadier, or instead, in a safe state, voting for a third party candidate. But I can't see any of those perfectly understandable choices being so CORRECT or so MORAL or so WISE that a person making it ought to feel like everyone who disagrees and makes a different one of those choices is an idiot or a sell out, a racist or a sexist, on that account.

Insofar as something matters in this election it is that someone other than The Bombadier wins. And regretably, that is not a certainty. But, after beating McCain, what matters is that progressive and left sentiment and activism grows, rather than it getting displaced into some kind of love affair with the new black or female president - and that is not a sure thing, either.

As leftists, and people reading this blog likely are that, I don't think we have a lot to contribute to who is the democratic candidate or whether the democratic candidate defeats The Bombadier. On those fronts, we are esentially spectators. But about whether opposition grows or fades after the election, which is all important, regarding that we are key players. And that's where our efforts seem to me to be best spent.

But but but, I hear, Obama, Obama, Obama. Well, listen up, the crap about joining hands is crap. Obama's economic advisers are indistinguishable from Clinton's. And so on. The things I think about, when I think about this at all, are, I admit, odd compared to others rumination. I think (a) will racism allow McCain to win more than Clinton being old line and mysogyny, will allow him to, or vice versa. Who can better beat McCain. No way to know - so I stop thinking about it. I think (b) if Obama arouses masssive hope and involvement and then lets everyone down, will it produce anger leading to opposition that compels gains, or will it produce new cyncism and therfore nothing much good? No way to know - so I stop thinking about it. I think (c) will Clinton winning despite being old style cause there to be a serious left opposition right out of the gate (unlike with Bill) in turn compeling gains, or will it deaden invovlement and produce nothing much good? No way to know - so I stop thinking about it.

If we get the Bombadier it will be a depressing commentary indeed on our society...incredibly so. If we get either Obama or Clinton it will be a historic step in the grand march toward actual civilized life because of what it says about consciousness throughtout the land. How much more it engenders will be up to those who put on pressure for more. And that should be us. So get ready. Don't get sidetracked.

Comment viewing options

Add a new comment

By Frederic Christie at Apr 24, 2008 12:16

Sean, that attitude is, I'm afraid, incredibly silly. Your argument that putting a vote in on election day is supporting the system is ironically giving the system too much credit. I don't implicitly endorse the notion of bosses by trying to push for a boss that doesn't sexually harass my female co-workers through the legal system. Nor do I do implicitly endorse the notion of the American political system by choosing a "boss", a candidate, that doesn't reek. If by "support" you mean actually ideologically lining up with those candidates, then yes, that's true, but no one here is advocating that.

In fact, it is the LACK of participation that people use to justify the system. "Well, half the population doesn't even vote, so they must be too stupid and uninterested to rule." If 100% of the population voted, overwhelmingly for obviously progressive causes, and expressed those interests publically, and THEN the system continued to turn out the same results, it would unmask the system and disarm its apologists.

No one here pretends that Hillary being a woman has anything but symbolic importance (though that symbolic importance is major and I think you do it injustice by trivializing it). But that doesn't mean there aren't real issues. Yeah, not worth shedding blood about every four years, but worth discussing and coming up with sort of parameters to deal with.

Voting is a tactic in our toolbox. Used strategically, alongside calling Senators and writing letters to them, doing teach-ins, marching in the streets, distributing literature, establishing organizations with revolutionary values, suing and using the legal system, etc., it can accomplish change.

Maxim: Plenty of people at all sorts of levels are interesting in the Dems. Kucinich is not half bad. Edwards was quite tolerable, I was indeed excited about him.

Marc: Her "immediate withdrawal" stand happens to be less forthright than Obama's. The real issue isn't withdrawal of active military troops, it's the withdrawal of the US colonial presence. Obama is closer on that issue than the other candidates.

Reply to this comment

By Sean O\'Neil at Mar 27, 2008 12:40

There is no point in supporting either candidate. Supporting either one is the same as supporting the corrupt system that has put us in the mess we're now suffering under.

The VERY REASON Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the two primary candidates is that they are SYMBOLIC. They symbolize progress, "a woman president!" "a black president!"

Fine. You want the appearance of change, support one of them. Pretend that the appearance of change matters way more than the actual drive toward change.

That would be typically American -- fraudulently superficial, never examining anything beyond the surface.

Clinton and Obama are bound to the very wealthy people and businesses who have funded their march toward this nomination as the Dem choice for POTUS in 2008.

If people want so desperately to have a black president, or a woman president, they should look at Cynthia McKinney -- who is both, and who does not turn her back on the plight of black people (as does Obama -- witness his repudiation of Rev Jeremiah Wright), and who does not turn her back on the plight of women who are not ensconced in power as is Hillary Clinton.

What have Obama and Clinton voted for since the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2006?

They have approved everything Mr Bush requested. Everything. And those approvals include money requests to continue the Iraq occupation and slaughter, they included immunity for mercenary contractors like Blackwater, they included immunity for telecom industries that help Mr Bush spy on innocent Americans, they included further destruction of individual rights via legislation on the FISA courts and FISA process.

Obama and Clinton do not represent any change of any type whatever.

Pretending that there are legitimate differences between the two of them -- beyond the real difference of them actually being two separate humans, I mean -- is an exercise in obfuscation.

Pretending that either of them will alter the present course of American domestic and foreign policies in any meaningful way is to pretend that neither of them is a corporate-fueled candidate who is beholden to powerful corporate interests and the interests of very wealthy Americans.

I guess some people like to pretend.

I prefer reality, myself.

Reply to this comment

Pretty much agree...

By Marc Levesque at Feb 14, 2008 16:48

Yes, I pretty much agree...

Though on balance I've got to favor Hilary for her immediatel withdrawal stand...I wonder though if *either* are electable -- I fear they are not...to be honest I'm scared and I think this moment NOW is the most critical -- we might want to pray for a miracle -- a third party upset -- if not, the stakes are sufficient enough so that we better get behind whoever gets the nomination (Hllary or Obama)...

Reply to this comment

my two cents

By Michael McGehee at Feb 13, 2008 11:24

like you said already, these candidates serve more affluent interests and if change happens it wont matter who is in office the change will happen cause it wont come from them.

that has been our history. we didnt vote someone in to get rid of slavery, to end child labor, to get women the right to vote, labor rights or civil rights. these were achieved by popular social movements. we can either wait for the economy to go down the drain so far that change is inevitable or we can focus on social organizing and use public power to compel the political and economic arenas into accepting our demands.

obamae wont bring it, clinton wont bring it, gravel wont bring it, paul wont bring it, and so on.

we have to look at the existing structures honestly: we, the working class, are largely not represented. if we are to have our voices heard it will be because we organized ourselves to reform, replace or to create new institutions to resolve the issues that we want to achieve: solidarity, equity, self-management, diversity (obviously I agree with you on the basic "values").

what concerns me about elections in our existing structures is that they largely seem to distract people from reality. people say if you dont vote you cant bitch. p diddy says "vote or die." there is this prevailing notion that voting matters in our world. look at 2006 and see for your self. it doesnt. Dems were voted in largely on opposition to the war and what happened? Pelosi said impeachment was off the table, the war was escalated and congress keeps approving "funding."

I like to tell people that 1968 is a good year too. There was a presidential election. Folks were getting clean for Gene. They were going to end the war in Vietnam. Well, Nixon one. But thats not the point!

The point was that in april of 1968 MLK was assassinated in Memphis while helping sanitation workers strike for better working conditions. Was MLK campaigning for change? Fuck yeah he was! Was he getting clean for Gene? Nah! His campaign was the "Poor People's Campaign": social organizing.

Reply to this comment

By Maxim Khailo at Feb 12, 2008 18:03

Reading your post made me realize you would love Mike Gravel. He is still running and has a plan for real, deep, revolutionary change called the National Initiative. Please look him up. He is running as a Democratic candidate. Maybe if you review his ideas you can write about them in your blog.

Reply to this comment

By danny sites at Feb 12, 2008 15:15

        In a taped telephone conversation between President Johnson and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Johnson tells King ..."I don't wont' to follow Hitler, but he had an idea that if you just take a simple thing and repeat it often enough, even if it isn't true, why people would accept it." ...."Well now this is true...." Change used as a mantra without substance is demagoguery! The simple truth is that Obama is not calling for fundamental, earth shattering change. He and Hillary Clinton, unlike all the other candidates running, agree substantively on virtually every policy issue they are running on. Clearly then and honestly the greatest irrefutable difference between them is one of color and one of sex. There may indeed be differences of nuance but no fundamental differences exists between them. In spite of Obama's claims to be the agent of radical vision or radical change , he clearly is not, nor for that matter is Clinton. At the very most, both seek to "change" the way they respond to and or mitigate the damage wreaked by the uncontrolled greed of the one percent of this nation's people and their corporations. No one is talking about changing the fundamental inequalities of power and privilege that gives rise to this greed or that fosters this historically unprecedented fleecing of America. Inspiration qua inspiration is pure demagoguery and is exactly what gives rise, in its extreme form, to a Hitler or a Mussolini. Not only does Obama not reveal the substance of what he means by radical change he obscures the very nature of it by burying it under "mystic chords of union".What is the basis for this union? How does he separate himself from all the others that want change? How does he differ from the uniter not a divider, that now sits in the white house, as a mere shadow of the non substance that he was not elected on? Where is the beef to echo Mondale when he was debating his opponent while running for president? There is none! Nothing beyond what he already agrees on with his fellow senator from New York. It is all hyperbole, much like the advertising slogans that never deliver their goods.When pressed to elucidate his ideas he merely responds with amorphous promises buried in some distant future hope. For demagogues; deliverance is always tomorrow, and usually tomorrow never comes. Like old time bible thumpers he ignores our present needs and pronounces them as flexible to his purpose and asks us to wait till tomorrow, to some future hope. He says this election is not about the past but about the future. He says it is not about race, not about gender, not about class, not about age but about the future. Reverend King and the later Bobby Kennedy never asked the ostensibly disenfranchised to wait! They knew intuitively that they had waited long enough. They drew lines in the sand and died doing so. The upshot is that people's suffering is always NOW, people's unmet needs are always NOW and these needs and these sufferings has everything to do with race, gender, age and class. It is pure demagoguery to bury people's needs beneath the rhetoric of unity when these various needs are the result of divisive agendas promulgated by the real differences based on class, race, age and sex. The old politics is that these needs are always eclipsed by politicians that run on future hope, future deliverance. Mr. Obama, in spite of your protestations, this election has everything to do with race, class, age and gender. "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it". Those who seek a newer world, as Robert Kennedy did, do not walk into the future without first knowing their enemies of the past.
   Who then will speak for the millions of children in this country who go to bed hungry every night? Not Obama, this election isn't about age, it isn't about wealth! It is about the future! Who will speak for women, whose wages lag far behind those of men? Not Obama, this election isn't about sex. It is about the future! Who will speak for the black woman whose wages lag even more behind men, even more than those of white women? Not Obama, this election is not about sex or about wealth! It is about the future.Who will speak for the 30% of young black men caught up in the criminal justice system in this country? Not Obama, this election is not about race! It is about the future. Who will speak for the abused and battered women in this country? Not Obama, this race isn't about sex" It is about the future. Who will speak for the poor, suffering the ill effects of the monied people, the 1% of the population, who bet with the very lives of these poor everyday, on speculation? The rich, whose lives are built on impoverishing these same people by stealing billions from them via subsidies, tax breaks, deregulation's? Not Obama, this race isn't about rich and poor, it isn't about class, it is about the future! Who speaks for the working class whose jobs are being undermined by foreign exploitation, union busting, ostensible healthcare taxes and even international slavery? Not Obama, this race isn't about class! It is about the future!
      As you can see, the litany of things he dare not address, those very things that are the concerns of most Americans with genuine needs, are as endless as they are pressing. The demagogic appeal to emotions, to rouse the "masses" without recourse to reflection, erases reasonable arguments based on facts, the very facts that those who suffer need expressed. His worker bees who support him are largely middle and upper middle class students, both black and white. For them to stand behind him, posturing proudly for their 15 minutes of fame, shouting "Yes We Can" is not only ironic but a little more than disingenuine compared to those of their age who do not even remotely have the same life chances to even begin to join in "Yes We Can, those that is, who have been left behind and have been left behind for generations. Left behind by other leaders making similar amorphous promises. In truth, he does not seek radical change. He merely projects this call for change as a mantra to envision a future promised land. Not NOW, but tomorrow...for it is always in the future for demagogues. In spite of what Caroline Kennedy says there were other men just as inspiring as her father. King and RFK to name but two. This man is not the heir of RFK or of Martin Luther King, they both sided with the suffering and the outcast against the powers that be, those very powers that benefit from schisms that cause suffering, schisms that are never the less real and dominating. They spoke of change NOW, not in the future, and based it on real suffering as they garnered from their analysis that was always written in the language of class, race and gender. They knew too well that to speak of unity when their is great conflict is demagoguery. That politics without conflict is not politics but the ideal of a fascism that sweeps the real needs of people under the rug , that a political ideology that always subordinates individual interests to that of unity be it in the name of the state or for some amorphous future cause is tantamount to fascism!
   Demagoguery is the most insidious of lies always cloaked as truth! Obama nation? or Obamination? There is no substitute for reflection, the very thing emotional quasi-charismatic leaders seek to destroy!

Reply to this comment