Recent Street ZNet Articles
- Street: Duncan Appointment
- Street: Getting Things Done
- Street: Advance Betrayal
- Street: Our Challenge
- Street: The "Violin Model"
- All ZNet Recent
Recent Street ZMag Articles
- Street: No Dividend
- Street: Largely About Oil
- Street: Corporate Democrats
- Street: Electoral Politics
- Street: Foreign Policy
- All ZMag Recent
Recent Street Books
Recent Street Commentaries
- Street: Obama-Gaza
- Street: Chicago Stories
- Street: David Brooks
- Street: Fear McCain
- Street: Heartbeat Away
- All Street Commentaries
Recent Street Blog Posts
Paul Street's Blog
Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreetSend Mail Message
Bio:
Paul Street is an independent policy researcher, journalist,... (More)
Progressive Obamanists: Where Do You Draw the Line?
By Paul Street at Jul 3, 2008
Dear "Progressive" Obamanists and/or "Progressives for Obama,"
I have a question for you: at what point could Barack Obama lose you? I'll return to this question and deepen it a little at the end.
First, some background.
I am going to guess that at least two of you have seen my recent ZNet piece on Barack Obama's recent (latest) right-leaning policy statements - what "mainstream" (corporate) media is calling his "shift to the center" from (please) "the left."
Here are some of the things the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times have mentioned to indicate Obama's (supposed) move to "the center":
* Obama's apparent embrace of the Supreme Court ruling invalidating a Washington D.C ban on personal handguns and claiming that the Second Constitutional Amendment pertains to private citizens not just organized state "militias."
* his declaration of his belief in the state's right to kill certain criminals, including child rapists.
* his decision to become the first major party presidential candidate to bypass the public presidential financing system and to reject accompanying spending limits. This violates his earlier pledge to work through the public system and accept those limits.
* His support for a refurbished spy bill that grants retroactive immunity to telephone corporations for collaborating with the White House in the practice of electronic surveillance against American citizens. This violates his earlier pledge to filibuster any surveillance legislation containing such immunity.
* His appointment of the corporate-friendly Wal-Mart apologist and Hamilton Project economist Jason Furman as his economic policy director - something that stands in curious relation to his earlier bashing ("I won't shop there") of Wal-Mart's low-wage practices.
* His emphasis on how he's a supporter of "free trade," something that seems to contradict his campaign-trail criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
* His "tweaking" of his claim that he would meet with Iran's president (he is adding conditions)
* His embrace of Bush-McCain rhetoric on the supposed Iranian nuclear threat and his related promise to do "anything" to protect the military occupation, apartheid, and nuclear state of Israel from Iran (a nation previously attacked by Israel).
* His call for an "undivided" Israel-run Jerusalem despite the fact that no government on the planet (and not even the Bush administration) supports Israeli's right to annex that UN-designated international city
* His latest weak statements on "combat troop" withdrawal from Iraq, indicating that an Obama White House would maintain the immoral and illegal U.S. occupation of that country for an indefinite period.
There are some things to add.
* We have learned that News that Obama may well ask Robert Gates, the hard right George W. Bush's hawkish defense secretary, to stay on into an Obama administration.
* Two days ago Obama embraced a core aspect of the Republican agenda: privatization of government social service - the peeling off of welfare and other programs to private "faith-based" (religious) agencies.
And now we have this (half an hour ago from the Associated Press):
FARGO, N.D. - Democrat Barack Obama opened the door Thursday to altering his plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months based on what he hears from military commanders during his upcoming trip there.
"I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he told reporters on the airport tarmac here. "I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy." During his presidential campaign, Obama has gone from the hard-edged, vocal opposition to Iraq that defined his early candidacy to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a phased-out drawdown of all combat brigades that, at a rate of one or two a month, could last 16 months. He has said that if al-Qaeda builds bases in Iraq, he would keep troops either in the country or the region to carry out "targeted strikes."
Republicans, who have been goading Obama to return to Iraq to see conditions for himself, pounced. "There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the national Republican Party. "Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician."
I hate to agree with a Republican, but, hey, Alex Conant has a point. I would add, however, that there is absolutely nothing new about this latest Iraq policy statement. Obama and his advisers (including the departed Samantha Power) have made it abundantly clear that an Obama White House would in fact be very likely to maintain the occupation for an indefinite period and would certainly adjust the "16 month" campaign pledge in accord with the counsel of military commanders "on the ground." Please see my essay "‘Calibrating' HOPE in the Effort to ‘Patrol the Commons': Samantha Power and the Hidden Imperial Reality of Barack Obama."
If you read my first ZNet essay linked above you know that I don't buy the notion that general election candidate Obama is moving "to the center" from the left. He's been a centrist from the beginning of the presidential campaign and indeed (as I will show in a future article) from the start of his political career in Chicago and Illinois during the 1990s.
In my opinion, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently wrote something very perceptive about Obama and (above all) many of his supporters. The following three sentences from Krugman's Times column last Monday go right to the heart of a key and defining aspect of "the Obama phenomenon":
"Progressive activists in particular, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama during the Democratic primary even though his policy positions, particularly on health care, were often to the right of his rivals. In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational character behind a centrist façade."
"They may have had it backward" (Paul Krugman, "The Obama Agenda," New York Times, June 30, 2008. p. A23).
Yes, it's the opposite of what many of you "progressive" Obamanists say: he's a corporate, imperial, and military centrist in the deceptive rebel's clothing of a, well. progressive (a word he used a great deal to describe himself before and during the primaries). And now a fair bit of that clothing is coming off as he runs yet further to the right for the general election.
I saw the primary campaign up close and for a long time in pivotal and over-campaigned Iowa: even John Edwards (not just Kucinich) ran to the left of Oballary on both foreign and domestic policy.
Obama actually ran to Hillary's right on domestic (thought not foreign) policy --- especially health care --- through the entire primary season.
For what it's worth, Krugman's take on Obama finds strong support in my forthcoming book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics.
All of which brings me to my question, well questions, to progressive Obamanists: :
As a progressive, what are your boundaries in terms of how you will vote and/or contribute your money and/or your time in the 2008 presidential election? Where do you draw the line? At one point(s) could Obama go so far to the center or right that you just couldn't support him anymore and might think about (1) sitting the election out or (2) voting for Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader or some substantively Left progressive candidate? Is there any point you would be willing to identify at which you would say, "okay, that's it - enough, I cannot be part of this anymore'"? Where do you draw the line? Can Obama just take your support for granted at this point? Does it come with any conditions? If so, could you identify those conditions?
I know some progressive Obama supporters will be offended by these questions but I think they are worth asking and that answers could help positively inform progressive strategy after Obama gets in - as I expect he will.
Comment viewing options
Re: Re: FINAL COMMENT
By Frederic at Jul 26, 2008 14:09
You continue to say this, Carl, and don't explain why. For example, you post that Maliki supports the 16 month withdrawal timetable that Obama ostensibly supports but don't note that Obama has declared that he will ignore the timetable. Carl: Now that the primaries are over, you are correct that either one choose to vote Green or another third party for long-term hope of a structural alternative or vote Dem to stem off the more immediate risk of McCain. The problem is that you and other Progressives for Obama were making that argument... DURING THE PRIMARIES. At exactly the point you could have showed what you claim to be your true colors by voting Kucinich or Edward and thus sending a signal to Obama that he can lose progressive votes. There are worse candidates than Obama that we'd held our nose and voted for. But your material is far less ambiguous and I feel belies your posts here. Your material goes beyond the "Anyone But McCain" chant to actually SUPPORT Obama. And this is exactly what Paul is asking: What could Obama do to make you stop viewing him as a progressive candidate?
Re: FINAL COMMENT
By Carl Davidson at Jul 13, 2008 07:34
If someone or some glitch is removing or otherwise trying to revise my posts, it isn't me. And if you think, like Mr. Ford, that 'Progressives for Obama' is largely 'empty' of content, it's because you simply haven't bothered to read through it. We have some of the better critiques, as well as positive policy options. Just go to http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com
Drew the line long ago
By Mark at Jul 12, 2008 19:08
Not sure why anyone would even consider voting for Obama.
Voting for Nader. Vote your conscious. Curiously, a posting on the VOA website hit the nail on the head as to the structural reasons why national politics has been reduced to Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dee. A parilmentary system would open the political debate, the policy debates, though not a sufficient cause.
http://www.voanews.com/english/NewsAnalysis/2008-06-30-voa22.cfm
Food for thought.
FINAL COMMENT
By Paul Street at Jul 10, 2008 08:12
Final comment.
Another comment has disappeared - the one from Brian to which I responded somewhere below.
It would be foolish for me to comment anymore since the comment to which I respond can disappear or get changed.
Since I can't comment, I won't read comments, since comments often contain criticisms and/or errors I'll feel compelled (rightly or wrongly...I tend to cling neurotically to Marx's belief that "to leave error uncorrected is to encourage intellectual immorality") to respond. I will still no doubt occasionaly put some things up on the blog but people should not be offended if I don't respond to a blog comment; I won't have seen it. .
Anyone who needs a response from me will have to write to me privately.
Since comments are disappearing also from the bottom of main page articles (for what it;s worth I've never supported people being able to comment on articles on the top page) , I will disregard comments sections altogether from this point on.
Nobody should address me or expect a response from me in a comments section from this point on; if you need a response you'll have to write privately.
Busted
By Paul Street at Jul 09, 2008 09:51
You are on to something there Minot.
And now my comment responding to Davidson's first comment has come down - not by my hand.
Turns out I saved both of the now deleted comments because I e-mailed them to a comrade.
Keep Your Eyes on the Prize
By Carl Davidson at Jul 03, 2008 19:44
Keep Your Eyes on the Prize
That's a big mushball of a question.
Answer: When he becomes identical to John McCain, or worse, on the war in Iraq and the danger of future war with Iran.
That point hasn't been reached. Not even close, at least to anyone not looking for an anti-imperialist candidate.
Does that mean Obama has my line on the war? Not at all, I'm an 'Out Now!' person. But part of my platform, and my internationalist obligations, is to end this horrible war in Iraq as rapidly as possible. So you have to make an assessment: which White House makes that task more realizable, one occupied by Obama or one occupied by McCain? We have chosen not to consider that question, and an answer to it, as a matter of indifference. I will defend my assessment of that 'difference that makes a difference', without having to defend any particular point, or even most points, on the platform of Obama and the Democratic party.
I am part of the socialist left, and have my own platform, which is not Obama's, and neither of us ever made such a claim. He is not even a consistent progressive, a point we have made since the begining of this project, where we identified him as speaking from the center and subject to rightward drift in the general election.
That is now being played out, but it still doesn't change my orientation one bit: "Stop
McCain, Stop the War, Vote Obama 2008.'
Both the far left and the right, for their own reasons, are doing all they can to drive a wedge between progressive Obama voters and moderate-center Obama voters. But the fact is that it will take both blocs voting for Obama to defeat McCain, and we will work to maintain that necessity.
It's well known the Obama has some points of agreement with McCain, such as support for the death penalty. There are more. It's also well known that they have sharp differences, such as Roe v Wade and a woman's right to chose. There are others. After all, McCain is a Republican conservative and Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, which is notable, but from my socialist left perspective, still leaves a lot to be desired.
Keeping a scorecard of either serious matters or less serious 'gotcha' points from statements by the two candidates is fine. But far more important is making an assessment of the deep divisions in our ruling class over Iraq, and Iran as well, how these forces have grouped themselves, and what conflicting outcomes they are working for in this election.
After that comes making an assessment of the forces in motion in this campaign, both the new progressive insurgencies and the retrograde trends of racial and religious bigotry. Then you decide who are your friends and who are your adversaries, and you deploy what limited forces you have to strike at the main danger while helping the more progressive forces, as best as you can, prepare for battles beyond the elections and in the streets and all the institutions of civil society.
I don't think it's too hard to figure this out at all, if you have a clear head, a clear idea of the main task today, and a clear idea of the main danger today. But if you don't, you get tangled up in absurdities, like claiming Barack Obama is a 'holocaust denier' worse than David Duke, or 'JFK in Sepia,' and other things I hope you'll come to regret at some point.
--Carl Davidson
Response to a Slanderous Obamanist
By Paul Street
July 4, 2008
My trip to Obamanist Hell and back with Carl Davidson continues. And now there is the issue of his Holocaust slander, to which I turn at the end.
Carl,
So anything short of arch-plutocratic messianic militarist McCain will keep you on board and away from voting third party or not at all.
Oh-kay.
Fine, but (a) you continue to be over-obsessed with (and are becoming borderline slanderous about) the Holocaust denial comment (more on this below); (b) I did not say Obama was morally or ideologically worse than the fascist David Duke : I said Obama has actually voted funds for the invasion of Iraq, which has imposed a Holocaust on Iraq; (c) Obama does mess with left minds a great deal (you are a perfect example and are being exposed as a fool by Obama) and while he would never call himself a socialist (of course) he does falsely claim to be a "progressive" and to be antiwar; (d) you should consider that much of Obama's pronounced elite sponsorship reflects the carefully vetted sense that he will help re-legitimize the very military U.S. Empire Project you abhor --- something he quite loudly and explicitly promises to do in his conservative 2006 book (which goes to great lengths to delete past U.S. imperial crimes), his nauseating Foreign Affairs essay (summer 2007) and his various Reagan- and JFK-like foreign policy addresses to the Council of Foreign Relations, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, the Wilson Center and in comments praising George Bush I's horrid imperial butchery in 1990-91; (e) you mention Iraq (where's he's actually very bad and quite deceptive - numerous Obama campaign materials here in Iowa told voters they could "join the movement to end the war" by caucusing for him...a completely absurd claim) always but you leave out his terrible imperial positions on Israel/Palestine, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iran, American foreign policy history, etc. and the world as a whole; (f) you naturally can't expect all progressive voters to go as far as you in accommodating his center and right corporate and imperial stances (and vapid non-stances) on a plethora of issues and matters (Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America, nuclear power, campaign finance, corporate power, health care, civil liberties, trade, welfare "reform," class injustice and on and on and on and on...)...perhaps you have a super-normal capacity to accommodate bullshit in pursuit of "realistic" and "pragmatic" objectives; (g) you should disconnect from Obama and the election somewhat and think or at least write more about the broader role and relevance of the quadrennial presidential spectacles in the crippling of democracy and indeed in the making of corporate-managed totalitarianism (please read Sheldon Wolin's book Democracy Incorporated after the election); (h) you should stop calling these sorts of reflections "subjectivism;" (i) you should consider the possibility that granting your vote and electoral labor power in advance to Obama ('08) or Kerry ('04) or Gore ('00) or Clinton (1996,1992) or Dukakis (1988) etc. --- with no conditions other than that they aren't McCain or Bush II or Dole or Bush I etc. ---- may be part of the problem with these candidates; (j) you should re-define and expand or maybe just clarify your sense of "the prize" ( read Charles Derber's book Hidden Power on the dangers of the "Election Trap"?) (k) you should take a close look at what the Conrgressional vote monitors mean when they designate "liberal" voting records (it may well be less than what you think); (l) you should recall that Obama has distanced himself from this voting record and indeed from the term liberal...
Now to your Holocaust slander - a nice bit of Chicago-style smearing. You are perhaps hung up on the Holocaust denial thing because you have bought into the narrow definition of the one and true Holocaust being the six million Jews under the Nazis. There was a Native American Holocaust, a black American Holocaust,...other examples. Some of us honestly think the U.S. is imposing a Holocaust on Iraq : 1. 2 million dead, millions more injured and displaced. Further devastation of a society Superpower has been assaulting for a long time.
"Antiwar" Obama (who will adjust his already weak start-to-remove-combat brigades in 16-month pledge in accord with the advice of commanders "on the ground") denies all this. In fact, he says we've got to stop spending so much money "putting Iraq back together."
Yes: "putting Iraq back together" How sickening is that, Carl? If you can shake that sort of commentary off easily (there's more...much more) and just carry on for the Empire-legitimizer Barack and "the prize" of electing him (stopping McCain). ....well good for "objectivist" you.
By the way, just half the U.S. force structure in Iraq is combat brigades and Obama will not sign on to banning Blackwater and the rest of the corporate private security contractors from Iraq (he can't back Jan Schakowsky's bill on that).
Obama ridiculously claims that Bush-Cheney invaded with noble and democratic intentions ("to create a Jeffersonian democracy") and refuses to acknowledge (just like the liberal hawks of the late 1960s on Vietnam ) the criminal and imperial and racist nature of the one sided colonial "war." That refusal is part of why he won't or can't meaningfully oppose the "war" (imperial occupation).
So, really...cut the slanderous crap on the Holocaust. You know very well I do not say that he denies the Jewish/Nazi Holocaust. You know I could give a lot of the details on how terribly close he is to Israel and the Israel lobby, after all. You and many millions of other Americans should get it through your skull that we are doing a Holocaust in Iraq (a policy your hero has funded and rationalized and will sustain) and that Obama (hardly alone) denies this. And you know that I said all the top Democrats - including the one for whom I volunteered in the fall of 2007 --- had signed on to Empire's official denial of the Holocaust we are imposing on Iraq .
Re: Bob Herbert column on Obama's lurch right
By minot at Jul 09, 2008 07:12
Very bad policy to allow revision of messages - you may have to start copying the entire text of the message(s) to which you are responding in your own response.
Bob Herbert column on Obama's lurch right
By Paul Street at Jul 08, 2008 14:34
By Paul Street at Jul 05, 2008 11:52
Matt - Thank you. The quadrennial intra-leftist bloodletting about how to best respond to the limited, narrow-spectrum choices offered by the "elite"-run system of "managed democracy" (Sheldon Wolin) --- a long slow "corporate coup" (as Claudia says) of sorts (though it has real roots and precedents in the pre-corporate area) --- is painful and exhausting. IRV is a good thing to advocate along with a lot more. If you look at the end of my recent ZNet article "News Flash: Obama Lies Too" (please link it off my Z Space or Google it up...too burned out to go chase down the URL), you'll see that I give a long list of election and other reforms that might make this election madness a little less maddening.
By Matthew Schick at Jul 05, 2008 00:18
I am relatively new to ZNet, but I just want to say 2 quick things and hopefully avoid anything particularly antagonistic.
1. Paul, I really appreciate all your writing on Obama. It helps me avoid getting too sucked in by the "Obamania" ridiculousness, which I'm afraid my mind wouldn't be disciplined enough to avoid otherwise. Your articles help me stay clearer-minded.
2. The questions you pose at the end of your article are valid and (for me, at least) thought-provoking. And the first thought that comes to mind is, "I really need to start pushing for instant-runoff voting around here." ("Here" meaning my home state, not ZNet.) It may be too late for 2008, but I don't want to have to face these questions again in 2012, and I think that IRV takes a lot of the bite out of them. You'd still have to decide where to invest your time/money, but there wouldn't be nearly the agony of deciding how to vote!
- Matt
Re: Keep Your Eyes on the Prize
By Claudia Woodward-Rice at Jul 05, 2008 00:16
Amazing. Throughout my adult life (40+ years) the TweedleDee-TweedleDum charade has passed for political choice. This has resulted in a corporate coup and the loss of most of our basic rights. I guess an Obama victory might allow you to hold your breath a little longer while we circle the drain. The Voluntary Zombies seem to be a resilient crowd (they never learn).
Home
Contacts
Joining ZSpace 
New Users
Search
ZNet Article
ZMag Article
Commentaries
ZBooks
ZBook Reviews
ZFilms
ZFilm Reviews
ZLyrics
ZPoems
ZAudio
ZVideo
ZGraphics