Zcom_simple

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

"No Refuge But in Audacity”: Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s Holocaust Denial



Source: Empire and Inequality Report

Change Text Size a- | A+


Crime once exposed has no refuge but in audacity

 - Tacitus

 

DAVID DUKE WEIGHS IN

 

In February of 2008, Barack Obama received some interesting commentary from a curious source: David Duke. Duke is the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and founder of the National Association for the Advancement of White People, February 2008. Twenty years before, Duke had said that the election of then presidential candidate Jesse Jackson “would be the greatest tragedy ever to befall this country.”

 

Traveling in Europe, where he was meeting with fellow deniers of the Nazi Holocaust, Duke could find no particular reason last February to specially fault or fear Obama’s candidacy. He told The New Republic’s Michael Crowley that “white nationalists” like him “don’t see much difference in Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton – or, for that matter, John McCain.”

 

Why this curious, counter-intuitive lack of Obama hatred on the part of American “white nationalists”? Crowley guessed that it reflected “hatred overload” on the part of radical rightists exhausted with their white-hot loathing of “the Zionist conspiracy” and Hillary Clinton (seen as “a leftist man-hating shrew”) and their profound contempt for John McCain, whose immigration plans they “view as a dire threat to America’s European-based culture.”

 

There was something else behind the odd phenomenon of Klansman seeming okay with a black American president, Crowley felt.  “It also reflects the fact,” Crowley noted, “that, unlike Jesse Jackson, Obama simply lacks the certain cultural signifiers – not to mention an urban-centric policy agenda – that would viscerally threaten racist whites obsessed with maintaining white rights, ending affirmative action, and cutting off nearly all non-European immigration” [1].

 

True enough.  Obama doesn’t sound like Rev. Jesse Jackson (or Rev. Jeremiah Wright).  He has been running to the white-soothing center on race, making sure not to offend his many affluent white supporters by daring to notice the continuing power and relevance of white skin privilege in American life.  He’s also been getting in the occasional good victim-blaming shot at “cousin Pookie” and other examples of supposed black “underclass” sloth [2].

 

“TRYING TO PUT IRAQ BACK TOGETHER”

 

But would Crowley or anyone else in the liberal commentariat like to address the fact that Obama is himself a Holocaust-denier? No, I’m not talking about Nazi crimes. I’m talking about his denial of the U.S-imposed Holocaust in Iraq, voiced in a speech Obama gave to General Motors workers in Janesville, Wisconsin on February 13, 2008. “It's time,” Obama said, “to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money putting America back together” [3].

 

 

“Putting Iraq back together?” Is that what “we” have been doing over there?

 

Among the Democratic Party’s leadership for some time now it’s been commonplace to say that “we’ve” spent enough “blood and treasure”* trying to “help” Iraq and now its time to step back from this great benevolence to focus on putting our own house in order [4]. This was the line of all the Democratic presidential candidates except Kucinich and Gravel in Iowa last year. His Holiness the Dali Obama said it more than any of them.

 

Never mind that the United States’ brazenly imperialist assault has killed as many as 1.3 million Iraqis and caused the exodus and displacement of many millions more.

 

That’s just since March of 2003, after more than a decade of U.S.-imposed “economic sanctions” killed a million Iraqis.  Before that there was the Desert Storm slaughter, which Obama recently praised [5] despite such Gulf War highlights as the U.S. murder of thousands of surrendered Iraqi troops on the “Highway of Death,” B-52 attacks on teenage conscripts hiding in the sand, the sacrifice of Shiite and Kurdish civilians to Saddam’s guns (in the interest of “stability”), and the poisoning of Iraq (and U.S. soldiers) with depleted uranium munitions.

 

 

WORSE THAN THE MONGOLS

 

While dominant corporate media obsessed about a racialized soap opera conflict between Hillary and Obama, the antiwar writer Tom Engelhardt noted the following in mid January of 2008:

 

“Whether civilian dead between the invasion of 2003 and mid-2006 (before the worst year of civil-war level violence even hit) was in the range of 600,000 as a study in the British medical journal, The Lancet reported, or 150,000 as a recent World Health Organization study suggests, whether two million or 2.5 million Iraqis have fled the country, whether 1.1 million or more than two million have been displaced internally, whether electricity blackouts and water shortages have marginally increased or decreased, whether the country's health-care system is beyond resuscitation or could still be revived, whether Iraqi oil production has nearly crept back to the low point of the Saddam Hussein-era or not, whether fields of opium poppies are, for the first time, spreading across the country's agricultural lands or still relatively localized, Iraq is a continuing disaster zone on a catastrophic scale hard to match in recent

memory” [6]

 

According to the respected journalist Nir Rosen in the December 2007 edition of the mainstream journal Current History, “Iraq has been killed, never to rise again.  The American occupation has been more disastrous than that of the Mongols who sacked Baghdad in the thirteenth century.  Only fools talk of solutions now.  There is no solution.  The only hope is that perhaps the damage can be contained” [7].

 

*A NOTE ON “BLOOD AND TREASURE”

 

Would any of the top Democrats like to observe that the U.S. blood shed in Iraq comes mainly from working-class families while much of the “treasure” spent there rotates back in the form of profits to the wealthy capitalist owners and top managers of military (so-called “defense”) companies like Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, and Boeing? Today as across the capitalist era, the costs of empire and militarism are spread across the entire society.  They fall with special force on the predominantly working-class soldiers who lose their lives, limbs, and sanity in a colonial oil war that actually increases Americans’ susceptibility to terrorist attack. The profits revert upward to the privileged few, whose fortunate sons and daughters are exempted by class privilege from “service” in colonial struggle. 

 

BENEATH “THE RHETORIC OF WITHDRAWAL”

 

There is a critical difference, of course, between Duke’s Nazi Holocaust-denial and Obama’s U.S. Holocaust-denial. Duke obviously had no hand in the crimes of the Third Reich.  Obama cannot say the same about “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”  He is a living agent of the Iraq Holocaust. He has repeatedly funded the occupation – unconditionally (with no “withdrawal” timetables) in 2005 and 2006 – and he campaigned for pro-war Democrats (including his self-chosen war-hawk Senate mentor Joe Lieberman) in the congressional primaries of 2006.  He distanced himself from U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha’s (D-PA) call for troop “redeployment” in the fall of 2005. He voted against a timetable proposal advanced by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) in June 2006, arguing that a firm date for withdrawal would “hamstring diplomats and military commanders in the field.”

 

The current “antiwar” Obama can’t commit to having all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013.  He can pledge only to “try” to have all “combat troops” out in 16 months, neglecting to add that “combat” brigades make up less than half the total U.S. force structure in Iraq. Close examination of Obama and Hillary Clinton’s detailed Iraq plans during the primary campaign show author and journalist Jeremy Scahill that “both of them intend to keep the Green Zone [the giant American military and diplomatic section of Baghdad] intact.  Both of them intend to keep the current US embassy project, which is slated to be the largest embassy in the history of the world...it is 500 CIA operatives alone, a thousand personnel.  And they’re also going to keep the Baghdad airport indefinitely.  And what that means is that even though the rhetoric of withdrawal is everywhere In the Democratic campaign, we’re talking about a pretty substantial level of US forces and personnel remaining in Iraq indefinitely.” 

 

Obama can’t even commit to calling for the banning of the notorious private “security” contractors likes Blackwater Worldwide – a telling fact since these forces are a critical part of the occupation.  Their presence may increases as “combat forces” are drawn down [8].

 

For what it’s worth, huge majorities of the Iraqi people have long viewed U.S. forces in their country as occupiers, not liberators and have long wanted all US troops to leave immediately. Three and a half years ago, the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations (CCFR) found that 72 percent of Americans thought the US should remove its military from Iraq if that's what the majority there wanted (CCFR, Global Views [October 2004]).

        

“THEY HAVE SEEN THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTER KILLED IN THE STREETS OF FALLUJAH”

 

I’m not sure that Obama’s Janesville comment is actually the creepiest thing I’ve heard him say on Iraq. At one terrible point in an important speech Obama gave to the Chicago Council of Global Affairs (CCGA) on the eve of forming his presidential exploratory committee in November of 2006, Obama had the cold imperial audacity to say the following in support of his disturbing claim that U.S. citizens support “victory” in Iraq: “The American people have been extraordinarily resolved [in support of the occupation of Iraq, P.S.] They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded in the streets of Fallujah” [9].

 

This was a spine-chilling selection of locales. Fallujah was the site for appalling U.S. atrocities in April and November of 2004. The American crimes included the murder of civilians, the targeting of ambulances and hospitals, and the practical leveling of an entire city. The town was designated for destruction as an example of the awesome state terror promised to those who dare to resist U.S. power. Not surprisingly, Fallujah became a powerful hated symbol of vicious U.S. imperialism in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

 

It was a deeply provocative and insulting place for Obama to choose to highlight American sacrifice and “resolve” in criminally occupied Mesopotamia [10].

 

CLINGING TO THE GUNS AND RELIGION OF EMPIRE

 

Consistent with comments in earlier foreign policy speeches and the

reactionary foreign policy chapter of his deeply conservative book “The Audacity of Hope” (2006), Obama told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel last February that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of naïve hopes to impose “Jeffersonian democracy” there [11].

 

This is a childish or cynical thing to claim to believe, for reasons that I and other left analysts have explained on numerous occasions [12].  It is consistent with the repeated claims of past imperial conquerors – from the Romans through the Nazis and beyond – that their barbarism was inspired by the best and most noble intentions, including assistance and liberation for the conquered.

 

Obama has gone overboard in proclaiming his faith in the broader benevolence and good purposes behind U.S. foreign policy beyond “strategic blunders” like the Iraq War, driven, he wants us to believe, by a desire to “export democracy by the barrel of a gun” [12A]. Look, for example, at his revolting embrace of the continuing bloody U.S. war on Afghanistan [13] (also welcomed by such great bastions of so-called left-liberal anti-imperial sentiment as Moveon.org), his recent declaration of admiration for George Bush I’s 1991 Iraq butchery [14], and his curious claim in “The Audacity of Hope” that “perhaps the biggest casualty” of the Vietnam War was “the bond of trust between the American people and their government” [15].  

 

Obamanists, please tell your silver-tongued pseudo-progressive “JFK in sepia” [16] that the biggest casualty of the American War on Vietnam was Vietnam, which lost more than 2 million people to superpower Uncle Sam’s benevolent “crucifixion of Southeast Asia” (Noam Chomsky’s phrase).

 

Americans’ distrust of the imperial policies and pronouncements of their elected officials and politicians is a very good thing.  Obama is an excellent example of why. Perhaps he would like to enlighten us as to the source of the “bitterness” that leads him to cling to the guns and secular religion of U.S. Empire [17].

 

Elite socialization at ruling class educational institutions like Columbia (home for an Obama bachelor’s degree in “international relations”) and Harvard (Law School) may be part of the problem.  As Noam Chomsky noted in a critical study of the United States’ narrow-spectrum political culture and Obama’s arch-militarist hero John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK), “the ability to churn out self-acclaim for unspeakable atrocities is highly regarded, virtually an entry ticket to the respectable intellectual culture.”    

 

“Crime once exposed,” the historian Tacitus observed, “had no refuge but in audacity” [18]. 

 

       

       

Paul Street (paulstreet99@yahoo.com) is a veteran radical historian and independent activist, researcher, and journalist in Iowa City, IA.  He is the author of Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Paradigm 2005); Segregated Schools: Educational Apartheid in the Post-Civil Rights Era (Routledge 2005), and Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis (Rowman & Littlefield 2007).  Street is currently writing a book on U.S. political culture, the 2008 elections, and the Barack Obama phenomenon.

 

 

 

NOTES 

       

 

       

1. Michael Crowley, “Post-Racial: Even White Supremacists Don’t Hate Obama,” New Republic (March 12, 2008); Clarence Page, “Obama’s Changing Battlefield,” Chicago Tribune, 2 March, 2008, section 2, p.7

 

2. Paul Street, “Barack Obama’s White Appeal: and the Perverse Racial Politics of the Post-Civil Rights Era,” Black Agenda Report (June 20, 2007), read at http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=34

 

3. WIFR Television, CBS 23, Rockford, Illinois,   “Obama Speaks at General Motors in Janesville,” February 13, 2008, read at http://www.wifr.com/morningshow/headlines/15618592.html

 

 

4. Paul Street, “Vilsacking Iraq,” ZNet Magazine (December 22, 2006), read at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11689; Street, “We’ve Done a Lot More Than Talk,” ZNet Magazine (January 19, 2007), read at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11895.

 

5. Devlin Barrett, “Obama Aligns Foreign Policy With GOP,” Associated Press, 29 March, 2008.

 

 

6. Tom Engelhardt, “The Corpse on the Gurney: the Success Mantra in Iraq,” Antiwar.com, January 18, 2008, read at www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/ ?articleid=12229

 

7. Nir Rosen, “The Death of Iraq,” Current History (December 2007), p. 31. 

 

 

8. Juan Gonzales, Amy Goodman, and Jeremy Scahill. “Jeremy Scahill: Despite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come,” Democracy Now (February 28, 2008) read text version at www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_despite_anti_war_rhetoric; Jeremy Scahill, “Obama’s Mercenary Position,” The Nation (March 16, 2008)

 

9. Barack Obama, “A Way Forward in Iraq,” Speech to Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Chicago Illinois (November 20, 2006), available online at http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061120-a_way_forward _in_iraq/index.html.

 

10. Michael Mann, Incoherent Empire (NY: 2005, p. xii); Anthony Arnove, Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal (NY: 2006), pp. 27-28).

 

11. Greg Borowski, “Obama Addresses State, U.S. Topics,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Online (February 13, 2008), http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718193

 

12. See my article “Largely About Oil: Reflections on Empire, Petroleum, Democracy, and the Occupation of Iraq,” Z Magazine (January 2008): 38-42.

 

12A. Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope (NY: 2006), p. 317.

 

13. Paul Street, “Obama’s Good and ‘Proper’ War,” ZNet (March 5, 2008), read at http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16760

 

14. Barrett, “Obama Aligns Foreign Policy With GOP.”

 

15. The Audacity of Hope, pp. 287-288

 

16. Michael Hureaux (February 13, 2008), comment to Juan Santos, “Barack Obama and the End of Racism,” Dissident Voice (February 13, 2008) http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/barack-obama-and-the-%e2%80%9cend%e2%80%9d-of-racism/ (second of 22 comments).

 

17. For more details, see my following essays: “Barack Obama and the Audacity of Deception: The Manufacture of Progressive Illusion,” Black Agenda Report (December 12, 2007), www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=463&Itemid=1“Imperial Temptations: John Edwards, Barack Obama, and the Myth of Post-World War II United States Benevolence,” ZNet Magazine (May 28, 2007), read at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12928;

“Running Dog Obama” ZNet Magazine (July 29, 2007), available online at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13396; “Obama’s Audacious Deference to Power,” ZNet Magazine (January 24, 2007), read at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11936

 

18.  Noam Chomsky, Rethinking Camelot: JFK, Vietnam, and US Political Culture (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1993), pp. 6-7.

 

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "No Refuge But in Audacity”: Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s Holocaust Denial

By Street, Paul at May 19, 2008 22:05 PM

My assessment is not in print yet.  The evidence for for its accuracy will be overwhelming.  My main issue is not with him; its with his supporters and with the broader political cullture and elections system that creates him and which he so perfectly reflects.  He is what he is.  I had some dealings with him when i was pretending to be a liberal and even then they were unpleasant. This election stuff is pretty much wasted energy. I regret having become involved in electoral politics over the last year...except in one sense --- it was  field work for doing a study of what Howard Zinn calls the "election madness."   In any event, (a) your impact on election outcomes is structurally marginal at best (these things tend to be decided at a much higher plane of power);  (b) there are no ruling-class  saviors from on high out there who are going to bring real national health insurance, full employment, liveable ecology, good jobs, social justice, an end to empire. We\'re going to have to do it ourselves, as citizens.  Politicians are one thing and citizens are another.   Only the people and popular movements across and bewteen these ridiculous money and media spectacles we call elections in the U.S. can save our democracy and make a just and sustainable world.  I think the people need to see Demcorats Obama get in and experience that the deeper structures and ruling doctrines still continue to suck the life out of democracy and life... it is good that he is riding and raising popular expectations he will dash.  That could be a progressive  conjuncture.  That\'s my last on it all.

Reply this comment


586561

It\'s a wrap

By Davidson, Carl at May 19, 2008 16:30 PM

I\'ve not only read his book, i actually know him, from the time he first ran for the IL statehouse. He\'s never been a leftist or even a consistent progressive, and I don\'t think he\'s ever claimed to be. He is what he is in terms of politics and policy, ie, a high-road industrial policy capitalist and soft power multipolar globalist. But I do know your assessment of the man is ludicrous. Even your claim that he\'s a neoliberal is off-base; that\'s McCain\'s position, of the unrecontructed, US hegemonist variety

Perhaps the main difference between us here, besides the garbage of comparing him unfavorably to David Duke (if Duke is an insect, and he\'s worse, what does that make him in the less-than-human world?), which is what set me and many others off, is your statement that this \'isn\'t mainly about elections.\' I think it certainly is about elections, especially this election, and I\'m opposing the traditional downplaying of elections by a good part of the left, and you\'re not.

Let\'s leave it at that. We\'re not really saying anything new at this point.

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "No Refuge But in Audacity”: Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s Holocaust Denial

By Street, Paul at May 19, 2008 15:45 PM

 

Obama is the least affluent of the three candidates. 

Street: This is childishly irrelevant, He\'s totally enmeshed in the ruling class and in ruling class/race/and empire ideology ...in service to Dr. King\'s "triple evils" - and you know it.  You should know that dominant ideology can be  and often is embraced and advanced more ferociously by the nouveaux riche and recent comers to the power elite. Audacity of Hope contains some profoundly over-the-top reactionary comments on the greatness of U.S. capitalism and foreign policy..just astonishingy; it\'s a remarkable document.  Have you read my review? It\'s a widely read and cited essay.

Besides the inner city poor, the group where he gets the next major support is among university-trained workers, and the students and youth who will become such in a few years. He gets some support from blue-collar workers who think they\'re \'white\'--about 20 percent here. With Hillary out and Edwards behind him, he\'ll get more, perhaps most. Those remaining that go to McCain, from what I see, are not going to be won over no matter how much class struggle rhetoric they hear. \'Change\' scares them. They cling alright, but not so much to guns and religion as \'white male\' identity. They fear for the loss of their relatively privileged status, which one the male side is one of the reasons they get snookered by the right-to-lifers and the anti-feminists. They also want to shore up a crumbling patriarchy and their loss of status there.

It\'s going to take more than economic, populist, and \'class talk\' to deconstruct this, and it probably won\'t be done in one election cycle. Hilary\'s appeal to this crowd was repeating the \'fight for you\' and \'hard working\' mantra. But you have to supply the context and subtext to see why it was effective. The context is she\'s \'white\' and the subtext is \'Blacks are lazy and refuse to be hard working.\'

Street: Nobody here or in my cohort has childish illusions about measuring change in election cycles.  It\'s not abot election cycles.  It\'s not mainly about elections. Never said he gets no white workng class support. I am consistently critical of Hillary as an imperialist/racist/classist so don\'t need the lecture on her. I have written against the guns and religion talk and so don\'t need that one either.

For you to diss one section of Obama\'s base, a dynamic and progressive one, and him as well with the \'preppy\' crap, as if it put him higher up the scale than his two rivals, isn\'t very productive or even political.

I\'m out here arguing daily with all kids of workers and youth, building up independent organizations, registering voters on the need to defeat McCain and elect Obama so we\'ll at least have a shot at ending the war. I urge other progressives to do likewise, and then I hear from you blasts about \'the corporate neoliberal and militantly imperial Iraq War Holocaust agent and denier Obama\' "who\'s worse the David Duke, that what other\'s like me are doing is a dubious waste of time and energy, and you\'re telling me that you\'re doing more to help Obama than I am? Please.

Street:  Activists have responsibilities to the world community...to the people of Iraq and the Middle East (including the Palestinians he has so terribly abandoned). You need to stop covering for his Iraq War agency and Holocaust denial.  You should be outraged at what he said to GM workers in Janesville and by numerous other actions and statement I and others have documented at length (my latest blog post goes into some rich detail) .  What you call "blasts" are easily and abundantly substantiated empirical judgements based on simple hard research...facts.  Obamanists are in denial about the depth of their hero\'s commitment to dominant domestic and imeprial hiearchies and doctrines.  David Duke is a fascist racist insect but he never voted funds for the continuing US war crime in Iraq. Barack did. 

As I\'ve said before, you are an activist and organizer. Your single vote holding your nose for five minutes on election day is not all that important to me. I expect more of you and others like you. Your task, as a progressive activist in 2008, in part, is to expand the electorate in a progressive direction, making it younger and more diverse. Then organizing it, learning things together with it, getting it to the polls, and helping it guard and protect the vote, then consolidating the best of these to continue the struggle, in the streets and elsewhere, no matter who is in the White House.

Also don\'t need this lecture. Expand the electorate is an interesting formulation.  I would say the bigger task is to build, re-build, and expand social movements and to struggle for the creation of a more truly responsive and democratic political culture --- one where the electorate\'s expansion and sentiments can become truly relevant in terms of policy.  We aren\'t remotely close to that and so we get these quadrennial corporate-crafted candidate centered narrow-spectrum extravaganzas and this huge propaganda campaign that presidential elections are what politics is all about.  But they aren\'t all or mainly what a real progressive politics is about. In fact, I notice that progressives and the populace are now practically paralyzed by the whole thing....in a candidate-centered tizzy of fear and illusion.  My book ends with an imagined true  progressive agenda for a Democratic White House...political science fiction but a useful exercise in its own way.  It is quite hopeful and forward-looking. 

You are with "Progressives for Obama."  Presumably you are actually trying to get him elected.

In any event, Obamanists have no monopoly on optimism and vision and commitment to organizing etc. In the meantime I just signed a petition to get a left candidate on the ballot in Iowa.

 

Reply this comment


586561

Sorry, but...

By Davidson, Carl at May 18, 2008 18:48 PM

Sorry if I\'m haranguing, Paul. It\'s not you personally. It\'s you plus the list of a dozen or so others that you mention.

You are purposely ignoring several points.

Obama is the least affluent of the three candidates.  Besides the inner city poor, the group where he gets the next major support is among university-trained workers, and the students and youth who will become such in a few years. He gets some support from blue-collar workers who think they\'re \'white\'--about 20 percent here. With Hillary out and Edwards behind him, he\'ll get more, perhaps most. Those remaining that go to McCain, from what I see, are not going to be won over no matter how much class struggle rhetoric they hear. \'Change\' scares them. They cling alright, but not so much to guns and religion as \'white male\' identity. They fear for the loss of their relatively privileged status, which one the male side is one of the reasons they get snookered by the right-to-lifers and the anti-feminists. They also want to shore up a crumbling patriarchy and their loss of status there.

It\'s going to take more than economic, populist, and \'class talk\' to deconstruct this, and it probably won\'t be done in one election cycle. Hilary\'s appeal to this crowd was repeating the \'fight for you\' and \'hard working\' mantra. But you have to supply the context and subtext to see why it was effective. The context is she\'s \'white\' and the subtext is \'Blacks are lazy and refuse to be hard working.\'

For you to diss one section of Obama\'s base, a dynamic and progressive one, and him as well with the \'preppy\' crap, as if it put him higher up the scale than his two rivals, isn\'t very productive or even political.

I\'m out here arguing daily with all kids of workers and youth, building up independent organizations, registering voters on the need to defeat McCain and elect Obama so we\'ll at least have a shot at ending the war. I urge other progressives to do likewise, and then I hear from you blasts about \'the corporate neoliberal and militantly imperial Iraq War Holocaust agent and denier Obama\' "who\'s worse the David Duke, that what other\'s like me are doing is a dubious waste of time and energy, and you\'re telling me that you\'re doing more to help Obama than I am? Please.

As I\'ve said before, you are an activist and organizer. Your single vote holding your nose for five minutes on election day is not all that important to me. I expect more of you and others like you. Your task, as a progressive activist in 2008, in part, is to expand the electorate in a progressive direction, making it younger and more diverse. Then organizing it, learning things together with it, getting it to the polls, and helping it guard and protect the vote, then consolidating the best of these to continue the struggle, in the streets and elsewhere, no matter who is in the White House.

But for some reason, these rather clear-cut tasks have got your cohort in a tizzy. Thank goodness we have a new generation of activists on the rise in this battleground.

 

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

You Should Be Thanking Me, Not Haranguing Me

By Street, Paul at May 16, 2008 14:46 PM

Carl, your myopia is relentless. Have you looked at the exit poll data? Obama is getting the black vote across the board, regardless of socioeconomic status...yes. But blacks are 12 percent of the country.  Within the white electoral majority, sadly, his support is disproportionately affluent.  It is a statement of disonhesty or ignorance (not sure which is preferable) to claim or suggest otherwise.

With activists like you working for the corporate neoliberal and militantly imperial Iraq War Holocaust agent and denier Obama,  it\'s looking like a John McCain victory.  You just don\'t have your mind properly wrapped around the tasks at hand. You don\'t get it.  And throwing around terms like "subjectivism" won\'t help.

Your candidate is not well positioned for the general election; that could change, but signs are not good.

It\'s not just white working class racism (and you know very well that Hillary has been murdering him with the white working-class vote....not good that she is winning primaries this late in the game; not the usual pattern for a winning nominee!) that\'s hurting him. 

It\'s also his own temperamental and ideological mismatch ("outrage doesn;t make sense") for generating the sort of working-class message that is required.  It\'s about his prep school, Columbia, Harvard, the foundation universe he was so at home in. He\'s a conciliator.

Guess what...it\'s looking like you guys really screwed up.  What\'s the worst thing that could come out of this election? A continuation of Republican rule in the White House, Absurdly enough given the last 8 years, that is now a distinct possibility

.Edwards would have knocked the crap out of McCain and part of the reason for that sadly and terribly enough is that he\'s a southern white male (like, uh,,,,Clinton, Carter, and LBJ....the only Democratic presidents of the last 45 years for God\'s sake).

Hillary (who is terrible) would have lost. 

With BO its a toss up and the last two months are not helping.

Oops!

To deepen your dysfunctional behavior as far as stopping the GOP is concerned, your relentless nonsense motivates me to work for the Green Party and I live in a swing state and talk to a few people who actually pay a slight bit of attention to what I say. Pretty stupid, Carl.  If you had any decent commitment to your candidate  or at least to fighting the Republicans you would stop trying to piss me off.  You would say, "well, we disagree, but I\'m glad to here you will be on board to help block the GOP in a swing state."  . But no, it\'s more important to you to get your (not very smart) little shots in. 

Anybody who gets involved in elections knows that you act on the assumption that every vote could matter. I don\'t know why you seem to want to cost Obama votes.  

Pretty goddamned ridiculous if you ask me.

I\'m probably helping Obama now more than you. People criticizing him as centrist and conservative from the left should be very useful for him as the general election campaign proceeds, with the right wing proto-fascist attack dogs absurdly painting him out as a left wing radical. Cite me (and Glen Ford and Matt Gonzales and Pam Martens and Alexander Cockburn and Ted Glick and Margaret Kimberly and Bruce Dixon and Kevin Alexander Gray and Doug Henwood and Marc Lamont Hill and Juan Santos and Chris Hedges and...the list goes on) to show that actual left progressives (who know a comrade and a sell-out when they see one) reject the absurd depiction of Obama as left-wing. You are welcome.

 

 

I talked to numerou

 

 

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

You Should Be Thanking Me, Not Haranguing Me

By Street, Paul at May 16, 2008 14:46 PM

Carl, your myopia is relentless. Have you looked at the exit poll data? Obama is getting the black vote across the board, regardless of socioeconomic status...yes. But blacks are 12 percent of the country.  Within the white electoral majority, sadly, his support is disproportionately affluent.  It is a statement of disonhesty or ignorance (not sure which is preferable) to claim or suggest otherwise.

With activists like you working for the corporate neoliberal and militantly imperial Iraq War Holocaust agent and denier Obama,  it\'s looking like a John McCain victory.  You just don\'t have your mind properly wrapped around the tasks at hand. You don\'t get it.  And throwing around terms like "subjectivism" won\'t help.

Your candidate is not well positioned for the general election; that could change, but signs are not good.

It\'s not just white working class racism (and you know very well that Hillary has been murdering him with the white working-class vote....not good that she is winning primaries this late in the game; not the usual pattern for a winning nominee!) that\'s hurting him. 

It\'s also his own temperamental and ideological mismatch ("outrage doesn;t make sense") for generating the sort of working-class message that is required.  It\'s about his prep school, Columbia, Harvard, the foundation universe he was so at home in. He\'s a conciliator.

Guess what...it\'s looking like you guys really screwed up.  What\'s the worst thing that could come out of this election? A continuation of Republican rule in the White House, Absurdly enough given the last 8 years, that is now a distinct possibility

.Edwards would have knocked the crap out of McCain and part of the reason for that sadly and terribly enough is that he\'s a southern white male (like, uh,,,,Clinton, Carter, and LBJ....the only Democratic presidents of the last 45 years for God\'s sake).

Hillary (who is terrible) would have lost. 

With BO its a toss up and the last two months are not helping.

Oops!

To deepen your dysfunctional behavior as far as stopping the GOP is concerned, your relentless nonsense motivates me to work for the Green Party and I live in a swing state and talk to a few people who actually pay a slight bit of attention to what I say. Pretty stupid, Carl.  If you had any decent commitment to your candidate  or at least to fighting the Republicans you would stop trying to piss me off.  You would say, "well, we disagree, but I\'m glad to here you will be on board to help block the GOP in a swing state."  . But no, it\'s more important to you to get your (not very smart) little shots in. 

Anybody who gets involved in elections knows that you act on the assumption that every vote could matter. I don\'t know why you seem to want to cost Obama votes.  

Pretty goddamned ridiculous if you ask me.

I\'m probably helping Obama now more than you. People criticizing him as centrist and conservative from the left should be very useful for him as the general election campaign proceeds, with the right wing proto-fascist attack dogs absurdly painting him out as a left wing radical. Cite me (and Glen Ford and Matt Gonzales and Pam Martens and Alexander Cockburn and Ted Glick and Margaret Kimberly and Bruce Dixon and Kevin Alexander Gray and Doug Henwood and Marc Lamont Hill and Juan Santos and Chris Hedges and...the list goes on) to show that actual left progressives (who know a comrade and a sell-out when they see one) reject the absurd depiction of Obama as left-wing. You are welcome.

%

Reply this comment


586561

\'Affluent Obamaists?\'

By Davidson, Carl at May 15, 2008 20:10 PM

\'Your task is to help Obama and the disprpportionately affluent Obamanists...\'

 

Once again, Paul, your white blindspot prevents you from seeing that a good number of the \'Obamanists\' are the least affluent in this county, and most others, too, I\'d guess.  And populism with a white blindspot marks the tombstones on a good number of just causes in our history. But you know this. I\'d hazard a guess that your subjectivism on this matter has just got you in a mess.

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "No Refuge But in Audacity”: Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s Holocaust Denial

By Street, Paul at May 02, 2008 12:03 PM

Charles Derber\'s book Hidden Power  is an essential read. If nothing else read the chapter titled "What\'s the Matter with the Democrats?" It\'s full of useful action-oriented ideas and suggestions to pull the party\'s head out of its ass.  Edwards was making the extraction, with serious limits to be sure;  Obama has yet to shows signs that can or wishes to come up for sincere populist air... He doesn\'t just nauseate anarchs and Trots; he\'s running so center-right (even before the post-nomination tack to the center) that he\'s a problem for nice liberals like Krugman and I suspect Thomas Frank. It\'s obviously about much more than the quadrennial elections - of course. 

Regarding the next election, which should not be ignored of course (small differences betewen parties and candidates can have big consequences in concentrated power systems) the DP needs to drop its standard assumption that the white working class will just naturally understand that its pocketbook interests lay with the Dems.  It has stop to running from the language of class that once actually sort of distinguished it from the Republicans.  And it has to stop running from acknowledging the immorality of U.S. fotreign policy. The cool doctorly and professorial Obama thinks outrage and honesty about the corporate-imeprial regime we inhabit and need to overthrow doesn\'t make sense...its dysfunctional and conflict-oriented and scares people.

You should not denigrate the fact that someone might be willing to vote "for" Obama despite everything and you probably shouldn\'t spend much time arguing with them either.  Keep it up and you will recruit activists for Nader and McKinnery in swing states, Carl.   Your task is to help Obama and the disprpportionately affluent Obamanists do the sorts of things that are not mysterious at all...quite basic,   Besides being the right thing to do it would help you and Obama win.

Populist class outrage makes sense.  Cultivate it and show his campaign how to win.

Reply this comment


586561

I\'ve read them all

By Davidson, Carl at May 01, 2008 17:24 PM

I\'ve read them all, Paul, and probably a few more.

And my campaign is independent of Obama\'s, even as we get voters organized to vote for him, ad do other things as well, inside and outside the Democratic party. We\'re free to speak our mind about his weaknsses, and we do.

It\'s a pity after all that study, and the most critical electoral struggle in decades comes along, and all you can figure out how to do, after Edwards, is hold your nose and preach about Empire to the choir.

Again this is not so much aimed at you personally. You have a number of friends in the \'left bloc\' cul-de-sac, and I\'ve been challenging the whole crew to finally, after all these years of study and writing, to come out with a decent strategy and tactics to engage those active in the electoral arena. It\'s not because I think radical change is made by elections. It\'s not. But in this country in this time, it proceeds THROUGH elections, certainly in part. There are no anarchist detours, and to my way of thinking, anarchist oppositionism is just a militant variety of liberalism that the \'left bloc\' is stuck in.

 

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

You are arguing with the wrong person/people

By Street, Paul at May 01, 2008 12:58 PM

Out and about is all I was when the campaign rolled through my part of the country and the class identifiers were crystal clear. My sense is you may get out too much....You really should hit the library and campaign finance web sites (CRP-Open Secrets and others) and some of the better left journals (ZMag, ZNet, CoutnerPunch, Black Agenda Report) and start to wrap you mind around what a conciliatory corporate-imperial Wall Street centrist your candidate is....so reluctant to fight on behalf of working people that he is getting out-flanked to his his left by the ultimate corporate insider Hillary Clinton.  You should read the last chapter of Thomas Frank\'s book What\'s The Matter with Kansas?...its not so much about cultural issues (the offiicial Frank thesis that Obama bought into with his guns, religion and "bitter workers"\' comments....to economic elites in San Francisco) as the Democratic Party\'s abandonment of the class language and labor agenda that once differentiated it from the GOP.  Besides being an Iraq War agent and apologist and an openly imperial U.S. world supremacist ---- you need to read your candidate\'s chilling foreign policy speeches and chapters and essays, his running dog imperialism is all there clear as day --- Barack "empathize with your oppressors" ("outrage does not make sense") ---- Obama has been pretty much running as precisely what Frank identifies as the problem with the Party of Dukakis and John "I am Not a Redistribution Democrat."  You are arguing with me when you should be critiquing hm and his advisors, including his top economic advisor Austan Goolsbee, who is or was recently the chief economiist of the freaking DLC.  Instead of criticizing me for having the elementary leftist skepticism to be what you call "cynical" about your Dali Obama, you need to find some way to make your campaign more like something the Edwards and Kucinich supporters I met out here would want to have anything to do with.   That\'s great you\'re down there with the western PA proletariat and all (the ones that didn\'t go Clinton, as most did) but you know damn well that the people around his campaign are in the neoliberal (and imperial)  mold (no David Boniors on his staff I\'m afraid) and that Wall Street has nothing to fear from Obama --- nothing. And by the way it would be useful if he would stop denying the criminal U.S. Holocaust in Iraq --- something Reverend Wright is free to acknowledge --- and if he would stop praising things like Bush I\'s butchery in Iraq (1991) and the continuing criminal U.S. assault on Afghanistan,,,,and if he would stop giving knee-jerk defense to Israel\'s brutal actions against people in Lebanon and Gaza (and Palestine generally). And if he would quit saying squishy/nice things  about that plutocratic bastard Ronald Reagan (who Obama  says saved us from the "excesses of the 1960s") and if he would stop trashing the Sixties and if he would quit downplaying the powerful continuing relevance of racism in American life and....the list goes on.  My cynicism is nothing compared to your campaign\'s cynicism.

Reply this comment


586561

Get Out More

By Davidson, Carl at May 01, 2008 09:17 AM

Obama supporters \'bourgeois\'?

Paul, you need to get out more. The poorest sections of downtown Aliquippa, PA here in Beaver county have Obama signs in every yard in the blocks with the old millworker row houses, and if you go to Obama headquarters you get greeted by retired steelworkers and young kids, Black and white, who certainly have a clue.

Are there enough of them? No, there never are. Is it the same everywhere?  Of course not.

What you do on election day, holding your nose, is beside the point. Any liberal can do that. What matters for radicals to organize themselves and others to expand the electorate in a younger, more antiwar direction, help form lasting new independent organizations, and get them to the polls in November and into the streets as well. We critique Obama all the time, but as I said, your cynicism we can do without. That\'s your load to bear

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Obama Supporters, Part 2 (Revised and Expanded)

By Street, Paul at Apr 30, 2008 15:01 PM

Obama supporters are a real pain in the ass in my experience
By Street, Paul

There were too many errors in my last response to Carl, who I find increasingly more disturbed and disturbing.  Here is an edited version with some elaboration.  These are important points and deserved editing and some slight expansion.

Good job, Carl....now you have me thinking about voting for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney and I live in a contested state!  You are not doing a very good job for Barack Obama!! 

But it won\'t work. I\'ll still almost certainly do my little nose-holding bit to block the proto-fascist GOP.   

Listen Carl:  went into the Obama offices in Iowa City in 2007 with something of an open mind - seriously.  Talked to my Obama precinct captain once. 

It took me about 10 minutes to figure out that his activist base here was mainly comprised of clueless lightweights with zero capacity for elementary class  analysis and no abilty or wilingness to deal honestly with his complicity in imperial crimes... or even to understand that imperial crimes were being committed. 

His supporters were just so damn bourgeois. They had no basic concept of what it means to be a progressive.I ran into this in Chicago too, sad to say -- less there but plenty of it nonethless.

And they were and are totally self righteous.  This was quite pronounced.  I\'m quite serious about this.  You could talk productively and in a friendly sort of way to all the other candidates\' supporters and activists...Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Richardson...even, much to my surprise, the Hillary people. 

But the Obama people? Forget about it.  They\'d kick you off their lawn. They\'d become offended when you asked them why they were supporting Barack.  Offended. 

You\'d say the same question ("so why are you supporting candidate X?":) to a Dodd person or a Richardson person or a Biden person and even a Hillary person and they mention a couple of policies the liked for God\'s sake -- imagine that, Carl. 

Not the Barackomaniacs. The Obama people had nothing to say - they were offended by the very act of asking the question. This was quite pronounced.  It bizarre and depressing and very aristocratic. You couldn\'t miss it.

They often had really big houses by the way - like the Republicans. His support was comparatively bourgeois in a socioeconomic as well as ideological sense. These sorts of people are very overrepresented in the Caucus states by the way. That\'s a big aprt of why he does well under the Caucus system.

There were a few exceptions but it was quite pronounced. It was terrible. Are you a bourgeois type of guy, Carl? You don\'t seem like one but man alot of  his supporters are bourgeois, coordinator-class types of people. don\'t yout think?

The energy was very different with the Kucinich people (what was left of them), who knew that Dennis wasn\'t really running in IA and then also with the Edwards people.  The Edwards office was loaded with real progressives - actual activists.: people who got it on class; who got it on race and ecology (your candidate\'s pro-nuclear position is sickening); and even people who got it on war and empire. It was night and day.

The main problem with the Obama phenomenon is is his arrogant, clueless, and yet curiously know-it-all supporters. The main problem in my precinct was professors. Ughhh!

I\'m going to disregard you Obamanists and vote "for"  His Holiness the Dali Obama anyway provided you folks and Him don\'t continue to fuck things up (by --- among other things ---  running from the class language that Edwards tried so heroicially to bring back) and give the nomination to Hillary.  Please don\'t make me have to vote "for" War Hawk Hillary, okay?  Now get out there and get him in!

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Obama supporters are a real pain in the ass in my experience

By Street, Paul at Apr 30, 2008 09:43 AM

Good job, Carl....now you have me thinking about voting for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney and I live in a contested state.  You are not doing a very good job for Barack Obama! 

But it won\'t work; I\'ll still almost certainly do my little nose-hilding bit to block the proto-fascist GOP.   You know I went into the Obama offices in Iowa City in 2007 with something of an open mind - seriously.  Talked to my Obama precinct captain once.  Took me about 10 minutes to figure out that his activist base was significantly comprised of clueless lightweights with zero capacity for elementary class understanding anlaysis and no abilty or wilingness to deal honestly with his complicity in imperial crimes or even to understand that imperial crimes were being committed. His supporters were just do damn bourgeois and...well, silly.  No basic concept of what it means to be a progressive.I ran into this in Chicago too, sad to say -- less so but plenty of it nonethless.

And totally self righteous.  This was quite pronounced.  I\'m quite serious about this.  You could talk productively and in a friendly sort of way to all the other candidates\' supporters and activists...Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Richardson...even, much to my surprise, the Hillary people.  But the Obama people? Forget about it.  They\'d kick you off their lawn. They\'d become offended when you asked them why they were supproting Barack.  Offended.  Say the same question to a Dodd person or a Richardson person or a Biden person and even a Hillary person and they mention a couple of policies the liked for God\'s sake -- imagine that. The Obama people had nothing to say - they were offended byy the very act of asking the question. This was quite pronounced.  You couldn\'t miss it.

They had relly big houses byy the way - like Republicans.

.There were a few exceptions but it was quite pronounced. it was terrible.

The energy was very different with the Kucinich people (what was left of them), who knew that Dennis wasn\'t really running in IA and then also with the Edwards people.  The Edwards office was loaded with real proressives - actual activists.  People who got it on class. Who got it on race and ecology (your candidate\'s pro-nuclear position is sickening) and even people who got it on war and empire. It was night and day.

The main problem with the Obama phenomenon is is his arrogant, clueless, and yet curiously know-it-all supporters. The main problem in precinct was professors.

I\'m going to disregard you folks and vote "for" him anyway provided you and him don\'t continue to fuck everything up (by running from the class language that Edwards tried so heroicially to bring back) and give the nomination to Hillary.  Please don\'t make me have to vote "for" War Hawk Hillary, okay? 

Reply this comment


586561

No thanks

By Davidson, Carl at Apr 29, 2008 23:29 PM

No thanks, Paul

This little exchange has taught me something.

Now you\'re using Rev Wright to defeat Rev Wright vis-avis Obama and the election--and you don\'t even see what\'s wrong with it.

I think we\'ll look for participants and allies elsewhere in the grassroots of a very broad an vibrant movement. Your cynism is baggage best left for you to lug.

 

 

 

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Get Out There and Get Him In

By Street, Paul at Apr 29, 2008 11:00 AM

You have fallen a few steps into the Election Trap, but what the Hell.  Reverend Wright, for one, has steered clear. Good for him.  He\'s holding up some of the legacy of MLK, who politely brushed off efforts to get him to run because he didn\'t want to end up like Barack "We\'ve Got to Stop Putting Trying to Iraq Back Together..America is the World\'s Best Last Hope" Obama.

But by all means lets get BO and Anrthony Lake et al in.  He/they can\'t be fully exposed  until he/they get in.  They get to pose as progressive alternatives when they are out of power. When they get in it becomes more transparent that thet are on the wrong side of all of Dr. King\'s" triple evils that are interrelated" (racism/classism/imperialism) and other evils too (how about his campaigning with gay-bashers?) . He\' appears to likely be less dangerous to people overseas (and the main danger posed by U.S. presidents is to people overseas....presidents are most empowered in the foreign policy realm) than Hillary (who actually is a monster, as Samantha Power noted) and Mad Bomber McCain.

It\'s like the JFK farce: people are going to need to see that Americacan capitlaism/racism/imperialism still pervert the nation\'s priorities with charismatic young (and centrist/imperialist/militarist. etc.) Dem at the helm.  He\'e surfing popular anger and euphoria and managing hope for his masters but we can surf him too.  Rising expectations are a very good thing and their disappointment is the stuff of revolution. It\'s the theory of dialectical Obamanism. Don\'t argue with me. Get him in.

Reply this comment


586561

Holocaust Deniers Are Fascists

By Davidson, Carl at Apr 28, 2008 22:15 PM

Because \'Holocaust Denier\' has a context and meaning in today\'s world. It means you are trying to claim the Hitler fascists really didn\'t try to liquidate the Jews, and you are a fascist.

I don\'t care that you\'re talking about Iraq or Palestine.  When you say Obama is a holocaust denier, and better at it than David Duke (or worse, however you want to put it), you are saying he is a fascist of a higher order than Duke, and the implication is that he not only not get anyone\'s vote, but we have no responsibility to defend him. And by doin this, you don\'t help the cause of solidarity with Palestine one bit.

I can\'t believe you\'re so obtuse, or insensitive to how offensive this is. But then, lots of things are coming out of the woodwork these days. Maybe you should run it by someone else.

My guess is just like the rest of the Trotskyists and anarchists in the \'Stop Obama Now\' camp on Indymedia, you just don\'t give a damn about the implications of what you\'re saying. And we publish critiques of Obama every other day as part of our project, so that\'s really not the issue here. But it\'s not only politicans that are to be held accountable.

 

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "No Refuge But in Audacity”: Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s Holocaust Denial

By Street, Paul at Apr 27, 2008 17:34 PM

Sorry you think its nasty to call him a Holocaust denier Carl but what what part of his offensive "we need to stop trying to put Iraq back together" statement don\'t you understand?  This is his take on the U.S. presence in Iraq while talking to to GM workers in Janesville, Carl.  U.S. imperialists have imposed a Holocaust on Iraq, Carl. Obama has funded and provided cover for that Holocaust in numerous ways.  The Holocaust is an imperial adventure the fundamental nature of which is totally obscured by Obama\'s ridiculous claim that the  Bush motive was to "export democracy by the barrel of a gun" and "create a Jeffersonian democracy?\'\'\'etc.  Don\'t you recognize this as the same empire-denying position of the imperial so-called "doves" during the Vietnam era...people like Tony Lake, who is of course big in the Obama foreign policy team.  The myth of good intentions and refusal to acknowledge U.S. imperialism or at least just U.S. criminality in one theater  is a deadly thing. And it cripples Obama\'s abillity to be substantively antiwar (if he ever really wanted to be) because if you can only oppose the Iraq "war" (one-sided U.S. imperial violence) on pragmatic grounds (as a "strategic blunder"), not on moral grounds, then (1) you are going to be horrified of being busted out as a "defeatist" and (2) you are going to fall prey to de-emphasizing Iraq when supposed evidence emerges that the invasion is "working."  Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith wrote an interesting piece about this last year. Chomsky\'s 2008 Boston speech (last March -- on ZNet, search by "Good News")  goes into the moral failure of the Dems (your guy in the lead) on Iraq and the connection with the Vietnam justifications. Also terrible is the refusal/failure to acknowledge the officially "unworthy victims" on the wrong side of U.S. imperial guns.  Are you a chauvinist against Arab, Pashtun, and other Muslim people in SW Asia? What do you think of Obama\'s knee-jerk defense of Israel\'s 2006 bombings of Lebanon?  His reflexive support of the 2008 Gaza siege? His loving embrace of the illegal and murderous and continuing assault on Afghanistan? Obama\'s recent praise for George Bush I\'s handling of the Dessert Storm butchery? Remember the Highway of Death? Have you perhaps lost your bearings because you\'ve fallen into what professor Charles Derber usefully calls "the election trap?" Bear in mind, this is from someone who expects to vote "for" your candidate (and would probably prefer him over War Hawk Hillary) to block McCain/GOP next November....this for purely tactical reasons.  I\'ll go in the voting booth and out very quickly, moving on to more urgent tasks.

I wish the racist American Empire Project wasn\'t so damn bipartisan, but it is.

On language, I\'m not particularly attached to my right as a white radical to call Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom." I honestly don\'t know the answer on that one but since it serves no particularly progressive agenda to use such language (you can say the same thing, content-wise, without the language), I\'d be happy to drop such discourse.

But on Iraq, I think Obama and Hillary and Edwards and Reid and Emmanuel and Pelosi et al engage in chronic US Holocaust denial (and worse) and if I was religious I\'d say they were going to burn in Hell for it.

Reply this comment


586561

Division of Labor, Once Again

By Davidson, Carl at Apr 25, 2008 21:51 PM

No, it\'s not alright for YOU to label Clarence Thomas as \'Uncle Tom.\' But it\'s fine to discuss and define the reactionary nature of his politics and jurisprudence in other ways.

And you shouldn\'t need a list, just understand the principle of the division of labor. And with this example, it\'s clear that you don\'t.

Reminds me of a debate I once had on whether it was OK for guys to call Jackie Kenndy a \'bitch\' because some working class women did.  Not exactly the same, but my point to him back then was \'no\'  as well.

Yes, the fight against racism, chauvinism or whatever you want to call it can be misused. At Haywood\'s suggestion, I took a piece of his biography on the \'Phoney War against White Chauvinism\' in the party in the 1950s and published it elsewhere.

But if your nasty little piece of work calling Obama a \'holocaust denier\' and worse at such things than David Duke needs to be dumped in a garbage can for racist crap before Linbaugh and Hannity get a hold of it, and start passing it around in a really  big way.

 

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "No Refuge But in Audacity”: Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s Holocaust Denial

By Street, Paul at Apr 24, 2008 14:20 PM

As you should know, the "white chauvinism" charge was often misuesd in vile ways inside the CP.  You are misusing the phrase in hurling it at me.

 

I once did research on the old significantly Left [CP]-led CIO packinghouse union ("Black and White, Unite and Fight") and certainly appreciate the party\'s contributions on race at the shop-floor and neighborood levels especially in places like Chicago...

 

Great on Allen, Haywood, Lenin, the national question and so on, but you are diverting from Obama\'s (and Hillary\'s and Edwards\' and Reid\'s and Levin\'s and so on\'s) criminal racist imperial US Holocaust Denial in regard to Iraq.  

 

Hureaux can call Obama "JFK in sepia," but I can\'t because my ancestors are from Scotland and Finland..Oh, okay. Can I call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom? I need to get the PC list of what I can and can\'t say I guess. 

 

I don\'t go to all those web sites (too busy) and so don\'t really know what you are talking about with white radicals anonymously posting Glen Ford and so on.  

 

My perspective on Edwards...it was always without the slightest illusion. I helped his campaign out but also did pieces giving honest and forthright criticisms of his progressive limits, especially severe on foreign policy. It was tactical: he was both the most progressive (not by enough of a margin but it was quite pronounced nonetheless...remarkable efforts and rhetoric on behalf of the labor movement)and the most elect-able of the viables (Kucinich was obviously the most progressive and I\'m well to his left).

 

Look at the exit polls on racial bloc voting, race, and class....it\'s a potential and predictable identity-politicized that amazingly gives Mad Boomber McCain a real shot at the presidency even with his loving embrace of the Iraq fiasco and GOP incumbency at the onset of what may be a major recession. 

 

Three cheers for waging struggle but it is questionable how much can be attained regard through electoral activities and coattaling on any of the mainstream candidates.  The elections are secondary to more urgent tasks beneath and beyond the quadrennial corporate-crafted candidate-centered election extravaganzas -- to repeat a point made before.

 

Reply this comment


586561

An honorable tradition

By Davidson, Carl at Apr 23, 2008 21:48 PM

Playing \'the race card\' by using the term \'white chauvinism?\' That\'s odd of you, to say the least. And given the role of the CPUSA in taking up the struggle against it, I\'m honored to be connected with that particular tradition of the party, even though I was never a member--and so should you be. The race card, indeed. That petty little phrase has more uses to liberals and conservatives these days than aspirin.

But I learned most things about white supremacy and \'the national question\' , in terms of theory, anyway, from two old Marxists who were on the outs with the party at the time, Ted Allen, author of \'the Invention of the White Race,\' and Harry Haywood, author of \'Black Bolshevik\' and the earlier classic, \'Negro Liberation.\'  Both were good friends for years, and both of them pushed me to read all of WEB DuBois\'s works, as well as Lenin\'s writings on \'Great Nation\' chauvinism of whites in relation to Blacks.

Ted Allen once explained to me the difference between national chauvinism and white chauvinism, which you mix up in discussing Obama and the Mideast. National chauvinism deals with asserting the superiority of one\'s country over the oppressed nations, and Americans of all varieties indulge in it. White chauvinism stems from defending, or in some cases simply ignoring, the system of supremacy and privileges of those with white skin over those of color.

There\'s another point I learned from both Haywood and Allen, who were reaffirming Lenin--the importance of the \'division of labor\' between the radicals of the oppressor nation and those of the oppressed nation. We had the task of aiming our fire at white racism (or chauvinism, to use the more precise term), winning our fellow white workers away from it, while the Black radicals had the task of taking on narrow nationalism and other disunifying or harmful notions among the workers and people of color. In brief, if you or I go into the Black community to denounce, say, one of Farakan\'s pet theories, it not only doesn\'t help, it makes matters worse, But to the extent that we do our job well among whites, it makes it easier for Black radicals to take up the cause of classwide untiy.

One thing you\'ll find all over the web, especially Indymedia sites, is white radicals posting articles from BlackAgendaReport and BlackCommentator, which are often debates within the Black left and Black community more widely, and then posting them in primarily white venues to attack Obama among whites, and they are sometimes get linked in with similar rhetoric, if not substance, coming from overtly racist whites. I also think it\'s rather cowardly of some of them, since Glen Ford\'s pieces are usually posted by \'Anonymous\' or some \'@\' or some other handle to hide behind, rather than put their own views out there with their name on them. In brief, it\'s one thing for Blacks to take on Obama as \'JFK in Sepia,\' but just because they do, it doesn\'t mean it\'s allright for you to do it.

There\'s lots more that could be said here, but Ill leave with one last query, which is your subjectivism against Obama, especially in lieu of your lack of it regarding Edwards. I\'m really not that interested in whether, at the last minute, you take a break and cast a vote for a Democrat. Any liberal can do that. But we\'re supposedly made of more serious stuff. If someone is worth voting for, or against, then we don\'t do it on our own, as a last-minute afterthought. We get engaged, organize, and wage struggle, not like liberals, but like the working-class left we\'d like to see.

 

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Notes From a Left Deviationist

By Street, Paul at Apr 23, 2008 10:00 AM

Carl you are actually playing the race card and resuscitating the old CPUSA term "white chauvinism?" ..You are getting that morally and ideologically desperate? I happen to think the Obama campaign is being attacked by white racists and that Hillary is being attacked by male chauvinists and that this is terrible and to confuse my criticism from the miltantly anti-racist left  with Hannity et al. is a sign of moral and intellectual dementia. Please write to the editors of one of my leading outlets the black run left  journal Black Agenda Report and tell them about my "white chauvinism." 

You should read them on Obama by the way - they give him a harder time than I do...are they "white chauvinists?"  I borrowed the phrase "JFK in sepia? from Michael Hureax, a silmultaneously Marxist and black writer living in Seattle.  Is he a "white chauvinist," Carl?

I would not change my tune talking to UFCW or Trinity. If some packinguouse worker (or bourgeois Urban Leaguer) wants to take a swing at me so be it.

Obama has signed on with white chauvinism against the Arab world. His behavior on Iraq is despicable.  His knee jerk defense of the Israel bombings of Lebanon and of the January 2008 Gaza blockade.seige...again despicable.  Also less than inspiring is his position on Latino immigration, which mirrors the chavinism of white American towards blacks: limited entrance only for  "good" ones, who play by the masters\' rules. 

"Left deviationism!" Are you ex CP? Current?  I\'m 36 percent Trotskyist these days; the percentage is going up.. I saw the "People\'s World" (or whatever the CP paper is these days)  the other day and they\'re in love with Obama...you\'d think he was FDR circa 1936.  They have a much healther perspective over at socialistworker.org

Things need to move forward whoever the next corporate-appointed president is. They need to move forward beneath and beyond the corporate-crafted candidate-centered mass-marekted quadrennial election extravaganza: beware of (what Charles Derber calls) the Election Trap!  (I think left-anarchs have a sometimes healthier perspective on the ballot box).  I\'m not sure progressive sorts won\'t have a healthier sense of making a tactical vote and then having to push the White House left if its Hillary, who is actually (how perverse is this?) to your hero\'s left (admittedtly not by much) on domestic policy (though not on foreign policy, where she is very dangerous, and where presidents actually have the greatest policy-making power). The messianism surrounding Dali Obama is a problem.

Still, if I was in PA I might have voted for him just because it is obvious that deluded progressives need to see him in power to figure out what he\'s actually about....the disappointed risen expectations could provide useful on the model of the JFK farce and the rise of the New Left.  I hope you are thinking in such dialectical Obamanist terms, suggested in a  recent Doug Henwood LBO column.

I\'m glad you are going to take Obama to task on Iran.

The affluent professorial know-it-all Obamanists in Iowa City won\'t take him to task on anything. They have no dialectic.  

Since it matters to beat McCain, I suggest you start up a movement to draft Edwards at the convention.  Here\'s a good line from JRE last year: 

"The choice we must make is as important as it is clear. It is a choice between corporate power and the power of democracy...It is caution versus courage. Calculation versus principle.  It is the establishment elites versus the American people. Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected...It’s a game that never ends, but every American knows – it’s time to end the game.”

BarAxlerod from corporate Chicago is not going to end the game; he\'s playing it like crazy, on numerous levels.

I saw all the candidates out here in Iowa a whole bunch. i started out open-minded, but Obama was so awful....boring, professorial, bloodless, and one lie after another. And so arrogant and know it all--- very hard to take...no wonder the professors out here liked hm so much! While I had no illusions about Iraq Holocaust denier Edwards (especially on foreign policy....the article I cite titled " \' We\'ve Done More than Talk" and the one titled "Imperial Temptations" take him to task as well), he was so much better than your guy and Hillary just from a basic progressive perspective --- ran to their left, much better on class, race, nuclear power, and (actually even) Iraq than Obama ---- it wasn\'t even funny. It wasn\'t even close.  Same for the campaign staffs. It was night and day. And guess what: he kicked McCain\'s butt in the last match up polls before money, corporate media and the bourgeois caucus system (which gives an outsized vote to the upper middle class) killed his surprisingly populist campaign. 

So if you are all into electoral politics and such, that\'s what I\'d suggest: try to start a movement to bring back Edwards and put the "Democratic Party" (not sure it even exists as an election-worthy entity at the end of the day) in a position to win. Right now its looking surprisingly bad.

And my point remains: Holocaust denier David Duke didn\'t actually engage in the Nazi Holocaust.  Obama has actually voted funds for and provided cover for the assault on Iraq, which has led to a Holocaust for the Iraqi people.  And you would be quite right to note that Edwards despicably voted to authorize the invasion in 2002.

What a great political system we have.

Reply this comment


586561

Passing a Test

By Davidson, Carl at Apr 23, 2008 06:38 AM

So Obama\'s worse than David Duke and a \'silver-tongued pseudo-progressive "JFK in sepia"\'.

One serious test of whether one\'s comments here are laced with white chauvinism, albeit of the \'left\' variety, is whether you would deliver the same remarks with the same phrases at, say, Trinty UCC in Chicago, or at a meeting of the South Side Packinghouse / Food and Commercial workers workers.

You\'re familar with both venues, Paul. how do you think you would do? And you\'ve worked for John Edwards, so does he get the same vitriol? I can\'t see where his positions on the Middle East are in THAT different of a ball park. Does he get the \'worse than Duke\' award too?

Good grief, I\'d expect this stuff from Hannity, but the left?

We\'re publishing another piece tomorrow taking Obama to task on iran, but this says more about your state of subjectivity than it does about Obama. And i don\'t mean to pick on you for any personal reason, It\'s just that you\'ve been taking a fairly typical \'left deviationist\' line that we have to get over to move things forward.

 

 

Reply this comment


667474

Amiri Baraka

By Shadwell, Stu at Apr 23, 2008 03:40 AM

Also Amiri Baraka had a funny bit about blacks going to "top" schools through affirmative action and coming back "crazed negroes," and that was in a speech that supported Obama but only in combination with the black community and other leftists putting pressure on him to act accordingly womans suffrage/civil rights style.

Reply this comment


667474

Socialization

By Shadwell, Stu at Apr 23, 2008 03:31 AM

That bit about elite socialization I say damn almost all political science type classes. I didn\'t go to a fancy school like Obama, but in a Poli-sci class on Latin America one of the essay questions was "Do you think it was a good or bad thing for the Nixon administration to overthrow the Allende government," I really should have responded with an essay called "Do you think it was a good idea for Hitler to invade Poland?" Why that should even be a serious question is beyond me. The even sadder thing is the fools who lined up to defend Nixon\'s actions. And course everything is framed within a broad orientalization; "How was the CIA coup in Chile good for America or how was it bad for America," no sentiment for or opinion taken from the Chileans who from the photos are obviously suffering. I was actually introduced to real-leftist positions from a Marxist in the english department.

Reply this comment

Loading_border