Zcom_simple

114

Responding to the Letter to the Left Establishment regarding Obama




Change Text Size a- | A+


"A so-called Letter to the Left Establishment critical of the Obama administration has been circulating for a few days.  The letter is a bit odd because if you do not read it carefully, it appears that the people named in the first paragraph, including yours truly, are actually asking people to sign on.  In reality the Letter is a criticism of several individuals who offered varying degrees of support to the candidacy of President Obama in 2008.  On the grounds of confusion alone the Letter should be withdrawn and the signatories should request that their names be removed.

 

"But what is odder to me is that the Letter has all sorts of implications.  The Letter calls upon those named in the first paragraph to criticize the policies of the Obama administration, as if we have not.  It implies that we have been silent about major decisions of the Obama administration that have been wrong.  It recites a list of decisions, approaches, etc., by the Obama administration as if any of this is new to those of us identified in the first paragraph.

 

"None of this is new.  And the authors of the Letter should know that. In fact, if they happened to have been in a cave for the last couple of years and did not keep up with the news, they could have Googled the names of most of the people listed in the first paragraph and found that we have been generally outspoken in our criticisms as well as involved in organizing to put pressure on the administration.

 

"For these reasons i have been trying to figure out what the intent of the Letter actually is.

 

"I am not going to speak for anyone else.  In 2008 i reluctantly came to the conclusion that a position of critical support of Obama was the correct stand.  "Reluctantly" because i had a number of concerns about Obama, most of which have been realized.  Nevertheless i was impressed by the congealing of forces that i believed had the potential to do something progressive in the political realm irrespective of the actions of Obama-the-individual.  I actually still believe that this is possible and not too late.

 

"In 2008, i and several others mentioned in the Letter also suggested that if there was no pressure from the Left and progressives on Obama, assuming he was elected, that we would find ourselves in deep trouble.  In fact, people used to joke with me immediately before and immediately after the November 2008 election because i would be asked how much of a honeymoon period Obama should receive and my answer was always the same:  "24 hours."  I insisted, as did many of my colleagues, that we could not, in effect, give Obama any honeymoon period and that pressure had to start from the beginning.  We were correct.

 

"The Letter reads as if those named in the first paragraph have been sitting on their hands or standing at the gates refusing to permit the masses to pass through and challenge Obama.  I am not sure whether the authors are standing in some parallel universe, but in this one i see no evidence of that at all.  There are differences, some over tactics while others over strategy, among those named in the first paragraph, but precisely for that reason it is odd that the names would all be thrown together as if someone were actually trying to stir up confusion and promote disinformation.  I don't know, but i have actually seen a film much like this before.

 

"So, assuming that there is loving intent from the authors--and i am certainly not critical of the signatories--then i would say, i agree with many of the criticisms they have offered of the Obama administration; i have offered many of those criticisms already; i have been active, as have most of my colleagues, in trying to engage liberal and progressive social forces in the need to both combat the political Right as well as put the pressure on the Democrats; and, guess what?  I will continue to, and i am assuming that my colleagues will as well.

 

"Oh, and while i am at it, one thing that the authors of the Letter did not address was the question of the African American electorate.  I don't know about you, but how we handle the question of this administration is particularly dicey when the African American electorate feels, overwhelmingly, that Obama is under an intense racist assault from the political Right (which is, as you know, quite correct).  This basic question of the African American electorate and huge portions of the Latino electorate means that our electoral tactics in the coming two years will have to be handled very carefully, even while we put the pressure on this administration and struggle against its defense of warmed over neo-liberalism.

 

"It might have been a good idea, and this is only a suggestion, for the authors of the Letter to have reached out to those mentioned in the first paragraph rather than trying to embarrass us.  It certainly would have been more principled, but it would have also made them look less foolish or mis-informed yet well-intentioned individuals (which ever applies) when one examines the actual record.

 

"In solidarity,

 

Bill Fletcher,Jr.

-- 
Co-author of "Solidarity Divided:  The Crisis in Organized Labor and A New Path Toward Social Justice"
See:  http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/11121.html

Check out the Youtube interview regarding Solidarity Divided:  http://www.youtube.com/user/afgeonline#p/a/u/1/ek9Sz5R6lgU

187647_730172866_4211116_n

Re: Responding to the Letter to the Left Establishment regarding Obama

By Moorey, Crip at Dec 17, 2010 09:21 AM

Michael Yates, another of the signees of the open letter in question, has posted a response to some of the "left establishment's" responses on his website here.

Reply this comment


Person

Why I signed

By Weber, Mark at Dec 16, 2010 13:36 PM

 I signed the letter, when it was presented here on ZCom, because I agreed with its criticisms of the Obama administration, and not because I necessarily agreed with its implication that the individuals mentioned (with whose views I was not in all cases thoroughly familiar) have been unduly lax in their criticisms of Obama.   
Although I certainly understand (and understood) why the cited Left Establishment activists might take umbrage at a misrepresentation of their views, and I certainly had no wish to contribute in any way to such a misrepresentation, I considered this a relatively minor issue.
In other words, to me, the main issue was Obama and how the Left (in general) should be criticizing and pressuring him more than it is-------not whether the particular individuals cited have been delinquent in this regard.

Reply this comment


Glacier_k_256

Reread the letter

By Keller, Keith at Dec 13, 2010 21:51 PM

Bill Fletcher has totally misrepresented the letter from the left. The letter is not criticizing him or the other people mentioned in the first paragraph, rather, it is identifying them as high profile progressives and asking them to “actively support protests against the Obama administration.” It criticizes the Obama administration, not the people in the first paragraph, and concludes by specifically requesting their support for “the civil disobedience action being planned by Veterans for Peace involving Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Joel Kovel, Medea Benjamin, Ray McGovern, several armed service veterans and others to take place in front of the White House on Dec. 16th.” Seems clear enough to me. Why the misrepresentation?

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

586561

Re: Reread the letter

By Davidson, Carl at Dec 14, 2010 15:08 PM

Because the letter does more than that. It wants them to quit groups like PDA, or have PDA fold up and join the Greens, and to stop supporting the Democrats in the Progressive Caucus and the Black Caucus, and to oppose Trumka and stop working with the GOTV efforts of the trade unions as well.  In brief and in effect, it wants the left to drive a wedge between itself and much of the trade unions and most of the African American community.

Thanks, but no thanks. We can find a better way to wage struggle vs wars and austerity, and the White House involvement with them. The demo in DC is no big deal. I'll endorse it right here. But I doubt it will do what these folks think it will, and I wish I were wrong on that assessment. My advice to them is that if they want more street heat, get busy organizing it. It's not crowded.  We do it at every sensible opportunity, from local vigils to One Nation to the SOA events at Ft Benning.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Glacier_k_256

Re: Re: Reread the letter

By Keller, Keith at Dec 14, 2010 19:45 PM

"Because the letter does more than that. It wants them to quit groups like PDA, or have PDA fold up and join the Greens, and to stop supporting the Democrats in the Progressive Caucus and the Black Caucus, and to oppose Trumka and stop working with the GOTV efforts of the trade unions as well.  In brief and in effect, it wants the left to drive a wedge between itself and much of the trade unions and most of the African American community."

Please quote the lines from the “Open Letter to the Left Establishment” which says any of this. I have reread this short letter several times and I cannot find anything of the sort. You, like Bill Fletcher, are misrepresenting the letter to create a straw man which you then attack. If you or Bill Fletcher or Michael Albert have criticisms of the letter or the planned action, please confine yourself to the issue and address it honestly rather than misrepresent it.



Reply this comment

Comment_reply

586561

Re: Re: Re: Reread the letter

By Davidson, Carl at Dec 15, 2010 04:52 AM

Sorry, but since I could not find any assertions in the letter about those named that was true, I figured something else was the subtext as to what was really their agenda. So I went to their site, protestobama.org, to get their political platform. That is where they spell out their third partyism. But you're right, it's not in the text itself. My apologies.

Reply this comment


067

Re: Reread the letter

By Green, Chris at Dec 15, 2010 04:35 AM

I think it is the impression of the writers of the letter that the targets of the letter have been too mild and indirect in their criticism of Obama. I think it is particularly urgent that strong, intelligent criticism of the Obama administration be made. The Democrats are in some ways more sinister than the Republicans as they present themselves to the public as a progressive alternative to the Republicans when, in reality, they largely adopt  the same policies as the Republicans. The criticisms offered to Obama by most of the targets of the letter seem too cautious and infrequent compared to the gravity of harm done by Obama's policies. It would be nice if the targets of the letter offered criticism of Obama with the same level of heat they attacked Bush. Fletcher is actually one of the better people among the targets of the letter in terms of his criticism of Obama. But he writes that he thinks the grassroots forces mobilized by Obama in 08' can still be mobilized for serious progressive causes. I think it was silly to ever think that the people mobilized to vote for Obama could be molded into a progressive force. For one, alot of grassroots Obama enthusiasts were mobilized by Obama's personal charisma and had little real grasp of the particulars of policies. As Fletcher has said, alot of Obama enthusiasts engaged in wishful thinking about Obama. But Fletcher and others did little to try to dispel this wishful thinking during the 08' campaign. Rather predictably, the Obama "movement" completely collapsed not long after Obama took office because it wasn't based much on anything but Obama's charisma and the "business as usual" drift of the Administration's policies demoralized them.  If the people mobilized by Obama's 08' campaign are to ever be re-mobilized, then the targets of the letter are going to have to contribute by using their prestige to unequivocally and frequently attack Obama's policies. Michael Moore is going to have to get rid of his asinine man crush on Obama. Obama should be attacked as harshly as Bush was attacked. They should pay attention to the harmful effects of Obama's policies as much as they focus upon Tea Party shenanigans and crazy rhetoric. They're going to have to be honest with people and not use the "Tea Party/Republicans as racist" excuse for not trying to mobilize people against Obama's policies. It is imperative that the targets of this letter, and every other serious person, concentrate on spreading left wing solutions rather than getting caught up in "working within the system" exercises that often ruin opportunities for real political education.

Reply this comment


586561

Re: Reread the letter

By Davidson, Carl at Dec 15, 2010 15:43 PM

How about if I penned an 'open letter' to you, Keith, asking you to change your ways and start opposing Obama on the war in Afghanistan? Would to get the implied insult then?

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Glacier_k_256

Re: Re: Reread the letter

By Keller, Keith at Dec 15, 2010 18:30 PM

Carl, here we go again. Please indicate where in the letter the addressees are asked to change their ways and start opposing Obama on the war in Afghanistan? The letter is a request for high profile progressives to support upcoming direct action non-violent civil disobedience beginning with the December 16th action. Yes, this requested support would constitute an increase in opposition to the trajectory of the Obama administration, however, support for this action does not necessarily imply support for each any every position of the various participants. If the positions of the participants or the organizing entity presents a problem for the addressees, all they have to do is say that they cannot support this action because they disagree with the goals and objectives of some/all of the participants. I think that would be far better than continuing to read things into the letter. No doubt a public letter like this is intended as a challenge to the recipients to increase their level of opposition. What is wrong with that? We have entered a period of rapidly escalating business/government assaults on our constitutional rights and economic well-being. Under these circumstances, I think that increased opposition to these policies is both appropriate and essential. As for Afghanistan, I have always opposed the US aggression in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

586561

Re: Re: Re: Reread the letter

By Davidson, Carl at Dec 15, 2010 19:02 PM

This is getting silly, Keith. If all they want was an endorsement for the DC action, all they had to do was make a call and ask.

Reply this comment


1

Fooled

By Albert, Michael at Dec 13, 2010 13:49 PM

I actually thought the letter was signed by, even authored by, those in the first paragraph. I read quickly, too quickly, apparently. I think I may have signed it - there are so many letters and petitions I get, I am not sure. At any rate my public apologies for my careless reading....

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

067

Re: Fooled

By Green, Chris at Dec 15, 2010 04:37 AM

MIke, could you be more clear as to why you are apologizing? Do you think the letter was an unfair criticism of Fletcher, Ehrenreich, Moore, etc.?

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

1

Re: Re: Fooled

By Albert, Michael at Dec 16, 2010 15:11 PM

The letter I received to sign said it was from, not to, the named individuals. Obviously very different. When I saw it posted as to, not from, we pulled the from version we had put up. As a letter to the named folks, I had two problems. First why personalize it at all? The issue is ideas and beliefs, and mainly institutions, not individuals. Second, if one does feel a need to address individuals, which is ra a positive approach in cases like this, those addressed should have been contacted to determine their actual views. What sense does it make to call people out for things they may think, one must be sure. .

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

067

Re: Re: Re: Fooled

By Green, Chris at Dec 17, 2010 04:36 AM

I think you, like Fletcher,  may be mis-interpreting the letter. Buy why not use the letter as the basis for a debate about strategy vis a vis Obama? The letter has been signed by numerous luminaries on the left, including Chomsky, and about 4500 signatures overall. The letter obviously reflects the belief of many on the radical left that certain established left figures have been way too low key in their criticism of Obama. It asks these people to use their prestige for more direct demonstrations of resistance to Obama, like today's demonstration in front of the White House. The letter addresses the issue of how to approach hegemonic institutions in the age of Obama. Obviously the roots of the letter are rooted in disagreement about support for Obama's 08' campaign. Whatever the problems there may be with the letter, it does express the feelings of alot of people.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

1

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fooled

By Albert, Michael at Dec 26, 2010 16:33 PM

Hi,

I am sorry for the delay in replying - it seems a bit dated now so I will try to broaden the point a bit. I have been struggling with recuperating from an eye operation and am not really able to work..indeed, there may be more delays in replies...

I didn't confuse the letter. Instead, as noted - the version I got to sign, which I did sign, in fact, said it was sent from - and not to - the named parties. The letter had an incorrect word - from - instead of the word that appeared in other versions that I had not seen, to. You will surely see the difference. 

When I became aware that the letter I signed was not, in fact, the intended letter, I removed the mistaken letter - and I also found myself not liking the real one much even if the mistake was entirely inadvertent - which I assume it was. I did not like that the real letter was directed to a few individuals - not only because I had no way of knowing their particular views, and actually doubted they were personally all that confused, and in any event certainly saw no reason to single the named folks out - but also because just the idea of personalizing the statement made little sense to me. Beyond that, honestly, the real letter is so utterly obvious in its positive and accurate content about obama, that to sign it seemed a bit like saying one is against murder, or mayhem, etc. Of course everyone knows now - whoever may not have known earlier - what Obama is about. 

And there is another reason, as well. The letter, if I remember correctly, talks about a left establishment - but again, it personalizes, giving some names and referring only to them. My guess is that very very few of those who signed the letter  - to be honest about this - have had much to say in a critical and constructive sense about WHY there is a left establishment and WHAT constitutes its defining features, much less how things might be improved. This issue is not a matter of individuals - it is rather a matter of institutions and their structures, not even just passing policies. As I have often addressed these mattes I felt signing this was actually weakening, not strengthening, what I believe on that score. Making believe the problem is people - not institutions - simply misses the whole point, just as it does to focus on bush, obama, etc. instead of structures in the U.S.

Indeed, if you look back, and ask what caused the lack of awareness of likely results of a switch from bush to obama among a significant number of progressive citizens who were fiercely against bush, the real basis for that confusion, I would suggest, was the incredibly personal focus on bush this and bush that, year after year - as if the problem was him, an individual, and not the structures of wealth and power that existed while he was in the white house, and now while obama is there, too.

Reply this comment

Loading_border