Oh I Get It, The Left Just Doesn't Want to Win This Year

prag•ma•tism
-noun. character or conduct that emphasizes practicality.

I have some respect for practicality. You know, a few voices sharing how to impact the big picture, in the way the entire body desires. Instead of all parts walking one foot forward -- one hand is picking the ear, the other is flushing the toilet; the head is mulling over a memory, and the mouth is talking about something else altogether. And the funny thing is, all the parts are really proud of the work they're doing. Look at how kick-ass my toilet flushing is! Did you SEE that shit?! Perhaps this is the burden of the big tent agenda: so many voices, how do they all coalesce? In the end, what do we want?

What do I want?

I want Obama to win. And these recent events disturb me:

1. The New York Times story this week on the Muslims who felt snubbed by the Obama campaign. I think it's probably arguable that being Muslim is not a campaign asset in America right now, while this country fights a "War on Terror" (which includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bugging selected phones and emails, detaining people at Guantanamo prison and probably other sites around the world). The public, with the help of some media and politicians, has conflated the religious and cultural signifiers of Islam with terror -- the most horrific fusion of course was the confusion of the (secular) state of Iraq with a country harboring "weapons of mass destruction." But the mistakes abound, even the great don of national security, John McCain, can't get his facts straight, he's more than once been tripped up over who's Sunni and Shia, and the ever-mysterious Al Qaeda in Iraq. In this climate and what's so odd about the fallout from this NYT story is that it seems to ignore the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is still working to win over the large majority of Americans -- who are white, working class or women. These people, dare I say it, are having to learn to be big enough to not make race or their sores from the previous primary battle an issue. They do not need to be sold that Obama-hearts-the-Muslim-community, if anything, that might be an additional thing they need to get-over. (And, if you're cringing at this notion of selling -- or if you're sad because some people are being snubbed, I would say this: this is about winning, not feeling good. When I was a kid, I sat in class and read about slave masters who were also national leaders and great thinkers and I sat there and thought -- these guys were criminals. But they weren't and they were. They were both. This is the reality that people of color live in every day; the rubber never hits the road; the dream is always at a distance; the good life is really always for someone else. It's a pragmatic reality, not a nice neat one where everything is fair.) Obama is simply being pragmatic about how he is being perceived by the larger public, a public that does not wholly embrace Islam.

2. Mr. Nader. I think the strategy many have taken is to ignore him as a spoiler, who's grown strange in his old age. Aside from the obvious -- that Obama is looking to be president for all people and thus cannot only be an advocate for blacks -- my thinking on his statements this week about Obama -- is that attacking the candidate on grounds of his whiteness or blackness does not help the larger project -- my project -- of having him win. Nader seems to be saying that doing what is required to win is wrong, that as he says, "talking white" or appealing to "white guilt" in his quest to win the White House is wrong. Nader shows here a dis-ease at connecting with the practical skills required to be able to win-over the vast majority of Americans -- who are white.

Further, I'm puzzled by his notion of "white guilt." Perhaps here Nader is projecting his own emotions onto Obama: What might Nader feel guilty about? What does he feel burdened by? The privilege of being a white man, who thinks he can tell a black man how to be black? Do black men tell white men how to best serve the white community? This is an interesting turn and makes the Nader story a larger, more relevant one: There were echoes of this from Don Imus this week, in the sense that the older generation seems un-moored in a way. It is flawed to tell colored people how to act regarding their identity. My uncle is a perfect example of someone who understands this implicitly. We were talking this week and I should add that he's from my mom's side, so he's white, and he said:

"Logan, you know when you were seven, I said to you, 'how was St. Patrick's Day? And you know what you said?"

(I didn't remember.)

"You said, 'I'm not Irish.'" He paused. "Everyone's an expert," he said.

I got his drift. He was saying that until you've lived as a person of color or in a mixed bag family, you really have no right to tell anyone who they are or what they should be. Painful as it may be, that's each individual person's territory. Nader and his like would like distract us from this plain fact.

3. FISA. The Dems caved last week in the House, and this week the Senate tabled the discussion till July, despite some hemming-and-hawing over how bad some feel about warrantless wiretapping. The prolific net-roots people (I guess that's us) in the meantime have been vociferously sticking it to Obama, who wouldn't stand up against his party on the FISA issue, as in this Politico article. There is a kind of synchronicity here: Politico uses the word "jilted", the NYT uses the word "snub", Nader tries to imply Obama has turned away from blacks, all of these voices talk of the guy as if he were at a dance -- instead of trying to win a race. What I like about the FISA issue is that it shows how the Left has put so much on Obama to solve this particular problem, when the real crisis is how ineffective the Democratic leadership has been on the most principle issue: How do we make ourselves safe? How do we live with those we are in conflict with? The Dems, so far, don't have a good alternative -- We're like the hawks, but nicer, they seem to be saying with their actions. Or worse still -- we're really good at fighting with ourselves. Bottom line: Obama is clawing his way to the top of a political culture that is upside down. He's a pragmatist, not a messiah. He has to win in order to make the changes I want. What merit is there in attacking him for his stance on FISA, now? Attack Pelosi and Reid for not framing the issue for what it is: CYA for the telecoms and themselves for peeping into our lives and not protecting our rights.

I wonder, as the rabble devours itself, attacking its own candidate... what's John McCain's doing: probably laughing as he sees the path to victory in November.

Comments

[DANIELLECLARKE]

IN "OBAMA I TRUST"

[tommybones]

Thank God for Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

To all the Obama supporters, like voxlisa999 and Inaru etc, who believe we should sit on our hands with regards to Obama's support of the FISA bill and other things right wing, Greenwald effectively guts that thinking on practical, political terms. Give it a read...

[TheInsomniac]

Did you actually read the post on this page or are you simply daft?

Democrats need to MOVE ON, now, or we're going to be handing the presidency back to the GOP in November. Obama's job is not to worry about the past transgressions of some companies, the trials of which would DO NOTHING for the future. His job is to establish a new precedent with the executive branch, and, if we're lucky, to try the criminal members of THIS ADMINISTRATION, not AT&T for f***'s sake.

[tommybones]

Did YOU actually read the many cogent, thoughtful posts on this thread that COMPLETELY DEBUNK your argument???? Apparently not...

It would be refreshing for the johnny-come-lately's to actually read the arguments of their fellow bloggers before blindly ripping into them... for f***'s sake.

[tommybones]

Here:

This would be a great article, if not for the fact that the entire premise is bogus! Here's a quiz:

Which of these are purely "leftist" issues:
a) holding the Bush Administration accountable for its rampant lawbreaking.
b) holding telecoms accountable for their rampant lawbreaking
c) protecting our 4th amendment rights
d) none of the above, as the former three choices are issues that not only effect the overwhelming majority of the citizenry, but are SEEN as important by that same majority of citizens, including many on the right.

Ms. Pollard fell into the trap laid by our corporate overlords in the mainstream media of believing these core issues belong to the "loony left," when in actuality, these issues speak to the very spine of democratic principles as well as the CRUX of Obama's campaign rhetoric of "change and accountability."

Ms. Pollard also forgets, all too soon, how the Democrats promised in the lead up to the 2006 mid-term elections, an end to the war and a new Congress that would hold the lawless Bush administration accountable, IF ONLY WE SIT TIGHT AND BE PRAGMATIC. We've seen how well that turned out.

Ms. Pollard can certainly wait until Obama is elected if she so chooses. Then she can wait until the 2010 mid-terms, followed once again by the 2012 re-election campaign, all the while gently mocking those on the "left" who aren't being "pragmatic" enough, OR she can demand more out of her leadership.

[lyla tharp]

I believe in miracles!

[akber]

Obama is a strategist par excellence. And to explain strategy is to weaken it.

Brownback's tirade was *because* he threw the RNC off-balance in the past week. Yes, he threw most of you off-balance also, but the RNC lost their biggest attack hammer and have to re-tool.

Perhaps it will make sense if I venture to say that he let the Rev. Wright controversy drag on and on and on -- all the while totally erasing the average person's doubt about his religion, which were getting serious around that time. The more people heard 'he sat 20 years on the church pew', the less anyone other than the deranged would consider him a Muslim.

It is the same strategy here - it is brilliant - almost devious!

I read about Obama every day, trying to get into his head. Either he is what most of you idealists say a weasly flip-flopper -- or he is the most brilliant politician I have seen in my life. Time will tell.

[tommybones]

You assume much...

[pmorlan]

Evidently you don't get it.

[Sundialsvc4]

Electronic machines with no paper trail will "elect" our public officials from now on.

No, I am not joking. No, I am not being cynical. Go and look for yourself.

When people cease to demand that a government work, and to work fairly, then the government fails, and when that government fails, the people's protections against all kinds of abominable despotisms is lost. And so the despots come, in great number.

It's called "history," Logan. And we are no more immune to it than have been the citizens of any of the other nations throughout time: nations which have risen, and subsequently fallen, before ours and in the self-same manner.

[tommybones]

This would be a great article, if not for the fact that the entire premise is bogus! Here's a quiz:

Which of these are purely "leftist" issues:
a) holding the Bush Administration accountable for its rampant lawbreaking.
b) holding telecoms accountable for their rampant lawbreaking
c) protecting our 4th amendment rights
d) none of the above, as the former three choices are issues that not only effect the overwhelming majority of the citizenry, but are SEEN as important by that same majority of citizens, including many on the right.

Ms. Pollard fell into the trap laid by our corporate overlords in the mainstream media of believing these core issues belong to the "loony left," when in actuality, these issues speak to the very spine of democratic principles as well as the CRUX of Obama's campaign rhetoric in regards to "change and accountability."

Ms. Pollard also forgets, all too soon, how the Democrats promised in the lead up to the 2006 mid-term elections, an end to the war and a new Congress that would hold the lawless Bush administration accountable, IF ONLY WE SIT TIGHT AND BE PRAGMATIC. We've seen how well that turned out.

Ms. Pollard can certainly wait until Obama is elected if she so chooses. Then she can wait until the 2010 mid-terms, followed once again by the 2012 re-election campaign, all the while gently mocking those on the "left" who aren't being "pragmatic" enough, OR she can demand more out of her leadership.

[pmorlan]

Now here's someone who GETS IT!

[tommybones]

Thanks for the kind words.

[FightForJustice]

I wish I could have said this as eloquently...but I'll just say, I could not agree more.

[tommybones]

Thanks for the kind words.

[jeanrenoir]

A dirty little secret in America is that the hardcore "left" is overwhelmingly made up of PC whites. These self-righteous purists are the opposite of FDR, JFK, LBJ, and the other giants of the American liberal tradition. All of these winners, unlike the purists, were practical politicians interested FIRST in winning, and understanding that that can ONLY be accomplished in America with compromise and moving towards "the vital center," where the key swing votes are. PC white purist are perfectly capable of taking the attitude that they don't care if Obama's election would be the greatest political triumph in the history of American blacks, and would be the greatest advance for poor blacks since the end of slavery on the one hand and the murders of King and Malcolm X on the other. These PC whites would be happy to blow up all this racial progress in order to defend "the snail darter," so to speak, meaning whatever their finatical true believer litmus test happens to be. As much as the radical right, these PC purists are the worst enemies of incremental political progressivism in America. Nader and his fool supporters succeeded in defeating Gore and giving us the Iraq War and the Bush Supreme Court as a result. What do this years leftist purists want for dessert--the permanent occupation of Iraq and war with Iran, not to mention the end of Roe v. Wade under President McCain?

[tommybones]

This ignores the fact that the modern mainstream Democratic party and GOP are two sides of the same filthy coin; both planted firmly on the RIGHT. This farce of a pseudo-democracy is clearly seen in the Democratic vs. Republican "debates," which implies that the two are not in fact the same business party, with common goals (imperialist power and corporate control for profit for the wealthy elite) and only slightly varying strategies and tactics for achieving those goals. The Democrats believe it's a smarter move to let some crumbs fall to the masses to keep them complacent, while the GOP believes you don't have to give any crumbs away when a truly strong propaganda campaign can fool the "bewildered herd" easily enough.

In effect, the "vital center" you waxed so poetically about DOESN'T EXIST ANY LONGER.

Nader and his followers, as well as the rest of the "PC whites" you decry may be spoiling the party, but to blame them for the results of the actions (more appropriately, the IN-ACTIONS) of the masses, is a mistake... and it's ignorant.

[Voxlisa999]

He is a BLACK man and at least 15% of the country believes he is a MUSLIM and another 20% believe he might be a MUSLIM. I'm not sure how many believe he is a TERRORIST. But OK, he should just hand the Smear 'n Fear crowd the perfect weapon to use against him - "if this man wouldn't protect America as Senator along with the rest of his Party, do you really think he would protect us a President?"
What Obama is doing now is to avoid giving the opposition anything to hang him with in the Fall. You say they are going to call him soft on terror anyway- and they probably will. But without having something to back it up doesn't make it a very strong argument now does it?
Let the man get into office! What you are not realizing is that change comes in small steps. Most of the country is center right; moderate; whatever you want to call it. Too many people fail to see the other side of an issue.
Yeah, vote agaisnt funding for the war in Iraq and what then? Cause an international crisis? Leave the troops "on their own" and become an even bigger embarrassment and laughingstock third rate country? We have to be extremely careful getting out- we can't just leave overnight. I wish we could - but that's not possible no matter who is President. Let's just get him and more Dems elected and then we'll have reform.

[tommybones]

You need to actually read many of the cogent, thoughtful posts in this comment section, which completely debunk the ludicrous myth that he "has to vote for this bill so he isn't painted as weak on terror."

Take the time.... learn something. I'm not going to repeat myself for the 10th time in this regard. Feel free to click on my profile and see the arguments against your short-sighted viewpoint.

[Inaru]

I'll say it over and over again - where was the outrage when this same surveillance was illegally made a standard operating procedure in ghettos? The hypocrisy reeks, and expecting the black male candidate who is facing more than most of these posters and critics can imagine in his effort to be seen as a human being, never mind a man, never mind a leader, is just smug and looks it - and that's not an attractive look!

I do a lot more than read and blog, I've called voters from Iowa to Kentucky, including Guam and Puerto Rico. I can't begin to count how many, when I gain their confidence, almost whisper "But I'm afraid if he gets in all the black people will rise up!" - in English and in Spanish.

Or maybe it's ignorance, as if this spying hasn't been going on for decades. That's also not an attractive look, so read a history book, like The FBI and Martin Luther King Jr.

Again, do you honestly believe taking these people to court will stop their spying? Do you? I have a bridge I want you to see, I swear, you can't live another day without owning it!

[Voxlisa999]

Totally agree with you- someone is trying to stir up Obama supporters into raging against him. Mmmm, I wonder where that would be coming from? Sounds like a Rove plot to me.

[tommybones]

You assume much about those who are criticizing Obama's stance here, without anything to back this condemnation besides your own simple rhetoric. Additionally, your response PROVES you haven't bothered to read my posts on the subject... political discourse requires that you not only spout off, but LISTEN to the other points of view. For instance, can you explain to me how criticism of anyone backing this bill automatically means they are unaware of government spying in the past? Like COINTELPRO? I'm fully aware of the egregious lawbreaking history of our government. Again, you assume much. You also erroneously assume there was "no outrage" on my part. Based on what? Your psychic abilities?

Meanwhile, all your hemming and hawing avoids any real reasoning as to why we MUST sit on our hands to the same crimes now. Apparently we must simply protect Obama based on his RACE. Is that seriously what we should do? Even when his position on this bill is corrupt, unnecessary AND UNPOPULAR WITH VOTERS? For reasons I have explained in detail on this and other threads?

[loper2008]

Great post!!!!!

[repearwo]

Amen!

[wwsword]

Race neutrality is a manifestation of white supremacy. Race-neutral language means to dissmulate the racist character of the country. Colorblind liberalism is a form of racism. Saying that racism is not fundamental to American civilization is racist speech. Obama is the white establishment's black candidate. That's what Nader was saying. And he hit the nail on the head.

This has nothing to do with pragmatism. A black man standing with the white establishment to advance the racist project is not an acceptable act of pragmatism for those concerned with advancing civil rights. This has to do with whether you stand with racists or against them. Obama is standing with them. If he were to lose because he stood against racism, then this would be because of racism. When he loses in November, it will less about his blackness than about his inauthenticity.

It does appear that the liberal left (let's not leave the word "left" unqualified, please) doesn't want to win this year. I think white liberals seek a symbolic accomplishment over any real accomplishment. I think they want to pat themselves on the back.

[sparkandy]

Could you please translate that into English? I get the feeling you're trying to convey something meaningful, but I can't decipher it.

[nunzia]

Huh?

[tbone99]

Colorblind liberalism is a form of racism. Thank you wwsword for those true words.

And amnesia is not progress, it's a form of disassociation, a symptom of of mental illness.
Our history is not something to be blocked out so that we may keep repeating the same mistakes in newer forms. History is to understand how the wrongs occurred so that we can avoid repeating them
and actually heal and progress ( synonyms not different activites))

[tbone99]

Healing and progress are synonyms not different activites because until we remove the cause of injustice we can not freely move ahead .

The law was broken by the highest in the land - offering amnesty to them is a way to affirm
that these kind of egregious acts are acceptable, then ,now and in the future. There can be np premise of democracy when the laws are only for the powerless but not applied to the powerful.

[john456]

At the Progressive Convention in August 1912, Roosevelt sounded very
much the populist independent, saying: "The old parties are husks, with
no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and
privilege-controlled...This is class government, and class government of
a peculiarly unwholesome kind."

From Newsweek online

[clevelandchick]

No Logan, you don't get it. The FISA Bill is just another issue he's backtracked on in the few weeks he's been the Nom, he's 'changed his mind' on campaign finance and there is a story in Forbes right quoting Obama as saying that NAFTA is 'not that bad'.

He was progressive populist during the primary making beautiful fiery speeches defending the Constitution, against the new FISA bill, against NAFTA. Now his idiot handlers are telling him to tack to the the right to appeal to the 'mythical center' playing right into the hands of the GOP.

Senator Brownback in a conference call to reporters called Obama on every single one of those backtracks today - he brashly predicted Obama would flip-flop on Iraq next. That is THE GOP talking point....what Primary Obama said vs what General Election Obama says. It makes him look weak, opportunist, and unprincipled. The GOP is going to beat him over the head with his flip-flops, just like they did to Kerry.

The last successful Dem POTUS was Clinton who ran in the general as a progressive populist even if he didn't govern as one. Dems don't get elected trying to act like Republicans. Obama is screwing this up for himself, it's not The Left's fault.

[tbone99]

Why wouldn't we want a more secure nation?.Whoops, evidently it's because WE'RE the threat!

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2474/

[BillZBubb]

Obama's spiel throughout the primaries was that he was a "new" politician. He wasn't like those other people (for instance the Clintons) who would change their position just to get elected. Then changing or hedging to pull out a win was a cardinal sin. Now that Obama's won the nomination, changing positions isn't a sin, it's a strategy! It is a necessity!

Change you can believe in indeed.

[loper2008]

whatever. obama is change you can believe in. clinton would have provided good change too, but she lost. remember? this is the kind of thing logan is talking about. infighting. so you think obama is a hypocrite, who cares? is he a billion times better than john mccain? yes, he is.

[rasthedestroyer]

In pursuit of the perfect, let's not make evil of good.

[tbone99]

In pursuit of ambition lets not betray our principles .

[kasv]

Betray? So, you'd like McCain and ANOTHER republican reign takes charge? And, just what chance do you think there'd be of any criminal charges/investigations being brought against the Telcoms in a republican reign? Me - I'd rather have Obama elected and have the Telcoms fear criminal investigations. I believe the only protection afforded Telcoms in this current bill is quasi-protection aginast civil, not criminal, suits. So, join the republicans and right wing if you wish - that's what you're doing though you can't see past your nose to realize it. Not only joining them, but handing them the ammunition. They gotta love ya.

[Bagger]

Obama does have some huge huevos voting for FISA.