Progressives and Obama

By now, across the progressive spectrum, some familiar storylines tell us the meaning of the Obama campaign. In a groove, each narrative digs its truths. But whether those particular truths are the most important at this historical moment is another story.

We can set aside the plotline that touts Obama as a visionary pragmatist who has earned the complete trust of progressives. The belief has diminished in recent months -- in the wake of numerous Obama pronouncements on foreign policy, his FISA vote to damage the Fourth Amendment and the like -- but such belief was never really grounded in his record as a politician or his policy positions.

A more substantial narrative concedes that Obama has "compromised" on numerous fronts but assumes he has done so in order to get elected president, after which time his real self will emerge. This kind of dubious projection is as old as the political hills, and inevitably becomes a kind of murky exercise in armchair psychology. All in all, projection is not useful for assessing where political leaders are and where they're headed.

In contrast, quite a few on the left -- some from the outset of his presidential race, others beginning more recently -- express appreciable disdain for the Obama campaign. The critiques of Obama's positions on issues are often on the mark. Overall, the fact that Obama brings civility and intelligence to public discourse that would be a welcome change in the White House does not alter the corporate centrist core of his espoused policies.

No matter how much we might like to think that people's reasoning and logic are the essence of political judgments, actual experience tells us different: The political stances of many people, including on the left, are contoured around their own internal emotional terrain. And there may not be a lot of sorting through contradictions or analysis of the current historical circumstances.

Yet we're in great need of willingness to acknowledge contradictory truths, to sort through them as a means of finding the best progressive strategies for the here and now.

While some attacks on Obama from the left are overheated, overly ideological and mechanistic, there's scant basis for denying the reality that his campaign and his positions are way too cozy with corporate power. Meanwhile, his embrace of escalating the war in Afghanistan reflects acceptance rather than rejection of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."

To some, who evidently see voting as an act of moral witness rather than pragmatic choice (even in a general election), forces such as corporate power or militarism are binary -- like a toggle switch -- either totally on or totally off. This outlook says: either we reject entirely or we're complicit.

Such analysis tends to see Obama as just a little bit slower on the march to the same disasters that John McCain would lead us to. That analysis takes a long view -- but fails to see the profound importance of the crossroads right in front of us, where either Obama or McCain will be propelled into the White House.

Any progressive who watched the "faith" forum that Obama and McCain participated in on Aug. 16 would have good reasons to be negative when assessing some of Obama's answers. But McCain's responses were vastly more jingoistic, militaristic, fanatical and pro-corporate, while also making clear his enthusiasm for the worst of the current Supreme Court justices.

In an odd and ironic way, progressives who are unequivocal Obama boosters and unequivocal Obama bashers embrace similar concepts of limited alternatives in electoral work. They seem to rule out candidly critical support of a candidate -- viewing such an option as either a betrayal of the candidate or a betrayal of principles.

But supporting one candidate -- clearly preferable to the Republican -- should not require a lack of candor about the preferred candidate's defects. And progressive interests are not advanced by claiming, against the evidence, that it doesn't really matter which candidate wins.

We suffer from way too much political argumentation that seems to be on automatic pilot, either puffing up Obama as a paragon of progressive virtues or denying the real differences between him and McCain. The pretending that follows from faith or dogma is no way to mobilize a progressive movement.

__________________________________________

Norman Solomon is an elected Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Comments

[Vadim2]

I think my major disappointment with Obama did not come from my disagreement with his policies but rather the fact that he was so unapologetic in reversing positions he had previously promised to the American people. I know plenty of people who put their faith in Obama and were taken aback when he revealed himself to be a typical career politician. People are desperate for change and Obama offered it, except all of it was vague promises with lots of gloss but little substance.

That said, I still understand what's at stake here. Obama may be creeping towards the right but he's no McCain. I still want him to win.

In truth I'll probably vote third party. In Illinois my vote doesn't matter so I might as well vote in my real political interests, which lie in the Green Party. If Obama publicly revokes his support for FISA, I think I'll reconsider: http://tinyurl.com/5w9w9v

But until then I can't see myself supporting a candidate of weak integrity and empty promises.

[BTJ46]

Part two:
So, beyond parsing Senator Obama’s statements for conformity with our own positions and offering advice, progressives should be asking what we can learn from Obama’s campaign. There are many lessons to be learned – here is a start for discussion.
1. This should be obvious: there is a vast majority of Americans who, if spoken to with respect and listened to, support a progressive agenda, who want to do good as well as do well, and who want to feel good about their country and our role in the world. To have that dialog, we need to be open to new ideas and probably some old ones and not just impose predefined positions. And we need to keep the dialog going, agreeing to disagree on some subjects, while uniting around common interests and focusing on results not just process or tactics.
2. It is not about identity: whatever our personal oppression or interests, a movement needs to be about finding common ground and improving the lives of the vast majority, including those who don’t now agree with us. ‘Witnessing’ is not organizing. Self-righteousness is egotistical, not righteous.
3. Real change comes from the bottom up and requires hard work organizing. Despite his charisma, Senator Obama could easily have been another Kucinich without the hard work begun a year before the Iowa caucuses developing organization, organizers and infrastructure.

[BTJ46]

There is a story from many years ago about Amilcar Cabral, the leader of the liberation struggle in Guinea-Bissau that is still very relevant. Cabral held a meeting with American militants while visiting the UN sometime in the early 70’s. After listening for some time to the militants argue amongst themselves about the correct ‘line of march’ for liberation in the US, Cabral said “We must never forget that what people are fighting for is a better life for themselves and their families.”
We ‘progressives’ should remember that counsel. The Obama campaign has built a mass movement that involves a very diverse group of people who have never been directly involved in ‘progressive’ politics. This movement – albeit currently focused only on the election – involves hundreds of thousands of people not just in rallies but in the hard work of day to day organizing, door knocking, phone calling, organizing neighborhood meetings. The relationships and the phone lists and infrastructure to support that organization can last beyond the election as a real force for change.
In contrast, while ‘progressives’ have done much good, but mostly local, work over the past decade, there is no independent mass movement against the most unpopular war in our history, no mass movement for universal healthcare, and a labor movement with very little success in combating the increasing polarization of wealth in this country and around the world.

[bayside]

Thats why clark would be a good pick for Obama. Clark is smart, has morals and has guts. Dont know why anyone would want to go in a country after bush has bankrupted it ,had crooks in every office and has made us look like as a cruel corrupt nation in the worlds eye ,but Obama does ,and he is going to need all our help to clean up this mess...

[cayuse1]

After 911 the US CONSERVATIVE Administration and Congress was very PROGRESSIVE unleashing the Military, CIA, FBI, State Department, and NSA to find Bin Laden and Alkieda. There was no CONSERVATIVE evaluation of why, what, how and when or CONSERVATIVE view of International law, rule of law, the history of the Middle East Conflict or the role American played pre-911. Simply "you are for us or you are against us" and “we will not stop until the last terrorist is dead". This direction totally negated the opportunity to simply use CIA and FBI to hunt down 3000 common criminals. Instead we rushed head long into Military Action.

The Taliban offered a very CONSERVATIVE response to handing over Bin Laden. We want a guarantee of a fair trial and evidence of his involvement. We continued the PROGRESSIVE Military action and attacked the Taliban.

The Taliban was no more involved in with 911 than was Iraq.

What Obama needs to do is be CONSERVATIVE and return to a Foreign Policy stance pre-911. It may take very PROGRESSIVE action to turn the attitude and actions of the last 8 years, but it must be done. Otherwise after Pakistan, what is next Ireland?

It is time to take a PROGRESSIVE action and put the US Military, CIA and FBI back into the box. We need to lead with CONSERVATIVE diplomacy. Foreign Policy needs to be CONSERVATIVE based on international cooperation and not hawkish fear, "slight of words", and super power free will

[SEQUOIABISON]

Norman I am a big fan of yours, one of the few bloggers who is a true liberal peace-monger.

This is no time to be tinkering with and fine tuning the progressive doctrine, we are in serious trouble and in danger of sinking further into a morass of war and depression.

In case you have not noticed Obama is the only person standing between McCain and another disastrous administration that will continue to destroy our economy and further contribute to world chaos.

I think it is time to wholeheartedly and without stipulations or prerequisites support our only hope of returning America to its moral standing here at home and around the world.

Obama/Clark

[Lemeritus]

"...Obama is the only person standing between McCain and another disastrous administra­tion...."

And there you have it, in a nutshell. There is some consolation in knowing that, with the exception of Kucinich, no other primary candidate would have held to a more progressive path. And we have -- as an extra bonus -- a candidate who has captured the imagination of the world... just not the unqualified enthusiasm of enough voting Americans.

[laire]

I disagree with many points in the article especially on the fourm this past sat. If anything the thoughtfull answers Obama gave tells you this is an exceptional person who understands how complex many of the issues we face are. When you look at history and people like FDR who was a rich guy but was intelligent and was pushed by the people to do the right thing for the country I feel very good about Obama. I remember him talking at one of his stops after the FISA bill and he said look I'm progressive but your not going to agree with me a 100% of the time. However, he did say you will probably agree with me 90%. To all the nay says you need read his books and then you will have a better understanding of him. Obama is for universial health care for improving our educational system has a energy plan of 150 billion for the next 10 years. He has a larger understand of all the challanges of this country. He has always been a moderate to liberal democrat people who don't know this where simple projecting their own feelings on to him. Let's not live in some untopian world view like those neo-con nuts please enter the real with the rest of us!

[cayuse1]

My concern with Obama is that he still is clinging to the Progressive Foreign Policy of pursuing Bin Laden. It is time to put the War mongering Military, CIA, FBI, etc. back in the BOX.

Unleash the CIA and FBI to hunt down these criminals with law and order. Risk Management iand Cost Benefit s needed here.

[WorkingClass]

Ever since the Democrats abandoned the working class, we have had no representation. The Democrats like to call themselves "progressives" but they don't want to be associated with "the left". The working class *IS* the left. And we will take leadership where we find it. A true opposition party will arise when leadership is found. A true opposition party will actually provide government for the workers. It will establish clinics and distribute food and provide security in our neighborhoods. It will operate its own press to keep us informed. And it will petition the authorities (that would be you guys) on our behalf.

Obama is not the one. But I am grateful for him anyway. Our country is in very serious trouble. The next administration will be in permanent crisis mode. Obama is an extremely capable man and I think we will at least be included in his calculations. I only speak for myself when I say, Obama will do fine until the real thing comes along.

[cayuse1]

I do not think you can ignore 15 years of Republican Congress when you account for the 60 Vote Rule

That being said, the Democrats are not "do nothing" they are "can't do anything, because of republican party line"

I would not make the jump they do not want to help the middle class, yet

[cayuse1]

I would only say I no exactly what McCain will do

He is well trained to push a button and let the fragments fall where they may

Have we not had enough of this Texas Justice

"I think we need a gunslinger, someone tough to tame this town"and there will be justice all around"

Means a sheriff standing alone for justice, not vigilante rule

As unsatisfied as I am with Obama's maintain vigilantism I am waiting for a change

[katmeyster]

Barack Obama is not a pure ideological progressive -- and has never presented himself as such. Read his book -- he wants to work with the other side to get things done, even if that means compromising and moving to the center on some issues. This is quite galling to my ideologically progressive friends who would never be satisfied with anyone less than Dennis Kucinich. Each time BO compromises or moves to the center they see if as a personal betrayal. It does seem like transference: they have heaped their own aspirations and idea of how the world should work onto BO's shoulders. They will be continually disappointed. The question is, how will they vote, or will they vote at all.

In fact they are already making fun of me, "the pragmatic progressive" because I have bumper stickers and have volunteered for the campaign. I tell them that even though I do not agree with everything Barack Obama does, I can not tolerate the idea of a John McCain presidency. Millions of peoples' lives will be affected and I am not the important one here. Get over it, purity progressives, and makes sure Barack Obama becomes our next president. The consequences of your distaste are incomprehensible. Think of others. Think of the country. Please!

[UnbiasView]

"never be satisfied with anyone less than Dennis Kucinich"

Tell them to step into reality then because there is as much chance as me becoming Bill Gates rich than that happening.

Let me guess, they hang out at coffee shops and complain about how mean we are and how our government is evil?

[Liberal2]

Duh? We've had a president who crossed the aisle to find a common ground with the other party: Bill Clinton. His willingness to work with rethugs gave us NAFTA, our trade deficit, an impeachment, president Bush, our energy crisis, Iraq (Clinton tried to prove he was a patriot to rethugs by maintaining a military presence around Iraq, allowing Bush prepositioned US invasion forces), etc.

The real problem is: policies that satisfy the so-called political center are only less bad than reichwing policies. Failure of these take longer, but go deeper.

[WorkingClass]

In the United States a "centrist" is basically a fascist. Opposition to corporate rule does not find support in this country. Yet.

[nippersdad]

What an excellent post! I only took exception to your point about Progressives failing to see the crossroads in front of us in favor of taking a long view. The long view of which you speak implies incremental change. All of the incremental changes we have seen over the last forty years have been rightward shifts enabled by corporatist Dems to the point where the average low information voter now has little idea what Progressive principles actually are. Is the greater purpose better served by allowing the waters to be further muddied by yet another politically schizophrenic Democratic candidate or by allowing the logical ends of Conservative thought to be accomplished and, thereby, discredited?

The long view, in this scenario, says that no real change can be accomplished in this political atmosphere until the real consequences are felt by those who actually implemented them. Jimmy Carter's and, to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton's Presidencies were warped by the necessity of mitigation of Conservative disasters at the expense of actual Progressive governance. Their Presidencies were weighed down by doubts as to whether or not the cure was worse than the disease. Only when the diagnosis of the disease is clear to all and the prognosis shown to be terminal will the cure be palatable enough to allow for actual Progressive change in the long term. Obama is only a palliative, not a cure and if I remember correctly, Carter was replaced by Reagan.

[Forsetti]

This is not a vote between "Idealized Obama" and "Real Obama" but rather "Real Obama" and "Real McCain". The sooner Progressives quit debating and arguing about the former the quicker they can focus on the later. Republicans are thrilled that Progressives are constantly putting the spotlight on the Idealized-v-Real Obama discussion because it takes it off of their candidate and ever so slowly tarnishes Obama in the eyes of the most important group of voters; Independents.

[WorkingClass]

I think progressives are more important by far than independents. Do you suppose you are the first to tell me to shut up and get in line? You will not persuade anyone with that stuff.

[FloridaShutterBug]

Thank you. People need to realize this election isn't about them or their specialized little compartments; it's about saving our country and possibly our planet.

On the one hand we have an incredibly intelligent candidate who had the good judgment to surrounded himself with incredibly intelligent people. Then why don't I always agree with him? I don't always agree with anyone on every issue, do you? Everyone's thought processes are different.

On the other hand we have a decorated war hero candidate who has surrounded himself with the people who brought us the housing crisis and the energy crisis.

We need to think beyond what we want right now. If it's worth having then it's a goal worth working toward and demanding it NOW is a child's reaction.

[UnbiasView]

"People need to realize this election isn't about them or their specialized little compartments; it's about saving our country and possibly our planet"

No, no it's not . . . the planet isn't going to change one way or the other with Obama President.

[cayuse1]

Taking the war from Iraq and Afghanistan to Pakistan will not be intelligent, it will be out of control

We need to change our method in bringing a criminal to justice. Using a sledge hammer to nail in a tack is not working and the risk is out of control

[NABNYC]

Principles before personalities. We need leadership for liberal/le­ft/progres­sive/sane America. But we are fools if we look to politicians to provide it. Politicians accept money from the people they are supposed to regulate. It's like the cops accepting money from the gangs. When they accept money, they are by definition corrupt and cannot be trusted.

Therefore, we need to stay focused on issues, and what changes do we demand in law and policy. Essentially just put together our own platform, hand it to Congress, tell them to pass it. If they don't, find candidates who will agree to vote as we request. Just for two tiny issues that show how corrupt the leadership in the Democratic Party is: (1) many Democrats refused to vote to "restrict" loan shark/financial companies to 30% interest on credit cards; (2) Chuck Schumer rallied Democrats to oppose a law that would have required hedge fund scum to pay more than 15% income taxes.

Don't get excited about Obama. He's a politician. He's better than McCain. Vote for Obama, then immediately present him with our demands and start pushing.