This wouldn’t fit as a comment, so I posted it.
Thank you, Joe, for spreading the mental wealth with your free psychological diagnosis of my personality.
You might have found the answers to a lot of the (condescending) questions in your comments if you had bothered to read this blog before asking them. I have supplemented all of my arguments with at least a dozen articles by respected journalists and have provided countless ‘facts’ (put in quotations to prevent you from going apoplectic) about Obama’s advisers and their political pasts, his campaign contributions, his own stated political goals (from his website and his mouth), and Wall Street’s take on his candidacy. But, as is almost always the case with Obama supporters, you have responded with shrill attacks on my character and mental state rather than with counterfacts.
And so I will ask you. Did Barack Obama select Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff or did he not? And is it or isn’t it easy to look of Emmanuel’s positions and actions on NAFTA, welfare and war? And are those actions overhelmingly pro-NAFTA, pro-big-business, and pro-war, or are they not?
Or we could talk about Joe Biden. Has he or hasn’t he consistently legislated in favor of credit card companies? Was he or wasn’t he for the war? And on and on.
Or Barack Obama. Is he or isn’t he getting out of the war in Iraq? Has he or hasn’t he said he supported a border wall? Did he or didn’t he reject single payer healthcare?
These facts are not hard to corroborate, but you (and many others like you) utterly refuse to address them, preferring instead to deal in Freudian analyses about how my desire for people to be safe and respected is some misdirected mother complex or an English education gone horribly wrong.
If you had read my blog, you would know that I do not believe a president has much power. He is (or ought to be) a very limited political person. That is precisely why I always insist that a presidential election serves the same purpose as the medieval festivals that always cropped up whenever the poor started grumbling — festivals that allowed them to blow off steam and then return more subserviently to the same oppressive structures the next day. That is also why I did not take a break after the elections but have spent every day since drafting concrete plans for november5.org, organizing, as you suggested, thousands of artists and citizens to put pressure on Obama and Congress.
In every speech I gave on my speaking tour, I stressed that the president’s powers were limited. As such, I believe that the president’s main role is to set the rhetorical tone of the country. Before you bombard me with a thousand links to Barack Obama’s ‘inspiring’ speeches, let me interject. I am not talking about making grandiose statements on unity and hope. When I talk of setting the rhetorical tone, I mean that it is the president’s job to dispell harmful myths, take responsibility for wrongs, articulate new and just ideas, identify the roots of problems, make corresponding critiques, and — above all — to use one’s power to speak for victims who have no voice in the media, the political process, or the political philosophies that dominate the current discourse. As we are well aware, George Bush used this power of rhetoric to plunge us into a destructive fear that in turn led to actual and horrifying legislation. I believe that the reverse is also true: that the President could use words that demanded more from people – that led to a wave of peaceful legislation.
This is where you jump in and tell me how Obama has done just that: that he has inspired people to be unified and good and will usher in legislative peace. I don’t doubt that he has this effect on people, and I am glad for whatever good comes of it.
But my entire point — and my point since my first political post on my other blog months ago — is that I cannot support Obama because he does not take on the philosophies of suffering that safeguard the neoliberal kingdom. When asked about free trade, Obama does not condemn it as a system of exploitation based fundamentally on a disparty of wealth; he says he is for free trade and praises this philosophically-ensconsed greed as if it were the best we could do for the world. Nowhere is there a lament for the workers who suffer to make our clothes (cue Viper on the glories of globalization) or a MLK-esque reminder that human rights are universal, not nation-specific – indeed, that the nation-state is a myth that makes us forget this. When asked about immigration, Obama does not bother to explain that corporations have always depended on an illegal class of exploitable labor (that they then cunningly vilify to keep them illegal) to survive. Nor does he talk about the hypocrisy inherent when immigrants who stole land from rightful owners criticize new immigrants who steal nothing from them. But most importantly, Barack Obama does not use his voice to counteract the million-million epithets that these people have had to endure at the behest of our invisible hand and our smugly jingoistic sense of superiority; nowhere does he remind us of the most obvious and basic fact: that an immigrant is a father or mother who has been thrust into economic despair (most likely by us) and who come here only to lift their children out of that despair. When we talk of war, Obama does not explode the bloody notions of eye-for-eye Statism. He strategically criticizes specific wars as mistakes; he makes the distinction between “smart” and “dumb” ones, but he refuses the brave idea that we could stop going to war at all. But his beautiful “inspiring” words cajole and lull us until we forget what is at stake–until we forget that our buzzed sense of unity actually excludes millions of the voiceless, whether they are such because of the misfortune of poverty or the greater misfortune of not being an American.
Barack Obama similarly does not dispell dangerous myths. He capitalizes on them. If he stood up in a debate and questioned the American dream — if he criticized it as a hopelessly archaic and hopelessly self-centered philosophy at the heart of our environmental/economic crises and our exclusive trade philosophies –I would not only respect him, I would think he was doing his job as a presidential candidate. After all, that is exactly why I support DEMOCRATS like Kucinich and Gravel with no reservations whatsoever. But Obama does not. He says he admires Reagan’s policies. He spouts the American dream in a candied dialogue that is no less sinister for the absence of McCain’s iconic American Dreamer, Joe the Plumber.
As for the dangerous myth of realpolitik, of nation-statism and the utterly accepted violence of balancing (read: overbalancing) power, Obama is equally silent. He scales it back like we like him to, choosing George H.W. Bush as his foreign policy ideal rather than George W, but his foreign policy rhetoric is essentially the same: he bandies the word terrorism around with the same ideological caprice, supports the overall motivation for and execution of the war in Iraq, and–after a few ceremonial nods to diplomacy — leaves untouched the whole idea that we must live a Hobbesian nightmare on a national level in order to live our pastoral ideals on a personal level.
To remove any vestiges of confusion I will state my point for the hundredth time: I want a president who will speak to the suffering of the voiceless by criticizing the philosophies that allow us to legitimize our greed, superiority, and violence. Ralph Nader does that, and so I support him. Obama does not, and so I do not.
Apparently, this makes me a racist. Beyond being confusing (I will refrain from re-asking why it is racist to demand that someone fairly characterize the plight of Palestinians, Iraqis, immigrants, sweatshop workers, poor farmers, and resistance movements in South America), I will merely suggest that if I need Black intellectuals on my side to make me legitimate, I would prefer to take my cue from the reporters at the Black Agenda Report, who have tirelessly and actually advocated for Black causes and who have been intensely critical of Obama’s campaign throughout the elections. You can read their excellent and most recent take on the elections here.
Or, if it is still possible for a white person to make an acceptable critique in this ‘historical moment,’ you could read John Pilger’s recent analysis here (please do read it).
And thank you for your education suggestions, Joe, but I have already taken post-colonial literature classes. That is why I am acutely concerned with the voiceless many that have no clout or narrative at all in our political discourse — people like the immigrants who die in the desert, or the victims of CIA-backed death squads all over the globe, or the millions of other people who have been the unhappy recipients of our sugar-coated neoliberal violence. I am sorry that a few abstract phrases cannot fill that narrative void, and I am sorry if I do not believe that an amorphous and vague hope will get people to make (and then correct) the connections between our political philosohies and the real violence they sponsor. My post-colonial literature classes have also helped me to make the comments I made above: they have made me aware of the ways that the white power structure will continue to exert its power even as it turns the forms of power over to its ‘enemies’. Your criticism of me as a white person speaking for Blacks falls into the same camp as those who howl against racial epithets but not not care about structural racism. Instead of asking why I would dare to speak for Blacks, why not ask why white Wall Street magnates are speaking for Obama? That seems to be the more important criticism. And besides, I have traveled around the whole country talking to Black communities. At each stop, I told them how uncomfortable it was for me to act as a killjoy for their excitement — how uncomfortable I was about speaking to them. But I also said that my goal was to be honest about the facts as I saw them BECAUSE I respected them. We had lots of good conversations, in which most of them openly admitted that they did not feel Obama stood for them. But even if they hadn’t, why is it my job as a white person to stop making criticisms of racist systems? I never said that election night was not meaningful to Black people or that I couldn’t understand why it would be; I said that my allegiances were not to hype but to actual equality. And I would never doubt the power of a narrative. I believe that if Obama ends up becoming the president that people want him to be, it will be largely because of this powerful narrative we have told ourselves. But does that bar me from pointing out that I think the narrative is not based on fact? It shouldn’t.
None of this is fundamentalist. This is empathy for human suffering that rejects the philosophies that say I must condone it. It is not an opinion I have recently developed. It is the way I have always felt. Ever since I was very little, I remember turning on the television and wondering what all these suited people were talking about. It didn’t mean anything to me because I felt they were missing the point. I still feel that way. The only difference now is that I know that there are actually politicians who are willing to speak in a way that gets to the point, and that out of relief and respect and a real sense of hope I must vote for those people.
If you asked me, I would tell you how much I have personally agonized over the subtleties in this election. I have written at least fifty single spaced pages in my journal about it, and I have spent hours arguing with people on my own campaign about the issues. Just yesterday I had a long conversation with a co-worker about George Bush’s motivations and whether religious people have an obligation to forgive him.
It is not that I am unwilling to be subtle. It is that I am angry that I must constantly defend a minority idea against a smug, self-assured majority that tells me that my ideas do not even count, which does not do much to encourage subtle conversation. If you are so concerned about inequality and exclusion and histories of oppression, you might take some time to understand how third parties feel about elections, or how people who vote for third parties feel about a person who finally represents THEM. But third parties, apparently, are not worth our empathy and do not get their historical moments. Instead, they are asked by the very people who have slandered and dismissed them for months to buck up and act excited when the person they don’t want to win, wins.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I just want to point out, Ashley, that just because I agreed with Joe’s comments doesn’t mean that I voted for Obama–and as much as you are responding to Joe and people ‘like him’ you are responding to at least one person who did vote for a third party candidate, which makes your final paragraph irrelevant at best.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Yes Ashley Sanders, I read the WHOLE thing. And I agree with your well articulated post. I hope everyone reads it. Here in Sacramento if I dare criticize Obama—or any policy vaguely and mysteriously attached to him, or criticize SUWA’s or The Wilderness Societies’ letters praising Obama I am shoved into the crazy corner. Every time I quote Obama supporting the war, big oil, or anything else, people pretend that Obama was “just saying that to grab moderate votes” or they flat out don’t believe Obama’s own voice. Even if he were speaking flattery to moderates they don’t even question what that means. No one questions the Obama stickers with the “O” as a peace sign—even after you tell them of his plans for military expansion taken from HIS website—people just wont believe their “savior’s” own words. No one can question the infallible Obama, and that scares me and frustrates me, it ends any potential dialog, any understanding, and brands me as a crazy insignificant.
It is indeed our duty to question our leaders—even those we like. No matter who he is. Obama has been handed more presidential power than any president in history–because people are so head over heels for the guy. He can do whatever he wants.
I like this from your post as if these were my words: “I want a president who will speak to the suffering of the voiceless by criticizing the philosophies that allow us to legitimize our greed, superiority, and violence. Ralph Nader does that, and so I support him. Obama does not, and so I do not.”
I voted for Nader because for once I had a candidate who REPRESENTED ME.
Ps: Horray for the last paragraph!
November 13th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Ash and CJ, please stop demanding radical change. It hurts those of us that have worked hard so our concscience can be o.k. with the fact that the majority of the world suffers without a voice while we shop at Whole Foods and get pumped for a pro-war/big-business-backing Democrat to take the White House.
Sorry Hannah G, that sounds insulting. What I mean is Joe makes a decent point, but he still only pushes for minute change that will be reversed the instant a Republican becomes president. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle that won’t end, and won’t fix the real problems.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:18 am
I agree with you, Ash. And I agree with CJ.
I too am waiting for “counter facts” rather than “hope.”
November 14th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Ash,
I read this post because Pamy told me to read your blog so I can find vocabulary gems. I’m pretty sure I saw one of your speeches on kateandneil.com which caused me to vote for Nader, so keep up the good work. I am not 100% in agreement with Nader, but I agreed with him enough to vote for him over the “Chump Change” candidates. Thanks for making me think.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:25 am
I don’t want to really get into a discussion about this online, but I will say this. I don’t *disagree* with Ashley, in the sense that I don’t want her to stop demanding radical change. I do, however, think there are ways of demanding change while still being respectful of other people–not saying you have to respect (as in agree with) their ideas, but to treat them as if it is possible that they are as complex, intelligent, and passionate about their beliefs as you are. I am not saying, by the way, that I don’t think Ashley is capable of this. I know she is, but I agreed with Joe initially because I saw it as a response to her comments that were not doing that.
For those of you who think that everyone who disagrees with you is part of a mindless group of people who have been duped and whose emotions and celebrations are something you wish you could educate them out of–how do you expect to achieve radical change if the people you need to get on your side are people you can’t write about without disdain and patronization or insults?
And if *none* of you really think that everyone who disagrees with you can be lumped together and dismissed this way (which I suspect is probably), then maybe you can at least understand how some people could get that impression from what’s being written here. “Deluded” “smug” & “just trying to appease your conscience” aren’t exactly words inviting someone whose opinion differs from your own to really dialogue with you. It’s easy to be quick on the words, quick on being defensive, and quick on the attack on the internet. I just am not sure it’s very productive.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Oops, my aside in the final paragraph should read “(which I suspect is probably the case).”
November 14th, 2008 at 7:43 am
When I have a bit more time I will try to more fully respond to Ashley’s post. For the moment, let me just say a few things.
First of all, Hannah G. has expressed my point perhaps more succinctly than I have. I have no problem whatsoever with you or anyone voting for a third party (I voted for Nader in 2004), or pushing for radical change. However, it is deeply insulting and condescending to assume everyone who disagrees with your methods and/or supports Obama is deluded. Not only is such an assertion reductive and simplistic, it cuts you off from millions of people who might otherwise listen to you.
I honestly have no idea what you mean when you say I am psychoanalyzing you. I’m challenging your ideology because a) I respect you, and b) I think it needs challenging. I don’t doubt your intentions. I already know you are a good and decent person who will give everything to a cause you believe in.
But a large portion of your blog has been obsessed with caricaturing and then tearing down Barack Obama. Please correct me if I’m wrong (I don’t read everything you write here or elsewhere), but I haven’t see you weigh in on the angry mobs that called Obama a “socialist” and a “terrorist”; I haven’t heard you say anything about Prop 8; I haven’t heard you say anything about McCain or Palin, except to offer the lazy argument that they are essentially the same as Obama.
Look, as much as you like to stereotype Obama supporters, Obama is not my prophet. I know his limitations. I know his record. I look to Blake and Whitman, MLK, Gandhi, and Jesus for my wisdom. Can you say the same about Nader? Is he your president or prophet? Conflating the two can be very dangerous.
You say, look at the facts. I have. Did you read my last post? I know Obama won’t give us single payer healthcare. I know that single payer healthcare is ideal. But I would rather all children be insured and all adults have access to more affordable healthcare than have single payer fail to pass in congress and leave us with nothing just to make an ideological statement. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think people at the grassroots should continue to push for more radical change. It just means that a president can’t magically change political realities.
If I were you I would do what other organizations like MoveOn, SaveDarfur, One, Daily Kos, etc. (and individuals like Michael Moore, Barbara Eherenreich, Cornel West, etc) are doing: that is, lose the adverserial, “Barack is the enemy, the face of the white, corporate power structure, etc” stance, and actually work with the administration and apply inside pressure (like Nader used to do) to get things done.
Because the truth is Nader’s runs for president, in my opinion, are doing very little good anymore. They aren’t creating any practical changes that I can see. He’s getting less of the vote and alienating more people (as I said before I do think third party candidates should run, but Nader’s time has passed). What ultimately matters isn’t ideology, it’s moving things in a better direction. I believe Barack Obama will allow that to happen. For you, it’s not enough.
The difference, as I see it, is that those who supported and continue to support Barack can push for the practical changes we want (some we’ll get, some we won’t, some will lay the foundation for the future), while Nader and many of his supporters waste their considerable talent and intellect calling people “Uncle Tom” and deluded but accomplishing little of substance.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:50 am
By the way, I know your November 5th.org efforts are intended to do exactly what I have suggested. My point is such efforts will find greater success if you don’t villainize or assume the worst about the human beings you are trying to influence.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:01 am
i simply want to say:
what i believe the most critical thing for each of us to do is to appropriately and intelligently question the hierarchal powers which govern this planet and it’s incestuous institutions: to look squarely at what centres of power have helped in creating the poverty and inequality which are so insidiously pervasive that we no longer see them. i am very glad ash does this, and that is why i will always read her blog, even if there are personal differences of opinion. who the hell cares, because in the end we should all be seriously re-evaluating the world we have come to accept as normal, obligatory, and unchangeable. supporters of any political candidate or persuasion should do this, and not be offended when asked to.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Ashley’s last two posts were a joy for me to read. Not because I take any particularly lasting pleasure from being ‘in on the secret’ that Obama’s platform is not actually anti-war, or remotely socialist, or anything approaching equality for the poor or disenfranchised. They were a joy because I think she is excellent at this. Ashley is paying attention to Obama because he won, and particularly because of how he won. Ashley cares about honesty enough that if a man wins the presidency on the strength of his reputation as ‘the most liberal senator’, the anti-war candidate, the hope of the poor, and the vindication of civil rights; but actually supports nationalist military policy, continued economic inequality, and institutionalized discrimination against minorities (notably Hispanic immigrants), she will kick and scream until people pay attention to the delusion. Joe, I suspect that you are not personally deluded, but it’s hard to argue that pundits, most of the media, the Democratic Party, and Obama’s own campaign are not engaged in trying to sell that delusion to progressive voters, and seem to have been broadly successful.
When I read Ashley’s original post, I was thinking about my private high school’s Martin Luther King Day celebration in northern Alabama. Every year they invited in a gospel choir that would perform and all the upper-class white students would clap along with the rhythm and we would get our only speech that year from a prominent black preacher or intellectual. But we still didn’t have more than one or two black students at our school, we still had undocumented Mexican men landscaping our gardens, and we still had parents refuse to let Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass be taught in English class. I think the reason that there was such unquestioned support for MLK day events in a context of such palpable racial and economic inequality was that they had become decoupled in the public mind. All rhetorical flourishes aside, the idea of racial equality that we supported had become completely separate from the inequality that we practiced daily.
When Ashley talks about the harm Obama does by capitalizing on progressive myths instead of championing progressive content, her point is not (or shouldn’t be) that he can’t bring hope or incremental change or increased racial pride and legitimacy to a specific underprivileged class- the same way that that black gospel choir did some good because it helped some of my classmates learn not to be afraid of all black people. But those MLK-day celebrations were a betrayal of Martin Luther King’s broader racial and class critique, wrapped up as a self-congratulatory “victory” for civil rights. Perhaps the only sin committed in my school celebration was that, while giving our speeches about racial equality and the victories of nonviolent civil disobedience, we did not acknowledge that we were still racist, still violent, and still excluding the poor. But given the purpose of King’s original efforts, that’s a pretty big thing to leave out.
This is not unique; I think that Nader commits the same sin. While criticizing Obama supporters for their “strategic” rather than “principled” voting approach, he seems to suggest that people who support him are not supporting him for equally strategic reasons, and for equally varied reasons. Because Nader claims to support economic equality, human rights, and the end of racism, and yet still believes we must “control our borders” and discriminate between citizens and non-citizens in immigration policy, I ultimately decided not to vote for him (my vote went to the Socialists). Perhaps Nader’s only advantage on this is that he speaks truth so frequently and mercilessly that when I step out of line, away from him and towards equality, he has trained me not to feel guilty.
One last thing to Joe Vogel: I respect your points and I think that your approach is helpful, except for one thing: I’m pretty sure that telling anyone that she lacks the right to speak on a particular issue because of her racial and economic status is missing the entire point of postcolonialism.
Final statement: I am very worried about hope uncoupled from justice. Without actually fielding just policies, a politician serves only as a charismatic leader, a center of a cult-of-personality. I’m not dismissing that hope or ignoring it; I’m deeply afraid of it. I am not happy with a candidate that makes one marginalized group feel proud (black people, ostensibly) and makes another feel afraid and criminalized (undocumented immigrants, Palestinians, etc.). I do believe that some practical changes can and should be done incrementally; health care or alternative energy might be examples of this. But I don’t think that rhetoric for racial/social equality can be done incrementally or piecemeal without undermining itself at every step.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Two more notes on incremental change, and why I hold out some hope despite my many disappointment in this election:
1) I was in the Unitarian Church on Sunday, a bastion of nearly 100% Obama supporters, many of whom helped run his Utah and Colorado campaigns. Reverend Tom Goldsmith gave his sermon on how, finally, the pendulum of injustice has reached the end of its arc and is going the other way. I wanted to stand up and shout about monetary policy, about escalation of the Afghani occupation, about migrants’ rights. But then I thought about it, and realized that I agreed with him on one point: I do think that Obama represents the possibility that the pendulum has begun to reverse course. This means, of course, that the pendulum is in almost exactly the same position that it was in before- directly adjacent to George W. Bush. But if it is swinging in the opposite direction, that means that there is a chance that before long Obama won’t be good enough for us anymore, that he will be the conservative and a new progressive (still not good enough for us) will step in, and if this pendulum keeps going, un-pendulum-like, for eternity, we will leave Obama’s platform far behind. What I wish Tom Goldsmith had voiced was that the pendulum analogy is only useful and hopeful to us if we explicitly recognize that Obama’s platform is not our goal, and should not be, and will not be starting on January 1st. (another possibility, less optimistic: Bush and Obama are on the same pendulum because of two-party duopoly, and the swing is headed for Palin or Romney in 2016).
2) Today, MoveOn.org sent out an email about overturning Proposition 8 in california. Also today, the Human Rights Campaign (the main gay marriage advocacy group) sent out their first email that I had read suggesting that they will be working in solidarity with racial and economic equality and universal health care efforts. Like many progressives, I was outraged at how MoveOn and HRC became fundraising organs for the Democrats and ignored -even suppressed- candidates that actually stood for their platforms. But I was re-hoped today when I realized there’s a possibility that MoveOn and HRC aren’t done; Obama wasn’t their goal; they really might be progressives, not just in the political spectrum sense but also in the win-one-battle-at-a-time towards the accomplishment of an eventually-just society. We will see whether this is true by watching whether MoveOn stands up to Obama on the Afghani war escalation and on Israeli hegemony and on migrants’ rights. (These are issues, unlike health care, that Obama doesn’t even seem close to making incremental progress on, and which we can expect to see neo-conservative policies on, unless he is challenged).
November 17th, 2008 at 1:33 am
“…It is that I am angry that I must constantly defend a minority idea against a smug, self-assured majority that tells me that my ideas do not even count, which does not do much to encourage subtle conversation.” So, let me get this strait; in one sentence you’re indicting them for their smugness and self-asssurity by dismissing them smugly, being sure you’re right and telling them their views are wrong…it just seems a little ironic to me. Don’t assume you know so quickly peoples motives, thoughts, or justifications. People are complex and not understood at our whim. I’m just saying, I’ve learned well enough in my life how often I’m wrong and how, more important than my convictions is how i treat people. It’s one thing to decry injustice in the far corners of the world. It’s another to speak kindly and respectfully and humbly to the person standing two feet in front of you, or perhaps at the other end of the wire. I have the feeling that, more than we care to realize, the larger problems and injustices we face as a world are very much aggregate sum of our personal dishonesties, unkindnesses and selfishness.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:55 am
Tristan,
Thank you for your thoughtful additions to this conversation.
A couple points:
By bringing up postcolonialism, I wasn’t attempting to silence Ashley’s voice, but rather to remind us of the complex and often problematic nature of representation. One of the key debates in contemporary postcolonial/subaltern studies (explored by writers like Chakrabarty, Spivak, Stuart Hall, etc) is the fraught practice of Western, bourgeois, often white anthropologists, historians, sociologists, and even authors assuming that they not only understand the “subaltern” but can represent them and always know and do what’s best for them. The implication, of course, is that there is something wrong with the subaltern’s worldview/consciousness that needs to be corrected by an external, often foreign presence.
Though one’s ends might in fact be noble, the assumptions at work here are really not much different than the original colonizers who offered the “gift” of Christianity (and subsequently a string of other Western ideologies): the Enlightenment’s rationalism, Marxism, capitalism, etc. I’m by no means saying privileged white people can’t speak out for the oppressed; I’m simply saying it must be done with a degree of humility. For example, we must listen and show respect for their thoughts at least as much as we speak and offer our own solutions. If 96% of African Americans (and large percentages of other minority groups) voted for Obama (not to mention the celebrations around the world, from Kenya to the Philippines), rather than suggesting they somehow don’t “get it,” and that their candidate of choice is a charlatan, we might instead take a more clear-headed, reflexive, nuanced approach.
Quick example: I served an LDS mission on an island in Micronesia. The longer I was there, the more I learned that while the people there didn’t have nearly the material comforts we do here in the United States, they were generally happy. They shared a great sense of community, and with rare exceptions, all of their primary needs were met. What I noticed, however, is that whenever new missionaries, leaders from the Church, or peace corp members would arrive from America they would always go on and on about how bad they felt for the people, about the utter destitution of their existence, about the “poverty,” the “huts,” the “lack of education.”
Now, were there legitimate things that needed to be improved on the island? Absolutely. But for foreigners to come in and assume they know what’s best, that the people simply don’t get it and need to be enlightened, and bringing with them yet again their grand designs and condescension I think is very dangerous. And for all of Ashley’s good intentions that is the tone I detected in some of her most recent posts. Minorities had been duped and she was here to save them.
Again let me reiterate, I’m all for fighting in solidarity with the oppressed (regardless of race) and I certainly know not every place in the so-called third world is like the island I lived on; I just think we need to be careful and humble so that we don’t stigmatize entire groups of complex, multi-faceted, thoughtful people as delusional. Especially given our history of not just physical but psychological oppression/colonization.
One other quick point (I hope):
There are reasons that so many progressive individuals and groups like MoveOn got behind Obama and you have detected some of those reasons in your post. But there is more. One important key is Barack Obama’s background. Have you read his book, Dreams from my Father? I have read A LOT of books in my life and this is not a typical politician’s book, I can tell you that. Barack Obama can write, which is to say, he can think. He has depth. He is thoughtful. He understands history. He has experienced numerous cultures. He worked on the streets as a community organizer. He spoke out against the war in Iraq from the very beginning. I guess what I’m saying is that his background suggests a pattern and makes me and a lot of other people think that he gets it, that he shows the right instincts, that his past experiences will inform his decisions as president.
The reality is he’s read all the stuff we have and more (from what I can tell). His key models are Lincoln and the Civil Rights Movement. He understands Nader and all the rest. But he thought it out and made a choice, a strategic, practical choice to work within a broken, imperfect system to try to create not only some concrete changes, but the conditions where the pendulum, as you say, can continue to swing further in the direction of social justice, peace, and equality.
Ashley might mock my point here, but if one really cares about progress, it’s worth considering someone’s character, background, and thought process. The reality is that based on his history, voting record and platforms it’s safe to say that Obama is the most progressive president we have had in at least half a century. It’s also worth considering: Is progress in America and througout the world now more or less possible with this former community organizer who opposed the Iraq war from the outset, who believes in talking to enemies, who has pledged to close Gitmo and end torture, who believes in “disributing the wealth” and taxing the wealthy/corporations, who believes in climate change and the need to create millions of new green jobs, and perhaps most importantly, who fundamentally believes in the concept of bottom-up change?
From everything I have heard from Obama over the past two years, including his books, speeches, and record, I see someone who shares my progressive worldview, but believes the journey to “perfect our union” requires more pragmatism and less ideology.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Obama’s next book title: “More Pragmatism and Less Ideology: How Diluted Expectations Can Lead to a Brighter Future”
November 19th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Your points are valid, but your tone is growing tiresome.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Linking politics to real decisions, those understood not as adhering to the nature of things but as consequences of a will, can only be done by submitting politics both to principles and to practices that depend directly on such principles, rather than to the very strange rule that submits everything to a count of votes.
What is needed–and we should be in no doubt–is a firm indifference to posts of state and a constantly sustained cordial scorn for electoral prebends. What is needed is a serene and declared supremacy of the active number over the passive number.
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Wow, looks like a big pot is stirring. I find that debates like these run the risk of becoming too polemical and miss the forest for the trees. Having known many of you, reading your comments has made me curious about the environmental factors that have contributed to such deep felt political ideals which are almost religious in their conviction. I know for Radicals Obama is just more of the same. And while I think the excessive materialism of American society and the military industrial complex has made life for many difficult and tragic, I am skeptical about the claims of socialism. History seems to show that these projects don’t work so well in the long run. I feel like ideals are important, just remember that there is usually more that unites you than divides. Charity is a good principle to keep in mind.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:01 am
Buy:Soma.Cialis.Cialis Soft Tabs.Viagra Super Active+.Super Active ED Pack.Viagra Soft Tabs.Cialis Professional.Levitra.VPXL.Tramadol.Maxaman.Viagra.Propecia.Viagra Super Force.Cialis Super Active+.Zithromax.Viagra Professional….
August 30th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Lights http://kstreetleecbgc.AUTOPARTSTHAI.INFO/tag/Tower+Lights+mast+light/ : Lights…
Tower…