Fucking done.
With the lolection season already starting to take shape for 2012, I'm ALREADY getting sick of people criticizing Obama for a multitude of very real, very heinous policy decisions... and then doing a total about-face and saying, "Oh, but I'm still gonna vote for him though, you'd be stupid not to, lololololol." Sorry, what?
And you know, that's fine. I'm not going to put Obama-voters in my Burn Book or not talk to my friends who vote for him or something childish of that nature. XD But my point is just that one of the things I've had to listen to for YEARS from people when I tell them I regularly vote for third-party candidates is that I'm "throwing away" my vote. That my vote accomplishes nothing. That at worst it merely "helps Republicans" and that at best it's a waste of my vote and my civic participation.
And you know what? Even when it's said in jest, I don't find it funny anymore. Certainly not after what Obama has done in Libya; not after what he's done in Afghanistan and Pakistan; not after the ways in which he has not only continued some of the worst civil liberties violations of the Bush era but has expanded on them and normalized/legitimized them by granting them bipartisan consensus; and certainly not after the tokenistic sops he's given to those of us at home in order to protect minorities and working people. I don't appreciate the way criticisms of third-party voters are made so casually, as if it's somehow Accepted Wisdom that voting for shit candidates who have a chance of winning is ~CLEARLY so much smarter and better than voting for good candidates who can't win because the system is rigged against those without money. I don't need smug, ignorant Democrats and mainstream liberals who are still ridiculously butthurt about Nader and 2000 thinking they accomplished more with their vote and did something far more politically astute than I did with mine by voting for a warmonger who fucks civil liberties in the ear and does shitall to hold corporations accountable, simply because he had an actual chance at winning.
*
In a recent piece by Glenn Greenwald, Glenn not only talks about the significance of Congress refusing in a bipartisan manner to authorize Obama's war in Libya, but he clearly and succinctly lays out the way in which Obama has, regardless of how you want to slice it, led the US into an illegal war on false pretenses. Sound like a recent Republican president you know? :B :B :B Oh oh oh, but thank goodness those ~uneducated~ vote-wasting third-party voters weren't around in large enough numbers in 2008 to "help Republicans," amirite? Thank goodness we got a Democrat into office who is expanding on some of the worst right-wing, neoliberal, anti-progressive policy decisions of the last two decades, because At Least He's Not Republican.
Hillary Clinton, that good ol' war hawk and perennial waste of space, recently made a disgusting statement that again hearkens back to the Bush era, saying that if you're against the Libyan war, then clearly you support Gaddafi and are against the Libyan people. Never mind that we heard this same old bullshit from Bush 2.0, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice, etc.-remember the good old days of "if you're against the Iraq War you support Saddam and his crimes against his people"? Or "if you're against the war in Afghanistan you support Osama and al-Qaeda and the Taliban"? We're hearing the same disgusting jingoistic fascist groupthink coming from the mouths of this administration as we did in the last one, but because this administration is run by big-D Dems the mainstream liberal community in this country hardly gives a shit anymore. And if you don't believe me, one study points out quite clearly that since Obama took office, the vocal, active voices in anti-war movement no longer has Democratic activists anymore and consists almost completely of independents and third-party voters. The research shows that "the electoral success of the Democratic party in the elections of 2006 and 2008 led to the large-scale abandonment of the antiwar movement by Democrats, even despite the party’s failure to deliver on its antiwar promises."
And this, more than anything, is the problem with this team-based, party-based activism we see in this country. For so many people activism isn't about the issues, it's about getting Their Team into power. People don't care about the cause, just The Party. Check out this video from MSNBC in which Jeremy Scahill takes Ed Schultz to task for cheerleading for the war in Libya and tries to explain to the idiot why this war is tactically stupid even disregarding the ethical considerations (Jeremy's bit starts at 1:11); in it Schultz insists that he's a liberal and a progressive before going on to fully endorse the war actions in Libya because he "has faith in Obama." Truly sad, sad shit. Keep in mind this is MSNBC, the supposed voice of the American ~hard~ left. This sort of blind media cheerleading for war would be hilarious if it wasn't fucking sad as hell.
*
Recently, we've been hearing a lot of opposition to the Libyan war from many Republicans, not just in Washington but also on the ground, among the general citizenry: make no mistake, there is a BIPARTISAN opposition to this war in our country, and just as with Iraq, the opposition is far greater than the media makes it out to be. So what does this tell us? This tells us that NOW is the time for activists to join forces with those on the other side of the political spectrum to bring about change. The mainstream left needs to stop whining about how hypocritical it is for Republicans to criticize the President for leading us into an illegal war. Just because they're fucking hypocrites and are operating from the perspective that they need to bring down a President they hate doesn't change the fact that they are, FOR ONCE, correct on the substance. If stopping the war(s) is more important to you than scoring political points, it shouldn't matter whom you have to get on your side to get it done:
Are these Republicans who are decrying the Libyan war total fucking hypocrites after the way they cheerleaded for the Iraq and Af/Pak wars? Absolutely they are. Are some of them probably just a bunch of ignorant batshit teabagging racists who are opposing this war simply because "dat durr black man started it"? Probably. But the point is that IT DOESN'T MATTER. This should be the time when anti-war Dems in Congress should stop bluffing and posturing and start forming coalitions with the anti-Libyan war Republicans in order to get Obama to stop his bullshit. This should be the time when Dems in every community across the country should be trying to find common ground with Republicans in their community, regardless of whether those on the left think that these former Bush supporters are hypocrites or not.
*
Some links about Libya, for those who want to read more on the sitch:
21 March 2011 - The Lesson the U.S. Is Teaching the World in Libya
Fantastic article arguing that our actions in Libya will make it less likely for other nations to give up their nuclear technology: "[S]omething important has gone almost unnoticed-the lesson the United States is teaching the government of every country on earth. That lesson is: no matter what, no matter the inducements or pressure, never ever give up chemical weapons or a nuclear weapons program. Doing so will not ensure that the U.S. does not attack you-on the contrary, it will make it much more likely."
30 March 2011 - C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels
In direct contradiction to the Obama government assertion that there are no "boots on the ground" in Libya, "small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military."
30 March 2011 - Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions
In which Sec. Clinton basically states that the Obama administration would just go "lol no1curr" and ignore Congress if it passed any resolution trying to stop or restrict US military action.
31 March 2011 - Obama's new view of his own war powers (by Gleen Greenwald)
Glenn, partly in response to Clinton's bullshit, writes: "I defy anyone to identify any differences between the administration's view of its own authority -- that it has the right to ignore Congressional restrictions on its war powers -- and the crux of Bush radicalism as expressed in the once-controversial memos by John Yoo and the Bush Department of Justice. There is none. That's why Yoo went to The Wall Street Journal to lavish praise on Obama's new war power theory: because it's Yoo's theory. If anything, one could argue that Yoo's theory of unilateral war-making was more reasonable, as it was at least tied to an actual attack on the U.S."
31 March 2011 - Beware: Widespread Mission Creep Underway in Libya
Why the constant obfuscation from the Obama administration over what we're doing in Libya and the way the scope of the mission quickly expanded should give anyone pause, whether they're for this intervention or not.
1 April 2011 - US-Saudi Deal on Libya Exposed: Obama OK'ed Bahrain Invasion in Exchange for Yes Vote on No-Fly Zone
One of the biggest justifications for our Libyan intervention is that the Arab League requested our help. Never mind that, as Noam Chomsky pointed out in a recent talk, that the US ignored the Arab League when it requested a no-fly zone over Gaza and that "what the Arab League wants" has fuckall to do with while we're in Libya. And regarding the Arab League's request for our help, this article details how "two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a 'yes- vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya"-the main rationale that led to UN authorization for military intervention.
18 April 2011 - The Dangerous US Game in Yemen (by Jeremy Scahill)
Jeremy Scahill's excellent piece laying out the current situation in Yemen and how the US relationship with Yemen lays bare the utter hypocrisy in our foreign policy where we bomb Libya for Gaddafi's crimes under the banner of freedom and democracy while leaving Yemen's dictator in place despite his equally (and arguable MORE) heinous/oppressive/authoritarian behavior towards his own people.
21 April 2011 - Gates says Obama has approved use of armed Predator drones for the first time in Libya
...making the Obama administration's insistence that it is allowed to circumvent the War Powers Act (because we're ~technically not engaged in "hostilities" in Libya) a big steaming pile of bullshit.
1 June 2011 - Libya conflict: UN accuses both sides of war crimes
Which goes back to this article I posted some months ago re. the racist abuse against blacks and sub-Saharan foreigners by the rebel forces.
*
Moving on from Libya and back to my initial comment about "wasting votes":
One of the biggest myths we've been told on the left about Obama is the famous story of how he recounts the tale of socialist/atheist labor organizer A. Philip Randolph meeting FDR, and FDR telling Randolph that while he agreed with Randolph's stance on civil rights, labor rights, etc., the people had to "make him do it." In other words, FDR could not act on these issues and sway members of government from the top unless there was popular pressure from below.
This is a great story, and to an extent it's right on: People have to push for change. People cannot expect government to do the right thing just because it's a Democratic government or a Republican govt. or a Green govt. or what have you; people have to demand that government work for us. The tale is a cautionary one, that just because you have someone in power who agrees with you in theory it doesn't mean they'll do what you hope for in practice, unless you *make* them. Obama's message is clear: he agrees with progressives but cannot act progressive unless the support is there on the ground.
However, the problem with this Randolph/FDR story is that both it and allusions to its spirit have become the new thing for Obama apologists to use when they defend their poor bb President for his inaction on various issues. It's the PEOPLE'S fault he hasn't gotten us out of Iraq or Af/Pak because the PEOPLE didn't push him hard enough. It's the PEOPLE's fault he didn't push harder for truly public, single-payer healthcare. It's the PEOPLE's fault he's wanting to expand drilling in the Gulf despite the massive spill we just had there. He would come out and support gay marriage unequivocally and stop torturing/imprisoning without trial an openly gay soldier if only MOAR PEOPLE made it clear that that's what they wanted. Don't blame Obama for being overly cautious and not risking political capital by taking the lead on issues and sticking his neck out: PEOPLE are the problem because they aren't angry enough. You can't expect poor bb Obama to actually take the lead on an issue if the PEOPLE don't make it clear that that's what they want, amirite?
Riiiiight... so if that's the case, what's the justification for Libya then? From the beginning there has been doubt and opposition on both sides of the political spectrum about the war, AND support for it continues to dwindle by the day among people of all political persuasions. Yet despite this low popularity Obama seems to have no fucking trouble ~taking the lead~ and sticking his neck out and making the case for an unpopular position when it comes to bombing the shit out of people. So what's the fucking excuse on all the other issues he could be taking a lead on, but isn't? Clearly he's willing to do something unpopular if he thinks it's worthwhile and important to the country's interests, so why are PEOPLE being blamed for the inaction of Obama on various issues of economic and social justice at home? Obama has shown that he is willing to lead without the people's support if need be, so to blame people's inaction for the inaction of the president on issues of importance is really rich.
And this passing of the blame is particularly ridiculous considering the amount of effort the Obama administration has made to silence its own critics on the left. How exactly are the people to blame for not "making Obama do it" when Obama himself is working his ass off to silence those who are trying to do exactly that?
*
Most recently, the Obama administration tried to make the fact that he was bringing some troops back home from Afghanistan into a Big Fucking Deal, in order to please the anti-war contingent within his base and war-fatigued voters among the general populace at home. What he failed to advertise during this orgy of bullshittery and self-praise was that only about half the actual troop surge of the Obama years will have been withdrawn towards the end of 2012, meaning that there will be more troops in Afghanistan after this "reduction" in forces than there were when Obama took office. Nor does it ever get talked about that in addition to the troop surge there was also the "civilian surge" of State Dept. personnel, the surge in CIA personnel and special ops forces, the surge in "private contractors" (read: mercenaries), and the surge in drone usage that disproportionately kills civilians.
So, here's the thing. We have a president who sold himself to the Democratic base during the primary season as the anti-Iraq war alternative to Hillary Clinton. We were told to trust his judgment, because he was right on Iraq and would not lead us into war on false pretenses or in a reactionary manner. We were told to trust him because he would fight against the abuses perpetrated against civil liberties and privacy during the Bush years. Despite this trust, we are still in Iraq, we will continue to be in Af/Pak, we continue to keep Guantanamo open, we continue to kill civilians wholesale, we continue to hold Bradley Manning in prison without trial after torturing him for nearly a year, civil liberties continue to erode under the guise of "security" and the justification of Perpetual War, and we are once again led into a reactionary war against a country on false pretenses. At home, despite massive scientific evidence and devastating man-made disasters arguing against it, we have a president who insists on expanding offshore drilling in sensitive areas and propping up the already ossifying and dying nuclear energy industry with ever more infusions of taxpayer cash. We have a president who taunts his progressive base by urging them to "make" him do their bidding and then giving them the finger when they try to do just that.
So all in all? I don't want to hear ever again that I'm wasting my vote. Really? Because if you share even just some of the values that I hold, voting for a Democrat like the one currently in the White House is no less of a waste of your time than my vote for a third-party nobody is a waste of mine. When establishment figures on both the right and the "left" in the US hardly disagree on issues of importance, and when both major parties agree that corporations get to write energy and environmental policy and that reactionary interventionism/imperialism is the default foreign policy template, the problem with this country is far greater than which ~Team~, red or blue, you decide to vote for. This is not a rant exhorting folks to Be a Special Snowflake & Vote Like Me, nor is it a rant exhorting folks to not vote at all because teh system sux baaaallz; this is simply a request that people think twice before judging other people's decisions in the voting booth as "wasted votes," because those decisions currently have fuckall to do with the problems we face in this country. It's a call for people to realize that civic participation does not end when the ballot is cast. That's only where it begins, and until that fact is acknowledged and taken to heart, "wasted votes" will be the least on anyone's list of political worries.
*
To conclude, here an excerpt from an excellent recent piece by Glenn Greenwald in which he points out the the ridiculousness of liberals who object to the misdeeds of the Obama administration but then turn right around and proclaim that they'll be supporting him in 2012:
It may be that this fear of Republicans is rational (or, given how many GOP-replicating policies and practices the Democrats embrace, maybe it isn't). But whatever else is true, one thing is for certain: dedicated partisans who pledge their unbreakable, eternally loyal support for any Party or politician are going to be steadfastly ignored (or worse) by that Party or politician, and rightfully so. If you spend two years vehemently objecting that certain acts so profoundly offend your principles but then pledge unequivocal support no matter what almost two years in advance to the politicians who engage in them, why would you expect your objections to be heeded? Any rational person would ignore them, and stomp on your beliefs whenever doing so benefited them.
I'm not saying I know the answer. Joan Walsh yesterday urged progressives not to organize for Obama until next year while nonetheless vowing to support his re-election, which (though well-intentioned) strikes me as merely reinforcing this dynamic. But what I do know is that Rachel [Maddow]'s optimistic proclamation that "only the base itself will ever change" this dynamic cannot be fulfilled without giving the Party and its leaders a true reason to pay attention or care about disenchantment (and, some day, to fear alienating their base)....
[T]he notion that political opinion in America would not allow Obama to do anything differently on these issues is empirically disproven; he ran on a platform of opposing all the measures he now supports and won decisively. By itself, that proves that -- when these debates are engaged rather than conceded -- these positions are politically sustainable. Obama adopts Bush Terrorism policies because he wants to and has no reason not to -- not because doing so is a political necessity.
And you know, that's fine. I'm not going to put Obama-voters in my Burn Book or not talk to my friends who vote for him or something childish of that nature. XD But my point is just that one of the things I've had to listen to for YEARS from people when I tell them I regularly vote for third-party candidates is that I'm "throwing away" my vote. That my vote accomplishes nothing. That at worst it merely "helps Republicans" and that at best it's a waste of my vote and my civic participation.
And you know what? Even when it's said in jest, I don't find it funny anymore. Certainly not after what Obama has done in Libya; not after what he's done in Afghanistan and Pakistan; not after the ways in which he has not only continued some of the worst civil liberties violations of the Bush era but has expanded on them and normalized/legitimized them by granting them bipartisan consensus; and certainly not after the tokenistic sops he's given to those of us at home in order to protect minorities and working people. I don't appreciate the way criticisms of third-party voters are made so casually, as if it's somehow Accepted Wisdom that voting for shit candidates who have a chance of winning is ~CLEARLY so much smarter and better than voting for good candidates who can't win because the system is rigged against those without money. I don't need smug, ignorant Democrats and mainstream liberals who are still ridiculously butthurt about Nader and 2000 thinking they accomplished more with their vote and did something far more politically astute than I did with mine by voting for a warmonger who fucks civil liberties in the ear and does shitall to hold corporations accountable, simply because he had an actual chance at winning.
*
In a recent piece by Glenn Greenwald, Glenn not only talks about the significance of Congress refusing in a bipartisan manner to authorize Obama's war in Libya, but he clearly and succinctly lays out the way in which Obama has, regardless of how you want to slice it, led the US into an illegal war on false pretenses. Sound like a recent Republican president you know? :B :B :B Oh oh oh, but thank goodness those ~uneducated~ vote-wasting third-party voters weren't around in large enough numbers in 2008 to "help Republicans," amirite? Thank goodness we got a Democrat into office who is expanding on some of the worst right-wing, neoliberal, anti-progressive policy decisions of the last two decades, because At Least He's Not Republican.
Hillary Clinton, that good ol' war hawk and perennial waste of space, recently made a disgusting statement that again hearkens back to the Bush era, saying that if you're against the Libyan war, then clearly you support Gaddafi and are against the Libyan people. Never mind that we heard this same old bullshit from Bush 2.0, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice, etc.-remember the good old days of "if you're against the Iraq War you support Saddam and his crimes against his people"? Or "if you're against the war in Afghanistan you support Osama and al-Qaeda and the Taliban"? We're hearing the same disgusting jingoistic fascist groupthink coming from the mouths of this administration as we did in the last one, but because this administration is run by big-D Dems the mainstream liberal community in this country hardly gives a shit anymore. And if you don't believe me, one study points out quite clearly that since Obama took office, the vocal, active voices in anti-war movement no longer has Democratic activists anymore and consists almost completely of independents and third-party voters. The research shows that "the electoral success of the Democratic party in the elections of 2006 and 2008 led to the large-scale abandonment of the antiwar movement by Democrats, even despite the party’s failure to deliver on its antiwar promises."
And this, more than anything, is the problem with this team-based, party-based activism we see in this country. For so many people activism isn't about the issues, it's about getting Their Team into power. People don't care about the cause, just The Party. Check out this video from MSNBC in which Jeremy Scahill takes Ed Schultz to task for cheerleading for the war in Libya and tries to explain to the idiot why this war is tactically stupid even disregarding the ethical considerations (Jeremy's bit starts at 1:11); in it Schultz insists that he's a liberal and a progressive before going on to fully endorse the war actions in Libya because he "has faith in Obama." Truly sad, sad shit. Keep in mind this is MSNBC, the supposed voice of the American ~hard~ left. This sort of blind media cheerleading for war would be hilarious if it wasn't fucking sad as hell.
*
Recently, we've been hearing a lot of opposition to the Libyan war from many Republicans, not just in Washington but also on the ground, among the general citizenry: make no mistake, there is a BIPARTISAN opposition to this war in our country, and just as with Iraq, the opposition is far greater than the media makes it out to be. So what does this tell us? This tells us that NOW is the time for activists to join forces with those on the other side of the political spectrum to bring about change. The mainstream left needs to stop whining about how hypocritical it is for Republicans to criticize the President for leading us into an illegal war. Just because they're fucking hypocrites and are operating from the perspective that they need to bring down a President they hate doesn't change the fact that they are, FOR ONCE, correct on the substance. If stopping the war(s) is more important to you than scoring political points, it shouldn't matter whom you have to get on your side to get it done:
Are these Republicans who are decrying the Libyan war total fucking hypocrites after the way they cheerleaded for the Iraq and Af/Pak wars? Absolutely they are. Are some of them probably just a bunch of ignorant batshit teabagging racists who are opposing this war simply because "dat durr black man started it"? Probably. But the point is that IT DOESN'T MATTER. This should be the time when anti-war Dems in Congress should stop bluffing and posturing and start forming coalitions with the anti-Libyan war Republicans in order to get Obama to stop his bullshit. This should be the time when Dems in every community across the country should be trying to find common ground with Republicans in their community, regardless of whether those on the left think that these former Bush supporters are hypocrites or not.
*
Some links about Libya, for those who want to read more on the sitch:
21 March 2011 - The Lesson the U.S. Is Teaching the World in Libya
Fantastic article arguing that our actions in Libya will make it less likely for other nations to give up their nuclear technology: "[S]omething important has gone almost unnoticed-the lesson the United States is teaching the government of every country on earth. That lesson is: no matter what, no matter the inducements or pressure, never ever give up chemical weapons or a nuclear weapons program. Doing so will not ensure that the U.S. does not attack you-on the contrary, it will make it much more likely."
30 March 2011 - C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels
In direct contradiction to the Obama government assertion that there are no "boots on the ground" in Libya, "small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military."
30 March 2011 - Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions
In which Sec. Clinton basically states that the Obama administration would just go "lol no1curr" and ignore Congress if it passed any resolution trying to stop or restrict US military action.
31 March 2011 - Obama's new view of his own war powers (by Gleen Greenwald)
Glenn, partly in response to Clinton's bullshit, writes: "I defy anyone to identify any differences between the administration's view of its own authority -- that it has the right to ignore Congressional restrictions on its war powers -- and the crux of Bush radicalism as expressed in the once-controversial memos by John Yoo and the Bush Department of Justice. There is none. That's why Yoo went to The Wall Street Journal to lavish praise on Obama's new war power theory: because it's Yoo's theory. If anything, one could argue that Yoo's theory of unilateral war-making was more reasonable, as it was at least tied to an actual attack on the U.S."
31 March 2011 - Beware: Widespread Mission Creep Underway in Libya
Why the constant obfuscation from the Obama administration over what we're doing in Libya and the way the scope of the mission quickly expanded should give anyone pause, whether they're for this intervention or not.
1 April 2011 - US-Saudi Deal on Libya Exposed: Obama OK'ed Bahrain Invasion in Exchange for Yes Vote on No-Fly Zone
One of the biggest justifications for our Libyan intervention is that the Arab League requested our help. Never mind that, as Noam Chomsky pointed out in a recent talk, that the US ignored the Arab League when it requested a no-fly zone over Gaza and that "what the Arab League wants" has fuckall to do with while we're in Libya. And regarding the Arab League's request for our help, this article details how "two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a 'yes- vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya"-the main rationale that led to UN authorization for military intervention.
18 April 2011 - The Dangerous US Game in Yemen (by Jeremy Scahill)
Jeremy Scahill's excellent piece laying out the current situation in Yemen and how the US relationship with Yemen lays bare the utter hypocrisy in our foreign policy where we bomb Libya for Gaddafi's crimes under the banner of freedom and democracy while leaving Yemen's dictator in place despite his equally (and arguable MORE) heinous/oppressive/authoritarian behavior towards his own people.
21 April 2011 - Gates says Obama has approved use of armed Predator drones for the first time in Libya
...making the Obama administration's insistence that it is allowed to circumvent the War Powers Act (because we're ~technically not engaged in "hostilities" in Libya) a big steaming pile of bullshit.
1 June 2011 - Libya conflict: UN accuses both sides of war crimes
Which goes back to this article I posted some months ago re. the racist abuse against blacks and sub-Saharan foreigners by the rebel forces.
*
Moving on from Libya and back to my initial comment about "wasting votes":
One of the biggest myths we've been told on the left about Obama is the famous story of how he recounts the tale of socialist/atheist labor organizer A. Philip Randolph meeting FDR, and FDR telling Randolph that while he agreed with Randolph's stance on civil rights, labor rights, etc., the people had to "make him do it." In other words, FDR could not act on these issues and sway members of government from the top unless there was popular pressure from below.
This is a great story, and to an extent it's right on: People have to push for change. People cannot expect government to do the right thing just because it's a Democratic government or a Republican govt. or a Green govt. or what have you; people have to demand that government work for us. The tale is a cautionary one, that just because you have someone in power who agrees with you in theory it doesn't mean they'll do what you hope for in practice, unless you *make* them. Obama's message is clear: he agrees with progressives but cannot act progressive unless the support is there on the ground.
However, the problem with this Randolph/FDR story is that both it and allusions to its spirit have become the new thing for Obama apologists to use when they defend their poor bb President for his inaction on various issues. It's the PEOPLE'S fault he hasn't gotten us out of Iraq or Af/Pak because the PEOPLE didn't push him hard enough. It's the PEOPLE's fault he didn't push harder for truly public, single-payer healthcare. It's the PEOPLE's fault he's wanting to expand drilling in the Gulf despite the massive spill we just had there. He would come out and support gay marriage unequivocally and stop torturing/imprisoning without trial an openly gay soldier if only MOAR PEOPLE made it clear that that's what they wanted. Don't blame Obama for being overly cautious and not risking political capital by taking the lead on issues and sticking his neck out: PEOPLE are the problem because they aren't angry enough. You can't expect poor bb Obama to actually take the lead on an issue if the PEOPLE don't make it clear that that's what they want, amirite?
Riiiiight... so if that's the case, what's the justification for Libya then? From the beginning there has been doubt and opposition on both sides of the political spectrum about the war, AND support for it continues to dwindle by the day among people of all political persuasions. Yet despite this low popularity Obama seems to have no fucking trouble ~taking the lead~ and sticking his neck out and making the case for an unpopular position when it comes to bombing the shit out of people. So what's the fucking excuse on all the other issues he could be taking a lead on, but isn't? Clearly he's willing to do something unpopular if he thinks it's worthwhile and important to the country's interests, so why are PEOPLE being blamed for the inaction of Obama on various issues of economic and social justice at home? Obama has shown that he is willing to lead without the people's support if need be, so to blame people's inaction for the inaction of the president on issues of importance is really rich.
And this passing of the blame is particularly ridiculous considering the amount of effort the Obama administration has made to silence its own critics on the left. How exactly are the people to blame for not "making Obama do it" when Obama himself is working his ass off to silence those who are trying to do exactly that?
*
Most recently, the Obama administration tried to make the fact that he was bringing some troops back home from Afghanistan into a Big Fucking Deal, in order to please the anti-war contingent within his base and war-fatigued voters among the general populace at home. What he failed to advertise during this orgy of bullshittery and self-praise was that only about half the actual troop surge of the Obama years will have been withdrawn towards the end of 2012, meaning that there will be more troops in Afghanistan after this "reduction" in forces than there were when Obama took office. Nor does it ever get talked about that in addition to the troop surge there was also the "civilian surge" of State Dept. personnel, the surge in CIA personnel and special ops forces, the surge in "private contractors" (read: mercenaries), and the surge in drone usage that disproportionately kills civilians.
So, here's the thing. We have a president who sold himself to the Democratic base during the primary season as the anti-Iraq war alternative to Hillary Clinton. We were told to trust his judgment, because he was right on Iraq and would not lead us into war on false pretenses or in a reactionary manner. We were told to trust him because he would fight against the abuses perpetrated against civil liberties and privacy during the Bush years. Despite this trust, we are still in Iraq, we will continue to be in Af/Pak, we continue to keep Guantanamo open, we continue to kill civilians wholesale, we continue to hold Bradley Manning in prison without trial after torturing him for nearly a year, civil liberties continue to erode under the guise of "security" and the justification of Perpetual War, and we are once again led into a reactionary war against a country on false pretenses. At home, despite massive scientific evidence and devastating man-made disasters arguing against it, we have a president who insists on expanding offshore drilling in sensitive areas and propping up the already ossifying and dying nuclear energy industry with ever more infusions of taxpayer cash. We have a president who taunts his progressive base by urging them to "make" him do their bidding and then giving them the finger when they try to do just that.
So all in all? I don't want to hear ever again that I'm wasting my vote. Really? Because if you share even just some of the values that I hold, voting for a Democrat like the one currently in the White House is no less of a waste of your time than my vote for a third-party nobody is a waste of mine. When establishment figures on both the right and the "left" in the US hardly disagree on issues of importance, and when both major parties agree that corporations get to write energy and environmental policy and that reactionary interventionism/imperialism is the default foreign policy template, the problem with this country is far greater than which ~Team~, red or blue, you decide to vote for. This is not a rant exhorting folks to Be a Special Snowflake & Vote Like Me, nor is it a rant exhorting folks to not vote at all because teh system sux baaaallz; this is simply a request that people think twice before judging other people's decisions in the voting booth as "wasted votes," because those decisions currently have fuckall to do with the problems we face in this country. It's a call for people to realize that civic participation does not end when the ballot is cast. That's only where it begins, and until that fact is acknowledged and taken to heart, "wasted votes" will be the least on anyone's list of political worries.
*
To conclude, here an excerpt from an excellent recent piece by Glenn Greenwald in which he points out the the ridiculousness of liberals who object to the misdeeds of the Obama administration but then turn right around and proclaim that they'll be supporting him in 2012:
It may be that this fear of Republicans is rational (or, given how many GOP-replicating policies and practices the Democrats embrace, maybe it isn't). But whatever else is true, one thing is for certain: dedicated partisans who pledge their unbreakable, eternally loyal support for any Party or politician are going to be steadfastly ignored (or worse) by that Party or politician, and rightfully so. If you spend two years vehemently objecting that certain acts so profoundly offend your principles but then pledge unequivocal support no matter what almost two years in advance to the politicians who engage in them, why would you expect your objections to be heeded? Any rational person would ignore them, and stomp on your beliefs whenever doing so benefited them.
I'm not saying I know the answer. Joan Walsh yesterday urged progressives not to organize for Obama until next year while nonetheless vowing to support his re-election, which (though well-intentioned) strikes me as merely reinforcing this dynamic. But what I do know is that Rachel [Maddow]'s optimistic proclamation that "only the base itself will ever change" this dynamic cannot be fulfilled without giving the Party and its leaders a true reason to pay attention or care about disenchantment (and, some day, to fear alienating their base)....
[T]he notion that political opinion in America would not allow Obama to do anything differently on these issues is empirically disproven; he ran on a platform of opposing all the measures he now supports and won decisively. By itself, that proves that -- when these debates are engaged rather than conceded -- these positions are politically sustainable. Obama adopts Bush Terrorism policies because he wants to and has no reason not to -- not because doing so is a political necessity.