Towards a Critical Hope
DAVID DUHALDE
Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Obama could run. Obama ran so our children could fly… predator drones?!
I came across this on Facebook. The truth and cynicism both hit me.
I knew elements of the radical Left would condemn Obama without mercy. They would do this despite our knowledge of limitations Obama faces and his centrist intentions. But cynicism – like hope – is dangerous. Unlike hope which can get you amped and active, cynicism is a downer and demobilizer.
Obama’s election does matter in small and wonderful ways. I attended an 1199 SEIU regional meeting were union organizers read an anonymous letter by a worker. The writer called upon her workers to stand up for the union. She reminded them nothing in life was free and without struggle there can be no progress. In the letter, the future Norma Rae cited the Obama election as an example of why it was time for a change.
This positive influence goes beyond our borders. At my union hall, a representative from El Salvador’s FMLN presented on the recent elections. He reported that some El Salvadorians, who often expected reprisals from the US for exerting their independence, used America’s vote for change and a reason to justify supporting the FMLN. The presenter acknowledged that Obama might only be slightly better than McCain. Still, in an election decided by less than two percent, the hope Obama provides may have changed the victor.
I never thought Obama would be a progressive. I got flack in my own liberal family for merely stating that I though Obama would only make lasting change if movements pushed him.
Everyone should hold Obama accountable and move him towards the Left. My more radical coworkers and I at 1199 were bothered by an email chain from a colleague encouraging us to give Obama an “A” on online survey. The reason for the missive: the right-wing folks were giving him an “F.” We should be giving him poor marks on a number of issues, not being his teacher’s pets.
But I encourage people to work with the language of change and hope. Today, nothing is further removed from mainstream activism and boring than cynicism. Meet people where they are at – not where you pretend they are. We don’t leave in ordinary times; you can be isolated and cynical or challenging and optimistic. As always, you can be the right-wing of the impossible or the left-wing of the possible. I’ll always choose the latter.
If time permits I’ll write a full response to David’s post. For now, I’ll just say that when even liberals are falling out of love with Obama, there’s no need for socialists to pull their punches. See: http://gawker.com/5263813/michael-isikoff-reveals-details-of-secret-white-house-torture-meeting
Some liberals may have been naive enough to think voting for Obama would lead to a drastic shift in US policy, that’s their own fault. Obama never postured as a left-wing crusader, he campaigned as a centrist. Bill Clinton who governed further to the right of Obama (Obama this far), ran closer to the left during the 1992 election. That was a “betrayal” of liberalism.
Obama was supported by a large segment of capital. And new “capital”, the finance, real estate and insurance folks are deep inside of the Democratic camp, same with the Israeli lobby.
Liberal intellectuals may be angry at Obama, just like a bunch of them were angry at Clinton, but at the end of the day they have no where to run to outside of the Democratic tent. For now however the general population is not angry at Obama, he remains popular.
If the socialist left in America is to become anything other than a marginalized segment of a marginalized liberal left it’ll come by engaging those who support Obama. That’s David mainpoint I believe.
Now if labor was trying to break with the Democratic Party. If there was a progressive moment to the left-of-Obama, that would be another story.
In the absence of one I’m not sure how much can be gained by attacking Obama directly. Such contrarianism hasn’t done much good to this point.
Obama remains popular because not enough people are paying attention to what he’s actually doing.
Of course we have to engage with (working-class) Obama supporters. Who says otherwise? But considering how incredibly bad Obama is being on matters involving civil liberties, state secrets, LGBT issues, etc., it’s not just a matter of saying his stimulus package wasn’t big enough. He’s not just being “centrist.” In many respects he’s governing FROM THE RIGHT.
I don’t disagree with that statement actually, but as far as civil liberties I don’t think that should be the left’s priority right now. The struggle right now should be for reforms that empower labor and working people.
This whole liberal obsession with torture and the evils of the PATRIOT ACT is all a bit melodramatic in my opninion. We saw an even more draconian counter terrorism act under Clinton.
I’m much more concerned with Obama’s views on health care reform, policy towards progressive regimes in Latin America, climate change and reunionization than I am with waterboarding or the fate of a handful in Gitmo.
Wow, Bhaskar, that reads as really…off, to me. “The fate of the Gitmo prisoners? Screw ‘em! Let’s talk about EFCA!”
I mean, we knew Obama was going to be wholly inadequate on basic domestic economic issues. No surprise there. But all these Bush-ian arguments he’s offering for blocking detainee abuse photos, for “preventive detention” plans, his backing away from his promise to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” his budget’s ban on federal funding for needle-exchange programs, his DOJ claiming sovereign immunity in wiretap cases — these are all betrayals, pure and simple.
Let’s not confuse cynicism with anger. Because the anger is completely warranted.
I meant to change the last sentence, because I did misrepresent myself to a degree. The operative word was “more”.
1 п. “Не имей сто друзей, а имей сто шекелей” тоже хорошо рифмуется
8 п. Ты никогда не потеряешь работу. Когда закончатся фотографии можно размещать рисунки (да хоть бы и конкурс объявить на лучший рисунок Одри (-:), аппликации и фотографии поделок из пластилина…
9 п. Сто пудов !
I agree with Jason that it’s wrong to subordinate civil liberties questions to “meat and potatoes” economic issues. I can see why a progressive legislator would pick and prioritize her fights with more strategic care, but that’s not our place and not our concern.
Yes, it’s a bit silly to pretend that Bush-era civil rights abuses are truly “unprecedented” in the long sorry history of American authoritarianism. But we don’t want to say anything that will dampen the outrage of the terrible stuff that has gone down over the last eight years.
Markina makes some well-observed points too.
Yeah rereading some of my remarks, I’m not as far from your position as it may seem, I just think it’s kind of absurd when liberals in America and internationally are quick to condemn the imprisonment of a few hundred detainees in Guantanamo Bay as an unprecedented humanitarian disaster, yet these same forces didn’t say a peep when in the 1990s the prison-industrial complex which imprisons hundreds of thousands in this country was reaching new heights under Clinton.
Socialists should have different talking points and different points of emphasis than liberals.
“If the socialist left in America is to become anything other than a marginalized segment of a marginalized liberal left it’ll come by engaging those who support Obama. That’s David mainpoint I believe.”
Bhaskar: thank you for understanding my piece. It’s about the Left successfully engaging with Americans and why people like Obama. Too often, people focus on the individual and not the politics.
I thought the last paragraph made that clear.
But David, I think that the person (i.e. Obama) is the problem here. People are still so caught up in what they think that he represents that they are missing the fact that he’s continued the Bush approach to the economic crisis, civil liberties, and Afghanistan. I’m done with the rhetoric of changeyness, and I think that by recognizing some sort of legitimacy in that narrative we’re just prolonging the Obama crush when we should be encouraging feelings of betrayal among liberals and the majority of Americans who say they support what he’s doing. If he aggressively promotes a real public health insurance option, I’ll change my tune a bit but I’m not expecting anything encouraging on that front.
Let’s not exaggerate what we can do. We, as the small socialist movement, can not prolong or stop the “crush” folks have with Obama. My simply acknowledging the positive affects of his election does not take away from my criticism of his failings. The world is grey; people need to critique the whole of the presidency, not just the parts they don’t like.
What Bhaskar and me are arguing is that cynicism will get us nowhere. Jason is right that anger and a sense of betrayal might work better, but that still needs to be mobilized in pushing people to the “left of the possible.” Attacks on Obama for the sake of “anti-capitalism” is old, played out, and gets you no where.
Prove me wrong. Let’s see who mobilizes more folks: the cynics or the dreamers.
Again, David — where’s the cynicism? Anger doesn’t equal cynicism. And what “dreaming” are you talking about? Who’s dreaming? And what are they dreaming of?
If I ever read a thread of conversation that was going nowhere it might be here.
**
The sentiments David expressed are fairly vague, but the gist of it is about the tone that leftists should take. Leftism in America must be driven by an emancipatory vision and must pursue a reorganization of the left, progressive social forces and a series of non-reformist reforms. We all know this.
We should also acknowledge that Obama himself isn’t the problem. He’s a manifestation of the current balance of forces in this country, a manifestation of the left’s impotence.
In general we should approach the 21st century not with angry, knee-jerk responses, but with clarity, purpose and a “positivist” agenda.
The working class, organized labor, communities of color, young people all demonstrated class consciousness when they swept Obama into power. They recognized that their interest would be better served with Obama than McCain. Pointing out flaws in Obama should be done in a manner that reflects not only his popularity, but the fact that his popularity makes perfect sense.
Americans are also concerned with national security, the left can’t just pretend that this concern is entirely unjustified or that terrorism was concocted by the Bush administration to provide pretext for their imperialist adventurism.
Again vague sentiments, but that was the gist of what David was saying (I think). Battling within the labor movement against bureaucratic elements and restoring the notion of class struggle. Expanding the labor movement and trying to mobilize the immigration movement into a broader movement for social justice. Recognizing the failure of EFCA lobbying and arguing for a turn towards more traditional mass demonstrations of class power. These are things that socialists can advocate for within the labor movement and our community. I don’t see how Obama is the main problem or how attacking him is the solution or at all relevant to these problems. That will come much, much later.
The cynicism is reflected the statement I wrote the piece about. Bhaskar: thanks for being supportive, articulating what I meant better than I, and not acting obnoxious.
My final comment:
David’s article read as though he was saying that the left must (still) offer “critical support” for Obama. I have been trying to say that the time for anything that could be accurately called “critical support” is past. It should be obvious by now that to achieve anything that might count as radical reform we will have to be FIGHTING Obama more often than not.
And the idea that Obama’s election reflected some sort of heightened class consciousness is completely wrong. It certainly reflected a sincere desire by Obama’s supporters to overcome racism in the U.S., but the election of Wall Street’s favored candidate reflects the LACK of class consciousness among U.S. workers. Had there been greater popular class consciousness — or at least less of a, yes, cynical mindset among the labor “leadership” in the U.S. — Edwards and perhaps even Kucinich would have done much better in the Democratic primaries than we did.
Our job now is not to be the critical left wing of Obamamania. We have to make it clear to “the people” that Obama is, by and large, not going to act as is he is on their side. Obama’s agenda is not merely inadequate; it is something that we are actively going to have to fight AGAINST.
At least I am alive to correct misunderstandings of my work. Bhaskar is the true heir to Duhaldeism with his correct interpretation
I never called for “critical support” of Obama in the piece – even if I might think that is a perfectly fine political stance. Just look at the second to last paragraph saying we should review Obama poorly.
The principle of the piece remains if radical activists approaching organizing against Obama as if he is the villain, then they are out of touch with the American left of center. You can be ideologically correct, and be politically wrong; an example would be fighting against single-payer because its not socialized medicine.
I’m surprised that David’s reflections sparked so much controversy since I think there’s no question that the radical left’s cynicism is destructive and self-defeating. Cynicism is different from healthy skepticism in that it relishes in a kind of demoralizing pessimism and presumes to expose the naivete of others in a way that alienates potential friends.
There is nothing wrong with being anti-Obama, who is, after all, something of a turd. But ordinary American liberals, many of whom have high expectations of Obama and admire him, won’t be schooled or scolded into radicalizing their politics. That’s just not how people work. We don’t have enough time to teach the American people Marxism 101, and they wouldn’t register for the class anyway.
Instead, liberals need to be reminded of why they supported Obama in the first place and why Obama needs their help to “make him” do the right thing.
Of course, people who think a revolutionary alternative is fast-emerging could probably turn the tables and accuse me of debilitating pessimism and maybe so. But I think the best case scenario for the near future is not the storming of the Winter Palace, but a re-tooled New Deal coalition of lower income and non-white people with women as its electoral backbone — not necessarily people who are going to be prodded into forming a left-wing opposition to the Obama administration.