I read here at OS all the time how you people feel in your heart that Obama is going to save us. You need to wake the hell up.
What to expect from Obama whether he has a mandate or not:
More war in Afghanistan and of course with great hypocrisy continuation of the highly profitable war on drugs.
More national debt, more taxes, more recession.
No repeal or ending of any of the things that are unconstitutional - FISA, Patriot Act, rendition, torture, etc.
No closure of Gitmo.
No health care reform.
No equality for gays, women, minorities.
Why? Because Obama is not liberal or progressive. He is a relatively conservative centrist. He is not pretending to be centrist to get elected. He really is centrist and as such he will only disappoint.
The Huffington Post of all places published this important article:
Allison Kilkenny
The Least Worst Trap: Talking with Ralph Nader
On Sunday, the War on Terror spilled into Syria, and the only people more surprised than the Syrians are Americans. See, the war has already spilled into Pakistan. It's unclear where the United States will be heading next, but I hear Kazakhstan is hunkered down and braced for an attack at any moment. Sure, they're a member of NATO and the UN, and have nothing to do with any of this, but their funny-sounding name and population of foreigners is working against their innocence. All it will take to gain popular support for an air assault is the presence of American ignorance regarding Kazakhstan's people, policies, and culture. Bad news Kazakhstan: we have no idea who you are. Head for the hills!
Even as the war expands, the definition of victory remains opaque. Though the Bush administration has no long-term vision of what a stable Middle East looks like (Bush has said something about an Iraqi 'Mickey D's being a 'sweet idea') several senior American officials simply expressed hope that the unwise war policies of preemption and perpetual, borderless war would "be embraced by the next president as well." And these policies will be embraced unless the American people demand something different from their leaders.
At home, people are losing their jobs and their homes, while their tax dollars go to bailing out corporate crooks who base their livelihoods on speculative lending, shady mortgages, and outsourcing American jobs overseas. The policies of corporate socialism (where tax dollars go to bailing out huge corporations) will also continue unless the American people stand up and say no more.
In desperate times, the American people have a history of embracing the least worst politician, but it's time they demand more from the next president of the United States. It's time to transcend pretty rhetoric and empty promises. The new president must aggressively embrace a Progressive agenda or it will be impossible to reverse the damage committed over the past few decades.
Ralph Nader, Independent Party presidential candidate, has been pleading with the American people to demand more from their leaders. Unsurprisingly, the corporately sponsored Commission on Presidential Debates did not permit Nader into the debates, even though a majority of the American people supported opening the debates to other party candidates.
Regardless of how one feels about his presence in the 2008 election, Ralph Nader is undeniably the leader of the last real Progressive wave in this country. It was because of his uncompromising vision that Congress passed the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Just during the 5-year period between 2002 and 2006, seat belts have saved over 75,000 lives (PDF). His list of Progressive accomplishments includes the Clean Air and Water Acts, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Freedom of Information Act.
Ralph Nader and his army of conscientious citizens were the last organized, serious movement that demanded accountability from Washington.
The so-called Progressives today are allowing Barack Obama to compromise on everything from FISA to the anti-war movement. But even as he votes for telecom immunity and talks about Afghanistan as the good war, Obama has never lied about being a Progressive. In fact, he seems rather confused that any of his followers think he'll be anything but a centrist in the White House. Progressive groups that score Obama with a 50% approval rating seem confused by this as well.
The Progressives have pinned their hopes and dreams to a man they have asked nothing of, and they're going to be sorely disappointed when he, in turn, does nothing for them.
When I interviewed Ralph Nader, he explained what will happen if Barack Obama is elected president:
You take the 20 leading groups supporting him in the liberal-progressive pantheon: labor, anti-poverty, civil rights, women's rights, gay-lesbian rights, environment, consumer - you name it - not one of them is putting any demands on him. Unconditional voting for the least worst of the two parties means that your vote has no political leverage whatsoever. It allows Obama to take it for granted, and not give the anti-war people anything because he knows he has the anti-war vote. Then they go to the right wing and slice off a few votes there by going more corporate and flip-flopping on offshore drilling. This is the same merry-go-round every four years. The liberal intelligentsia is doomed unless they solve this problem of unconditional voting for the least worst candidate.Closed debates and apathetic, naïve voters will result in a continuation of Bush's policies, and Americans will be told to wait another four years for single payer health care, a living wage, the end of the Iraq war, cutting the bloated military budget, ending the death penalty, ending the wasteful War on Drugs, investing in solar power, and the end of nuclear power.
When neither party is talking about any of the above issues, the American people are screwed because they're at the mercy of a winner-take-all system. Nader explains:
The people are in a two party prison. There can be something like a Green Party in Germany because if you win 5% of the vote you get 5% of the parliament. Here, you've got to win 51% or a plurality, which is why people don't support small starts to make them build into larger movements because they think: well, they're only 4 or 5% in the polls and I don't want to waste my vote. It's time to break out of the prison.
A 4-5% Progressive voice won't be enough to create real change. And Americans are ready for real change. They don't want to triangulate and compromise. Compromise results in, as Nader puts it, "a macho competition" between Democrats and Republicans, who disagree on if abortion is a matter of killing babies, but agree on bombing foreign babies every chance they get. The 2008 US military cash-burning extravaganza is currently hovering around the $623 billion mark. That's more than the rest of the world's military budgets, combined.
It's time Progressives stop playing defense and start setting the agenda. They can do that by putting real pressure on Barack Obama if he is elected president. They must organize and demand a stop to the wars, and not settle for, as Obama is suggesting, the continued presence of U.S. bases and private mercenaries. They also must demand publicly funded elections, and an open system that allows the American myth that anyone can run for president to become reality.
Currently, the Military-Industrial Complex, which feeds on war and suffering, controls America. Progressives claim to be the blockade between greedy politicians and federal tax dollars, and yet they are continuing to let Obama get away with catering to the middle.
They make this unforgivable compromise because they're certain Obama is a radical Progressive simply spouting some centrist rhetoric until he can get into the White House. And then it's free health care and peace for everybody!
I'm paraphrasing what a California lawyer told me at the Nader-Gonzalez Wall Street bailout rally a few weeks ago. Michelle, the lawyer, and a minority Obama supporter (she came to the rally because she was curious,) said she was absolutely 100% certain that Barack Obama was a Progressive, and he is only saying he's pro-death penalty and for the bailout because he needs to get elected.
I asked her what evidence she had of this claim. She had none. She just felt it in her heart.
Progressives need to stop acting on what they feel in their hearts and look at what is happening to their leadership. If they don't collectively demand real, sweeping reform from the next president, then the president will bow to the only real pressure he feels - the pressure from corporations and war hawks.
The full transcript of Ralph Nader's interview can be found here: allisonkilkenny.com.
For more information on Ralph Nader, visit: Votenader.org.
Comments
Politics is always about making the least worst choice. Unless you're Ralph Nader. Then you can just vote for yourself and sleep smugly.
Nader makes much more sense than the crooks and liars representing the two corporate owned parties.
Get the hell over yourself.
I also have to wonder if punterjoe doesn't maybe have a point regarding Nader's "fail big" status - I mean, has he ever said why he won't run for Congress? If it is easier to affect change from within, why is he still outside?
Good counterpoints, BBE. A week before the election, it is always a good idea to question choices and make damn sure why you're voting for the candidate you chose.
Rated/appreciated.
I'm not sure that there are very many "true" liberals left, BBE. The movement has been hijacked by special interest partisans and PC craziness.
Liberal today often means walking in lock step with every group that has suffered any perceived wrong and seeking reperations for them. I tis not a "big tent" but rather a very dogmatic and tightly knit group that is at least as closed minded and intolerant of any new ideas or dissent as anything on the right.
"If it is easier to affect change from within, why is he still outside?"
Probably because once you are fully inside a system you have to play by their rules in order to get anything done; and if they're rules are governed by corruption then you will become as corrupt as the system you are trying to fix. Besides, I don't think his intention has ever been winning, it's it more about social change, and creating a path for it?
Preaching to the choir here, BBE.
Nader is putting truth out and all people want is fake change. Of course Nader hasn't a hope in hell, but he is a voice we should listen to despite wankers like punterjoe.
The other idiocy is that Nader or third party people have no right to run cause the Dems are stupid enough that they let the Republicans win in 2000.
That said, is this blog post realistic, or just plain pessimistic? For crying out loud, let's all just give up and wait for the country to finish circling the drain.
I agree that there will be huge amounts of disappointment when Obama does not follow everyone's favorite reform. (My particular fantasy is that he will pardon Leonard Peltier--the Lakota unfairly railroaded by the FBI.) However, I pin my hopes on his intelligence and motivation to do well by the people. I will not mind when he compromises because I trust him.
Thanks, Blue eyes, for the interesting post.
rated
By your picture, I assume you are too young to have living memories of the Kennedy brothers, the last of the wealthy who loved and served the people. That was the last time we had an intelligent president. I do not count Bill Clinton because he--and Hillary--are political animals; they have been addicted to it since their college days. As president, Bill did nothing to change the fatal foreign policies which have caused most of our problems in the world. He settled like good politicians do. His lackluster performance for Obama proves that power is more important to him than winning back the country. He has a trantrum. Most unbecoming.
I trust Obama's intelligence. And I trust that he has a genuine interest in making our country great again in the ways it can be. A cursory glance at the issues on his website proves that he has wideranging ideas which include native americans and the disabled. Will he do everything I want? No. But it does not matter. I will sleep easier with him in the White House.
So, intelligence, to you equals all the virtues necessary for a leader. By the way, the "Clintons are diabolical political animals that thought of political office since college" and Obama is not, what an amazing conclusion you come to. Obama is not a political animal? So why is Obama a politician? (Oh, I forget he is different).
Intelligence matters when it is coupled with the same kind of sense of service to the people that possessed the Kennedys. I would rather have a politician than an actor (Republican figurehead) any day. It's the self-serving quality of Bill's response to Obama's win over his wife which proves my point. Bill would rather the Democrats lose so his wife has a shot in 2012. Nuff said.
And your friend Michelle is most definitely deluded and I'm pretty certain, in the minority. At least in comparison to the chatter from the people I've talked to which, admittedly, is about as scientific and data-oriented as Michelle the lawyer's opinion.
I just don't see many people here who think Obama is some sort of savior. I know you've been saying this for awhile, but honestly, everyone seems pretty aware he's a centrist and that there will be some battles ahead on some of his initiatives. Certainly, his healthcare plan needs work. I don't like that he voted for that spying program. That's crap.
But, damn, electing a rock would be better than McCain and his nutball VP.
One more thing.... This 'true liberal' business I'm seeing here. That's a load of crap. I'm sorry, but it really is. What the fuck is going to happen with that? Will we start in-fighting next and talking about how "I'm the TRUE liberal and you're shit!" Because if that's about to occur, honestly, I don't want to be any part of it.
Rated.
MTK is all caught up with being happy even though she recognizes it is probably a false happiness that will lead to an even bigger downer when she is disappointed.
Odetteroulette lives in an alternative universe where people aren't getting the Obama insignia tattoo'd on their bodies. And BTW, a true liberal is Kucinich and the Democratic Party treats him liek the lunatic fringe. Obama is not a liberal. He is going to shock all of you with the crap he pulls if he wins.
Stephanie, you gotta get over the Obama thing because I fear for you. You really really like and trust a man who is a slimy politician and so your fall will be so very hard. Politicians suck. Obama is a politician. Obama sucks. Please don't let someone who sucks drag you down when he shows his true colors.
Also, the "true" liberal crap ... still a pile of steaming goat turds.
Having hope that some of this stuff will be different, I think that's a lovely idea. But I doubt very few here are going into this without open eyes. I'm just getting confused about what you're trying to accomplish. Obama is a centrist. Yes. We all know this. What else is there to say about it? And yes, the party didn't elect Kucinich, which I think is too bad, but that's the way it goes. It's an election so people lose. Sometimes we end up with a candidate that doesn't support everything we like, but supports more of those things than some other person. So, that's where the vote goes.
I get that you are a thwarted romantic in these matters, BBE, which is why you're so determined to shoot down the optimism of others. Not seeing the strengths, however, is just as bad as not seeing the weaknesses.
Something to think about anyway.
You might know better, but they do not. Look around OS. Your common sense is not very common here.
Yeah, he is not perfect and says so himself. I, for one, am not waiting for the second coming of christ and will settle for this one good man with good ideas. I don't think he is a messianic figure but I do think he will be different. My opinion; and, like I said to your sidekick, Stellaa, we will all have to wait and see.
Peace out (rated before I think but I will double check)
Honey, I am no one's sidekick.
Don't mean to soil your post, Spike.
I disagree with you. I think you're wrong. I think you're overstating the positions of other people for your own amusement. And I'm not really fond of how mean and patronizing you are about it either. Plus, at this point, I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish except an attempt to make other people feel bad, which is extremely pointless. I don't see any rubes here, anxious to be "fooled." I see a lot of people who've been through some very difficult years who are hoping to see an end to at least SOME of it.
Maybe you see it differently because that's what you're expecting. I don't have any expectations of anyone. Not here and not in the candidates.
None of these people were my original candidate anyway. That's actually made it easier to be objective.
Sometimes, you make your opinion into a bludgeon that you can beat everyone with. And not only does it not change minds, it actually makes a difficult time worse. So, you know, thanks for that.
I wade through Obama drivel and tonight when I get home, I will post links to some of the most sickening. And I give MTK a head's up because her whole I went and watched Michelle speak and she make me cry post is at the top of the list. All the silly o-bot comments lauding it are exhibit A. This site is lousy with non-thinking Obama heads who trust he will be different once elected.
Know what I'm saying? There's a kind of exasperated hope that wells up when the toilet breaks. "Please, God. No more!"
I'm a person that agrees that third party candidates should be in the debates. It's unfair to call them "distractions" from the issues--I actually think third parties bring up a lot of issues that both the Democrats and Republicans ignore. We need them for checks-and-balances purposes, to maybe side step the kind of binary thinking that comes with choosing between two options. Running a government of 300 million people (just that simple fact in and of itself, with no dressings) means new ideas are needed. We cannot rely on two parties to meet the needs of the 21st century. We need more heads in the think tanks of tomorrow.
As for Obama being progressive, I honestly don't know. But I hope he picks a left-leaning Supreme Court appointment.
It's your opinion, and like the asshole, we all have one of them. I think you're wrong about the people here. I'm sure you're right about Obama. He will do something someone here won't like. That's kind of a gimme though. Not much guesswork to it. There are a lot of opinionated people here.
You want to set yourself up here as fabulously superior because 'you see it all'? Go ahead. Let's go get you a crown.
This is one passionate group of very giving, intelligent, vulnerable people, willing to put it all on the line. Really good stuff!
I may need a tranquilizer to calm down and go to bed... :)
MTK - you know that post and comment thread are full of mindless Obama worship. Man up and get ready to take your licks.
Odette, I realize you disagree, but after I offer to spend time getting the links to posts that show what I am talking about you come back and act all stupid. Of course I am an asshole. And that silly opinion asshole thing? Heard since I was in diapers. But I offer to spend my time providing you with proof and all you offer me is a dumb crown? What the fuck? Go and read that MTK thread and then come back and tell me OS isn't full of blind Obama worship. Your last dumb ass comment has convinced you aren't worth the time it would take me to make a post for you showing what even the blind can see here.
Just read a little of Freeborn, Liz, MTK, Stephanie, Farmer, and the like. They are so in the tank for Obama that they would be the sort to applaud him when he sneezed and wiped his nose just like those other fools who populate his rallies.
And no -- I'm not gonna be all nice and civil like you want. Take your emasculating demands elsewhere. This is not the house of lets all have cookies and milk and play nice. This is the internet and you are now officially part of the nanny naggers of OS.
No comments:
Post a Comment