[OccupyCU] Fw: Tired Old So-Called Leftists Give Same Old Excuses For Supporting Obama in 2012

[David Johnson]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: David Sladky 
To: David Johnson 
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 7:27 PM
Subject: Tired Old So-Called Leftists Give Same Old Excuses For Supporting Obama in 2012



 



Tired Old So-Called Leftists Give Same Old Excuses For Supporting Obama in 2012
Wed, 08/15/2012 - 16:34 — Bruce A. Dixon
  a.. 
 
By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

Abject and unwavering support of President Barack Obama on the part of blacks and what used to be called “the left” has made them pretty much irrelevant since Obama emerged as a viable presidential candidate back in mid-2007. After five years of the Age of Obama, four of them as president, one would imagine there are lots of new reasons to endorse him. But even his abject supporters can't find any.

Tired Old So-Called Leftists Give Same Old Excuses For Supporting Obama in 2012

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

For more than four years now, we at Black Agenda Report have chronicled the self-silencing and growing irrelevance of black America and what calls itself “the left” in the age of Obama. Black America has arrayed itself as a veritable wall around the First Black President. But it's not a wall that protects him from racists or Wall Street predators or Pentagon warmongers. The truth has always been that when we stifle our own tongues and circle the wagons trying to silence critics of the White House we only protect the president and his party from accountability to their supposed base: us. 

Some African Americans and self-identified leftists relish their irrelevance so much they feel called to preach it. Early this week Carl Davidson and Bill Fletcher published a 5,900 word screed at Alternet.Org with the clumsy and contradictory title The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama's Record … Which Is Why We Are Voting For Him. 

5,900 words is pretty long. Out of respect for our readers' precious time we here summarize its tired, recycled and profoundly un-original arguments in the order they were made, as 12 one-sentence bullet points. Some are repeated in whole or in part, because that's what Davidson and Fletcher did, for who knows what reason. Here they are:

  1.. The electoral system is pretty much broken.

  Give the authors credit for this brilliant observation. From standards of who can vote varying from state to state and county to county, with the US Senate giving disproportionate representation to states with lower population, with the Supreme Court affirming that corporations are people who get to vote with their money, and electronic voting which makes it audits impossible, it's hard to argue that US elections aren't a rigged game.

  2.. Historically, progressives either tail the Democrats, become anarchists, or use elections to expose the bad guys by attacking Dems as well as Repubs, all 3 of which they say “miss the point.

  “Tailing the Democrats is tailing the Democrats, period. Your votes and those you persuade and hustle count just the same, whether they are cast while holding your nose in a spirit of “critical support” or as a craven, tongue-wagging Al Sharpton style bootlicker. And if the electoral processes are profoundly broken, what's wrong with using the election to expose the difference between what people want and deserve and what's actually being offered? Why is it better to let a Democrat cut Medicare and social security and privatize public education just because the Democrat isn't a white racist?

  3.. Elections are about power, and the left not only has none, but possesses not even a plan to get any.

  The power of elections is symbolic --- they symbolize the will of the people. Elections, even manifestly crooked ones, give a veneer of legitimacy to the “winners.” And Fletcher & Davidson must be leftists themselves, because they don't have power or a plan to get any either. 

  4.. The Republican right is racist, irrational and often militantly ignorant.

  Wow. These guys don't miss much, do they?

  5.. The 2008 Obama campaign was “movement-like” and some kind of “mass revolt”, while Obama was always “a corporate liberal.” Many like Carl and Bill who supported him were “measured skeptics.”

  Back in 2008, Fletcher's term for “measured skeptic” was “critical support.” Being a “measured skeptic” is sort of like being only slightly pregnant. Unless you believe the slogan on their poster, the Obama campaign was never a “movement.” It was an marketing campaign, and won Advertising Age's 2008 award for the best brand of the year. Obama IS a “corporate liberal” but in the context of his campaign being a marketing effort masquerading as a movement, it's more precise to call him that --- a brand, deliberately manufactured as objects to which folks can attach imaginary and desirable qualities like compassion, opposition to wars, and so on.

  6.. Fletcher & Davidson credit Obama with taking the troops out of Iraq. 

  This is an outright lie, as more than a hundred thousand US – financed mercenaries remain in Iraq indefinitely, and the Obama White House fought till the last minute to get its Iraqi client state to set aside the Status of Forces agreement negotiated under the Bush administration which required all official US forces to leave the country.

  7.. The Republican right is attacking Obama cause they're irrational, misogynist and racist and because he's black. 

  Same as point number 4. Keen and savvy observers, Davidson and Fletcher are, to have noticed this.

  8.. Fletcher and Davis say “this is not a referendum on the 'America of Empire'”, instead it's one that pits “'the America of Popular Democracy'... the changing demographics of the US... against the forces of... far right irrationalism...” so Obama's actual record is beside the point.

  This is almost too weak and shabby to poke fun at. If the discussion is about empire, Fletcher and Davidson can't win. The First Black President invaded and overthrew an African country, Libya, is launching daily drone strikes into the horn of Africa, possibly Mali, and certainly Pakistan and Yemen, and has carried out military adventures Bush and Cheney could only dream of doing without massive upheaval at home. The notion that Obama, the president who coordinated military-style assaults against the occupy movement nationwide last year is on the side of “popular democracy” is also laughable. Obama supporters desperately need his actual record in office excluded from any discussion, or they know they cannot win.

  9.. Davidson & Fletcher say that progressive forces are too weak “to supersede or bypass the electoral arena altogether,” don't have candidates that can “outshine” the two corporate parties, so voting for the lesser evil is a practical necessity.

  Such original insights. Who knows what it means to “supersede... the electoral arena,” or what it means for a lefty candidate to “outshine” those of the two parties? If the “shine” is a function of corporate media attention, that's a done deal. Corporate media are key players in choosing the establishment candidates and building the narratives that say what the one-percenters want said and keep what they don't want said off the table.

  10.. The Republican right is trying to turn back the “demographic and political clock,” which electing Obama presumably advances.

  Davidson & Fletcher makes this “demographic” argument twice, so they must think it's really important. We're supposed to picture Repubs as foes of even arithmetic and the forward flow of time, which maybe they are. Can't have that, can we?

  11.. They say that this really important election is about defending ourselves from the Republican right.

  Ever notice how every darn election is the most important one yet? Or how every election is about defending us from the Republican right. None of them are about defending ourselves from the equally if not more dangerous Democratic right. More Democrats than Republicans in Congress voted for the Bush bailout of September 29. When it lost, Bush called in Barack off the campaign trail. Obama worked the phones and whipped Democratic votes into line so that the Black Caucus for instance, which voted 34 to 8 against the Wall Street bailout on September 29 endorsed it 32 to 10 on October 3. That Bush bailout was only for $3 trillion. Once in office, Barack, according to the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News, handed out $15 or 16 trillion more.

  12.. Fletcher and Davidson claim progressives will have more room to operate under Obama, so again, complaining about what the Obama administration has or hasn't done is “of little help at this point.”

  Again, they cannot win discussions about Obama's actual four year record, so Obama supporters have to either lie about that record or rule such discussions off the table.

  As for the notion that progressives have more “room to maneuver and organize” under a Democrat than under Republicans, the last four years should disabuse us of that. Carl's and Bill's nonsense about supporting "the America of Popular Democracy" by organizing independently on the ground while supporting Obama and presumably Congressional Dems as well didn't pass the smell test four years ago and stinks even worse today.  To cite just one glaring example, in just about every state in the union there are pro-privatization, anti-teacher, anti-public education referendums, often binding or tied to state constitutional amendments on the November 2012 ballot that will enable the proliferation of charter schools despite the wishes of local communities.  These are not abstract questions --- they have immediate and far-reaching local and national implications for public education, for the cause of privatization, for the stabilization of communities and much else.  The Obama administration, and usually Republicans as well as corporate Democrats on the ground are aggressive supporters of this stuff.  

  Bill and Carl would have us organize to defend public education, at the same time that we get out the vote for a president and Democrats down the ticket to state legislators, county boards and city halls leading the attacks against teachers and public schools.  

  You could make similar arguments that support for Obama actively directly undermines, subverts and contradicts  local organizing against nuclear power, which Obama is a big fan of, or reining in the telecoms, or opposing wars in Asia and Africa, or standing up for the rights of prisoners or Palestinians or the immigrants who Obama has deported in record-breaking numbers, or the work to keep homeowners in their homes.  How do Bill and Carl expect people on the ground to further any of this work while they make excuses for Obama who directly opposes them on all these fronts and more?

In the end, Fletcher and Davidson are just saying the Republicans are racists and white supremacists, so we're obligated to circle the wagons around Obama, and this simply trumps everything else. 

Some of us don't really buy this. Economist Michael Hudson a couple years ago opined that the duty of corporate politicians is to deliver their voting constituencies to their campaign contributors, and this was why Republicans and Democrats sounded different when campaigning but governed in substantially the same way. 

The only good thing about Fletcher and Davidson's piece is that they didn't call names, like esteemed elder Amiri Baraka did when he said blacks who didn't support Obama four years ago were "rascals", or like cranky old Ishmael Reed when Jared Ball waved a microphone near him a litle while back. So apart from calling them old and tired, which some of us here at Black Agenda Report confess to as well, we won't play the dozens here.  But their excuses for supporting Obama are shallow, specious and profoundly un-original, the essence of lesser-evilism and tailing behind Democrats. They ought to, and might well be, ashamed to have to make them.

Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, and a state committee member of the Georgia Green Party, which has endorsed Jill Stein for president in 2012. Dixon can be reached via the contact page of this web site, or at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com.

Comments 
TERM LIMITS AND BANDWAGONS
PEASEHEAD - 08/17/2012 - 17:26 
If Mr. Obama is re-elected in November, then the Obama bandwagon will continue as before. Term limits dictate that, barring a coup, there won't be a third term in office for the President. It's going to be interesting to see what all of those who sat down, or stood down and did nothing but cheer and make excuses for Mr. Obama for nearly a decade do when they realize that their reality TV show is at an end, and that America is still America. 

  a.. Login or register to post comments
Fletcher and Davidson also make a good point,
epppie - 08/17/2012 - 10:17 
when they argue that it might be a good strategy to vote for Obama and Dems, while organizing a progressive/left movement on the ground.  The problem is that we have been fooled by this argument many times, and we are hip to it now.  It is part of  a notorious bait and switch maneuver.  As soon as the election is over, they will tell us not to organize, except in support of Obama and Dems, because we have to 'give them a chance'.  By the time Obama and the Dems have 'had a chance' it's time for a new election and the bait and switch starts again.
 
But there is also a larger strategic picture that we have to see.  The only way to real power for the left is via populism.  The key obstacle to populist power is the Left/Right divide.  Why do we refuse to see that the 1 percenters never let the Left/Right divide, which is primarily a cultural divide, stand in their way?  Why do we continue to INSIST on letting the cultural divide between Left and Right get in our way?  If Obama and Bush can make common cause together, why must we insist that hipsters and rednecks, for example, can NEVER make common cause?  
 
I'm not saying that there are no real differences between Left and Right.  In particular, the Right Wing is virulently racist, though mostly today it denies this. Right wing bigotry is coded as opposition to crime, illegal aliens, pedophilia, etc..  Of course, what they really mean is that they hate brown people and gays, etc..
 
But what we have to see is that these are prejudices that we must overcome so that a populist movement can arise.  Most people agree on most political and economic fundamentals. The attitudes that stand in our way amount to feuds, ancestral feuds, which have been hampering populism for over a century.  Cultural prejudices, such as racial hatred, can be rooted deeply, but they can also melt away when people start building bridges, and overcoming otherness.

  a.. Login or register to post comments
Davidson and Fletcher got one thing right.
epppie - 08/17/2012 - 08:32 
The left has absolutely no plan for how to achieve power.  And folks like Davidson and Fletcher are the reason.  Almost all lefties with any kind of soap box preach powerlessness in various forms.

  a.. Login or register to post comments
Another link to the Fletcher/Davidson article
Lady Di - 08/16/2012 - 11:28 
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-2012-elections-have-little-to-do-with-obamas-record-by-bill-fletcher
Interesting that the article disappeared on Alternet, but is still available at ZNET.  The commenters over at ZNET are properly rough on these "tired old" liberals with their attempt to herd the strays back into the corral where they will be pushed down the chute to vote for Obama.  After the vote, they will find themselves right back in the pen where they will be packed off to the slaughterhouse.
Run away, my fellow ferals.  Don't let them fence you in!

  a.. Login or register to post comments
#8 in focus, now- Is Obama/US behind Brit threat
sanda_artistNYC - 08/16/2012 - 09:06 
Right now, the Ecuadorian Ambassador to England, having a press conference on the illegal under internationa law- their threat by the Brits to snatch Julian Assange from the Embassy if Ecuador grants Julian Assange  political asylum.  How likely is it that Obama (Administration) is behind the English threat to the Ecuador sovereignity? Very.  I don't give Dem.Now credit for much (I've been critical of the non-inclusion of disabled people or "wrong" when discussing issues, and not very often, of people with disabilities, e.g. "death panels" without including Stephen Drake, a guest long ago, but excluded from this topic, his  "specialty"from www.notdeadyet.org) - but this morning there was coverage of the press conference, live, at the Ecuador Embassy and Michael Ratner, one of Assange's lawyers.  I had had same reaction "Old empire dies hard - can't give up heavy hand ignoring of international law" and here we go again, US foreign policy behind-the-scenes.
   It takes a lot of ignoring to "take off the table" by Davidson and Fletcher any criticism of Obama on policies, actions re war(s), empire, civil liberties, human rights (prisons, drones, extrajudicial murder - "target-ed killing",grabbing people off the street and disappearing them, militarization of police in U.S. escalated, police brutality, police surveilance, islamophobia, etc) and the escalation of prosecution of "whistleblowers" instead of prosecution of criminal behavior by gov't authority, military, etc.  But then, I saw the ignoring of Israel policies toward Palestinians by Jews in the U.S. and predicted there would be ignoring of Obama's policies by African-Americans when Obama got elected.   I wrote my prediction in a letter to a radio person who had asked me, on the air, when I was a caller, critical of Israel and U.S. policy, during the Israeli attack on Gaza between the election of Obama as President and the inauguration, what I say "to my group"...and I asked, "What do you say to your group?"-I assumed he meant other Jews(he's African-American).  It has been the way of "minority groups" in the U.S. to  "defend" or as Mr. Dixon calls it, "circle the wagons".  
Oh, the excuses: my favorite is "no president is in charge" meaning, so why pick on Obama? they ask.  I ask, then why does it matter who is president and why should Obama be re-elected if he's not in charge, just a figurehead?

  a.. Login or register to post comments
The US govt is behind, in
beverly - 08/17/2012 - 17:44 
The US govt is behind, in front of, and on the side of the British war against Julian Assange.  This includes providing the women who brought charges against Assange for assault.  It was a set up from the get go.  It's off the chain mind blowing to watch the West go apeshit crazy and trample every Constitutional, national, and international law/treaty in order to "get" Assange.  His only crime:  telling the truth.  If he had only leaked unflattering news about Russia, China, or some other "enemy" of the US, he'd be given the Congressional Medal of Honor by now. 
More proof of how corrupt and hypocritical this administration is can be found below.  The White House and State Dept have issued statements denouncing the sentence Russian court issued against that no talent punk band.  Given all the problems going on in this world, why do WH and SD have time to give a shit about this trivial issue?  Probably because the SD or CIA was behind the incident designed to make Putin look bad.  Oh the hypocrisy - our govt laments the harsh treatment of these "poor girls who were just exercising their free speech rights" while allowing Lynne Stewart to rot in jail for simply representing her client, treating Bradley Manning worse than Bin Laden, and staging the mother of all witch hunts against Julian Assange.  God bless America, indeed.
"Obama spokesman condemns ‘disproportionate’ prison term for Russian punk band members
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News
The White House on Friday condemned the "disproportionate" two-year prison sentence a Russian judge imposed on members of the punk band Pussy Riot, found guilty of "hooliganism" for an event mocking Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"The United States is disappointed by the verdict, including the disproportionate sentences that were granted," spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.
"While we understand the group's behavior was offensive to some, we have serious concerns about the way these young women have been treated by the "Russian judicial system," Earnest said. He did not use the band's name.
At the State Department, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland bluntly urged Russian authorities to review this case and ensure that the right to freedom of expression is upheld."
"The United States is concerned about both the verdict and the disproportionate sentences handed down by a Moscow court in the case against the members of the band Pussy Riot and the negative impact on freedom of expression in Russia," Nuland said in a written statement. Three members of Pussy Riot were found guilty of  hooliganism and sentenced to two years in jail in connection to an incident earlier this year in which they mocked Putin during a "punk prayer" in a Moscow cathedral.
Judge Marina Syrova announced the verdict from a district court in central Moscow, about two miles from the Christ the Savior Cathedral where the guerrilla group and feminist collective performed its "flash" stunt.  . . ."
 

  a.. Login or register to post comments
Lame Excuses to Hype Progressives to Vote for O-Bomb-er Again
Nixakliel - 08/17/2012 - 13:08 
  Even after 4 yrs of Obama neglect, betrayals & sometimes out-right insults!. 
Fletcher represents many Black [& white] so-called progressives [IMO a better word is 'liberals'] who find ways to make excuses to keep supporting Dims especially now that a Black Dim is POTUS. I would put folks like Norm Solomon & AmyG @ DN! also in this category [I won't even start naming prominent Black Obama hypers- that would take up too much time & space]. These folks had establish creds w their truthful critiques of the Bush / Cheney / Neo-Con cabal- but then either went silent [which generally they didn't- more on that later], made excuses for or actually cheer-leaded the same policies carried out by Obama. IE: Contrast DN! position on Bush's attack on Iraq w their support for O-Bomb-em's  / Killory's / Sue Rice's / NATO's attack on Libya [& now Syria]- the difference is like night & day! Certainly neither Khaddafi nor even Assad had/has any-where near as much blood on their hands as Saddam did- so the lame R2P excuse for DN! hyping FUK-US NATO's & the GCC Tyrants' attacks on Libya & now Syria just don't cut it! 
'After Obama proved that his 'Audacity Was Without  Hope' &  his 'Change Could NOT be Believed In' You'd think so- called progressives' like Fletcher even if they decided personally to vote for Obama, would at least keep that to  themselves & stay issues oriented -&- if asked if they're supporting Obama in 2012- just give a diplomatic type answer like 'I know many progressives have valid reason to be disillusioned w & frustrated by Obama's policies, IMO they're are going to have to weigh their options carefully & vote consciously & without delusions, etc...'  The fact he'd write a piece like this, where his basic position hasn't changed since 4-5 yrs ago, when so many were    caught up in the Obama hype, based on why we must keep Romney /Ryan from the white-House- instead of what Obama's done to earn progressive support- IMO proves that he & those like him [Black or white] are just apologists &/or advocates for Obama & the Dims. It's hard to believe that guys as smart as Fletcher fail to see that Obama's spent the past 4 yrs stiff-arming his Black / Brown & progressive base that helped put his Black @$$ in the White-house in 2008! What else does this guy have to do before it clicks in w Blacks & progressives that he's got NO Real Respect & Appreciation for us & he only does a poly-trickal minimum [generally as rhetoric]- just so we all don't kick his ass to the curb come Nov 2012!
 And unless a so-called progessive alternative news site has an established track-record of Principled & fact based critique of Obama policies [IE: BAR, Global Research, WSWS, etc], be wary of their current blitz-krieg attacks on Romney / Ryan [it should be a no-brainer that No real progressive would ever vote for Romney / Ryan] as just Dim propaganda pieces [even if they don't mention Obama & the Dims] for whipping progressives into a fear frenzy leading back to the ole 'Evil of 2 Lessers' paradigm [You just gotta vote for Obama because we just gotta keep those hard-core reactionaries Romney & Ryan  from getting into the White- House!]. This thinking fails take into account the fact that the Corp Wall St Bankster Elites & Military Industrial Surveilance Security Complex wins NO matter if Obama or Romney wins -&- that-  Unless Obama wins in a land-slide [which he probably won't]- if the power elites want Romney in they'll just steal the damned election again like they did in 2000 & 2004- DUHH!!  
PS: Check out this article @ GlobalResearch.ca - 'How Obama Created Paul Ryan' @ http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32385 : } Paul Ryan is suddenly a household name after becoming Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate. Before that, Ryan had only become right-wing leadership material in the last year, based on his proposed national budget that hacks away at the core of many national social programs, including Medicare.
No one deserves more credit for Ryan's rapid rise into stardom than President Obama, who opened heavy political doors for the aspiring Republican vice president, none more weighty than that Pandora's box of "entitlement reform" — cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs.
Destroying these programs has been on the Republicans agenda forever; however, for decades there has not existed an environment to implement them — political suicide would've been the result. Now it seems that anything is possible under Obama.
It was the Obama Administration that started the "yes we can" motto to cutting Social Security and Medicare. Although it's rarely discussed in the so-called liberal press, Obama has worked to undermine Social Security and Medicare since he became President... {

  a.. Login or register to post comments
Fletcher, Davidson, Reed,
beverly - 08/15/2012 - 23:19 
Fletcher, Davidson, Reed, Baraka - Step-n-Fetchits (SNFs) for the Democratic plantation.  Are Obomber and his Demowretched brethren any less harmful than the Republican scarecrows Bill, Carl, and the gang warn us about?  The domestic and foreign policy actions of this administration have been as harmful to blacks here and abroad as anything conjured up by the right wing.  Notice how things resemble the dark years of the Reagan regime - that same Reagan that Obomber is on record saying he admired?  In fact, shit is worse now than during Reagan's reign.  People are even more broke-assed, housing situation is beyond unstable, civil liberties are in short supply, and there's a war, er, humanitarian mission, unleashed every few months. 
It's interesting how the SNFs can absolve Obomber of any blame/role in matters.  A few years ago, they and company slammed (and rightly so) the Bush/Cheney regime 24/7.  Why is it that Obomber gets a free pass?  One could argue that many of Obomber's policies are racist because black people are faring worse under them and said policies serve to further the interests of white supremacy moreso than progress for blacks, the poor, and the elderly.
How much graft/swag are these SNFs getting from Obomber and Demowretches in exchange for brainwashing the public?  

  a.. Login or register to post comments
Enjoyed the content, Mr. Dixon.
sanda_artistNYC - 08/15/2012 - 19:00 
#9: Davidson and Fletcher could be said to be "apple polishing" - polishing an apple to put on the teacher's desk, a term that was already "quaint" when I was young.  
On the "circling the wagons" - this only exists in films not in history but is a good word picture to show a concept
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/occupycu/attachments/20120817/f81fc210/attachment.html>