Why you should not in any Circumstance vote for Obama this November [Archive]

View Full Version : Why you should not in any Circumstance vote for Obama this November

Dean

6th October 2012, 17:10

The format is going to be as a response, simply because Its easier for me to deal with a prompt. Raúl's position is clear so don't take this as an attack on him: he's not even really defending Obama.

Look, what I'm going to argue at this point is that in the end I don't really care if leftists en masse ended up voting for the Democrats because they think that it's the lesser of two evils and so on. Hell, even I'm considering it (being a college student and all, Paul Ryan and co. want to fuck me over when it comes to Pell grants and student loans I depend on) although I can't be arsed enough to go register and vote.

This is bizarre to me. The moral, civil and political implications of lending legitimacy to the Democratic party is just disturbing. Especially in this election, when Obama has proved to be the most reactionary Democrat, unwilling to do anything to make Jobs at home. Romney's criticism is spot-on with this point, and this is why I scoff at some of my friends who act like Virginians are idiots for voting for Romney - with Obama, at least we know his economic policies are vapid. His foreign and domestic policies are evil to the point of offense:

Whistleblowers - worst record of any US president. Notable cases include the UBS tax evasion whistleblower Birkenfeld and the US military whistleblower Bradley Manning.

Foreign Policy - pure evil. Obama is playing the role of the "tough on Israel" president, but he tried to offer a deal to stop Israeli settlement expansion for 30 days. The caveat was that the US agreed to "never again" ask to halt settlement expansion. Even this brief halt was too much to ask of Israel, who apparently view all such requests as irrelevant.

The drone program needs little reminder: what is striking is that the media actually discusses this, probably because they think it makes Obama look tough. But this is a program meant to excise the superfluous population in the way of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (http://thethinred.blogspot.com/2012/10/job-creation-not-priority-in-obamas-war.html).

Obama has endorsed the corporate coup de tat in Honduras. Recently 2 pregnant women were killed in a 3-nation joint DEA operation including the US in Honduras (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2012/08/201281381310569607.html). When the DEA official is asked how he views the operation, he says it is a "success" because of this international solidarity. The civilian casualties are no longer in the radar for operational analysis.

The 2-sided response to the Arab spring needs little mention. The fact that Bahraini police and US police have had joint training operations is revealing to the goals and strategies both forces can be expected to employ.

Domestic Policy - expansion of warrantless wiretapping. NDAA revoking habeus corpus (high profile lefites like Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, who released the pentagon papers, have started a lawsuit against it). Attacks on Whistleblowers using the archaic and barbaric Espionage and Sedition acts. Full frontal assault on labor unions, to the point of inviting a leading attacker, Rahm Emmanuel (also a militant Zionist), to be a headline speaker of the Democratic National Convention.

In fact, the Democratic National Convention has rejected its own flimsy democratic structure. With no clear 2/3 majority in a voice vote (in fact, the "nos" are more vociferous), the DNC forced through pro-Israel language in what was a surreal, naked example of Israeli white nationalist graft (http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/6/as_dnc_pushes_through_jerusalem_vote).

Now, none of this is to say that there are no instances where voting for a bad politician can be a good tactic. But the differences between Romney and Obama are not even clear. Your local elections almost certainly carry different dynamics - here in VA, for instance, Wayne Powell may be a good political horse simply because he has been able to promote a "Not for Sale" pseudo-Jacobin political rhetoric opposed to corporate graft.

I don't really see this as a problem nor do I think it's an obligation for leftists and radical leftist organizations to tell people to not vote at all.

I find this rather odd. Why is there never a choice? It is true that our democratic process is absurd in its totalitarianism. But it has devices, including a write-in field, which make it theoretically pliable to popular input. The only legitimate argument for not voting is if the costs outweigh the benefits - but frankly, our civil society is weak enough in the US that if you're not voting, chances are you're not doing anything more constructive, either.

And there are other options beside the hydra. This site (though apparently Libertarian-slanted) helps to provide alternatives with an interactive survey: http://www.isidewith.com/. In elections in which I have no comfortable choice, I write-in "No Confidence." If you only have bad options, at least make it known that you support none of them.

X-posted with revision (http://thethinred.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-you-should-not-in-any-circumstance.html)

Nihilist Scud Missile

6th October 2012, 18:02

The format is going to be as a response, simply because Its easier for me to deal with a prompt. Raúl's position is clear so don't take this as an attack on him: he's not even really defending Obama.

This is bizarre to me. The moral, civil and political implications of lending legitimacy to the Democratic party is just disturbing. Especially in this election, when Obama has proved to be the most reactionary Democrat, unwilling to do anything to make Jobs at home. Romney's criticism is spot-on with this point, and this is why I scoff at some of my friends who act like Virginians are idiots for voting for Romney - with Obama, at least we know his economic policies are vapid.

"Jobs at home"? I'm a communist of an internationalist flavor. In any event, as a communist I also understand the president of the United States doesnt "create jobs". The global economy is under the control of capitalists/banks not politicians (even capitalists can't control their beast). If there's a lack of jobs Obama, Bush or whoever isn't to blame. A basic understanding of Marx's critique of capital is in order?

Dean

7th October 2012, 17:12

"Jobs at home"? I'm a communist of an internationalist flavor. In any event, as a communist I also understand the president of the United States doesnt "create jobs". The global economy is under the control of capitalists/banks not politicians (even capitalists can't control their beast). If there's a lack of jobs Obama, Bush or whoever isn't to blame. A basic understanding of Marx's critique of capital is in order? Touting your own internationalist credentials doesn't do anything to diminish mine. I've made no policy proposal that repudiate the need to provide job accessibility to people of all nations. Presidential power has indeed expanded, and there is nothing about "capitalism" (instead we have a form of corporate mercantilism, anyways) that makes it impossible for political leaders to address unemployment. When Larry Summer and another head economist warned Obama that his policies (then only proposals) did nothing to address unemployment, he looked at them blankly. He can advance policies to have more folk employed, and to stop limiting agricultural production in the global south, but he chooses not to.

Say No to pseudo-Libertarianism.

Must be nice to be so privileged and bourgeois that there is no personal or family consequences in allowing another Republican to be elected president.
So pitiful. The supposed differences between the candidates are not even clear. Obama has maintained conventions that redefine torture. Of somewhat more intrigue is his behavior during the so-called debt crisis. While republicans wanted to pass legislation that would simply allow the president to raise the debt ceiling at whim, Obama refused, and demanded a bill that traded cuts in entitlements for raising the debt ceiling. This is a marked shift from their stated policy positions and unsurprisingly, it was not emphasized or even reported in some cases. The Democrats also deliberately passed the power to create a congressional budget in 2010 to the Republicans. This reflects a policy on government spending that is more regressive than the Republicans in these cases.

I don't even need to mention the regression on civil liberties. And there are other options than voting for these creeps.

Nihilist Scud Missile

8th October 2012, 01:55

Capitalist crisis is the cause of the current unemployment numbers. We, as communists, need to stop playing the silly game of finger pointing to any meaningless Republican or Democrat policy. All we end up doing is legitimizing the erroneous, no blatant lie, that America is a democracy, esspecially when it comes to economic issues. This is my second post on here so I don't want to be a negative Nancy but, well, as socialists we should'nt be helping the current system - we need a 'united front' so to speak with te goal of exposing the total sham that is our "democratic" process in America. Money controls the process. It always has and always will until the day capital (concentrated wealth) is abolished. Focusing on anything less is counterproductive at this point. If your point is that there is no difference between Obama and Romney then I totally agree but it didnt really come off that way. Sorry.

Jason

9th October 2012, 04:57

I'm wondering why the CPUSA supports Obama so much, when obviously he is supporting mass imperalism "at home" and abroad.

RaÃºl Duke

9th October 2012, 05:09

I find this rather odd. Why is there never a choice? It is true that our democratic process is absurd in its totalitarianism. But it has devices, including a write-in field, which make it theoretically pliable to popular input. The only legitimate argument for not voting is if the costs outweigh the benefits - but frankly, our civil society is weak enough in the US that if you're not voting, chances are you're not doing anything more constructive, either.

And there are other options beside the hydra. This site (though apparently Libertarian-slanted) helps to provide alternatives with an interactive survey: http://www.isidewith.com/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.isidewith.com/). In elections in which I have no comfortable choice, I write-in "No Confidence." If you only have bad options, at least make it known that you support none of them.One reason is that I don't think the left will have much traction nor gain much in taking a position regarding elections. I bet there's been leftist-led campaigns telling people to "not vote," etc but people, including members of the working class, will vote nevertheless due to the whole "lesser evil" thing or what other concern. The left should instead be focusing their energy on other more important things, particularly anything that will help intensify working class struggle; rather than giving a single iota of concern over electoral politics. However, I didn't say that the left isn't allowed to criticize politicians, political parties, etc. That's all fair game; I'm actually familiar with all the negatives of Obama you've mentioned and that's one major reason why I'm not excited to vote (then again, I never have; I didn't vote 2008 either).

Voter spoilage and not voting might be interesting in terms that those things appear on statistics and could give us a bit of a pulse on the apathy, etc towards the political establishment, but in practical terms those things won't really matter to the elites. Even if only a minority of the electorate voted (while the majority abstained or spoiled votes), they wouldn't give a rats ass. The elites only care for the perpetuation of capitalism, democracy is just a window-dressing.

Even if it was feasible in America for a "socialist" 3rd party to gain power, it will probably not result in socialism; just some social democraticism most likely. Socialism does not come top-down from within bourgeois politics/state but from the working class seizing the means of production through action.

The only legitimate argument for not voting is if the costs outweigh the benefits - but frankly, our civil society is weak enough in the US that if you're not voting, chances are you're not doing anything more constructive, either.

What is this constructive action you speak of?
More of the same sign-waving spectacular activism?
I would like to know more of actual real constructive action.

RaÃºl Duke

9th October 2012, 05:34

I don't mind some militant action/campaign towards non-voting/voter spoilage.
But my question is: what will that get us? Is it worth it? Perhaps nothing, perhaps it depends on how one goes about in this campaign

I think it depends on how it's tackled.

If the left is to engage in electoral politics, than basically they should do what you did in the first paragraph: criticize politicians. On the thread where I posted this, which I think was the Solint one, I disagreed with the premise of that article which was that we shouldn't criticize politicians (only look in the so-called good of politicians) basically. But I think people would find it obnoxious if we told them how to vote, not to vote, or to vote at all. Instead they should come to their own conclusion, we just supply the information; although the progressive media (alternet.com, etc) already does this...

NGNM85

9th October 2012, 19:51

The format is going to be as a response, simply because Its easier for me to deal with a prompt. Raúl's position is clear so don't take this as an attack on him: he's not even really defending Obama.

First I have to say that this thread is totally redundant, there's no logical reason to bifurcate the discussion like this.

This is bizarre to me. The moral, civil and political implications of lending legitimacy to the Democratic party is just disturbing.

No-one's asking you to concede that either party, or even the state, itself, is legitimate.

Especially in this election, when Obama has proved to be the most reactionary Democrat, unwilling to do anything to make Jobs at home.

That's not true. In fact, it's been Congressional Republicans that have been the biggest roadblock, in that vein.

Romney's criticism is spot-on with this point, and this is why I scoff at some of my friends who act like Virginians are idiots for voting for Romney - with Obama, at least we know his economic policies are vapid. His foreign and domestic policies are evil to the point of offense:

Whistleblowers - worst record of any US president. Notable cases include the UBS tax evasion whistleblower Birkenfeld and the US military whistleblower Bradley Manning.

Foreign Policy - pure evil. Obama is playing the role of the "tough on Israel" president, but he tried to offer a deal to stop Israeli settlement expansion for 30 days. The caveat was that the US agreed to "never again" ask to halt settlement expansion. Even this brief halt was too much to ask of Israel, who apparently view all such requests as irrelevant.

The drone program needs little reminder: what is striking is that the media actually discusses this, probably because they think it makes Obama look tough. But this is a program meant to excise the superfluous population in the way of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (http://thethinred.blogspot.com/2012/10/job-creation-not-priority-in-obamas-war.html).

Obama has endorsed the corporate coup de tat in Honduras. Recently 2 pregnant women were killed in a 3-nation joint DEA operation including the US in Honduras (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2012/08/201281381310569607.html). When the DEA official is asked how he views the operation, he says it is a "success" because of this international solidarity. The civilian casualties are no longer in the radar for operational analysis.

The 2-sided response to the Arab spring needs little mention. The fact that Bahraini police and US police have had joint training operations is revealing to the goals and strategies both forces can be expected to employ.

Domestic Policy - expansion of warrantless wiretapping. NDAA revoking habeus corpus (high profile lefites like Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, who released the pentagon papers, have started a lawsuit against it). Attacks on Whistleblowers using the archaic and barbaric Espionage and Sedition acts. Full frontal assault on labor unions, to the point of inviting a leading attacker, Rahm Emmanuel (also a militant Zionist), to be a headline speaker of the Democratic National Convention.

In fact, the Democratic National Convention has rejected its own flimsy democratic structure. With no clear 2/3 majority in a voice vote (in fact, the "nos" are more vociferous), the DNC forced through pro-Israel language in what was a surreal, naked example of Israeli white nationalist graft (http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/6/as_dnc_pushes_through_jerusalem_vote).

Christ. I hardly know where to start with this. First of all there are a number of glaring omissions, including, but not limited to; gay rights, immigration, environmental policy, abortion, and, perhaps, most importantly; the fact that there's a good chance that the next administration might get one, or even two seats to fill on the Supreme Court. By some metrics Romney is the same, but by most of them he's worse, in some cases significantly so.

What's really missing from this rambling diatribe is context, context, CONTEXT. I'm not trying to be mean, here, but, clearly, you lack a fundamental understanding of American politics. That's the real problem, here.

Now, none of this is to say that there are no instances where voting for a bad politician can be a good tactic. But the differences between Romney and Obama are not even clear.

Yes, they are.

The only legitimate argument for not voting is if the costs outweigh the benefits - but frankly, our civil society is weak enough in the US that if you're not voting, chances are you're not doing anything more constructive, either.

That's probably right.

I find this rather odd. Why is there never a choice? It is true that our democratic process is absurd in its totalitarianism. But it has devices, including a write-in field, which make it theoretically pliable to popular input.

There is a choice, in terms of the presidential election, if you live in six states, Virginia being one of them.

This is ridiculous. Write in candidates won't get you anywhere. If you're going to do that, you might as well do something equally constructive like jack off, or play Halo.

And there are other options beside the hydra. This site (though apparently Libertarian-slanted) helps to provide alternatives with an interactive survey: http://www.isidewith.com/. In elections in which I have no comfortable choice, I write-in "No Confidence." If you only have bad options, at least make it known that you support none of them.

X-posted with revision (http://thethinred.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-you-should-not-in-any-circumstance.html)

Again; this is nonsense, it accomplishes nothing. In order for third parties to become a viable force we need to change the institutional features that render them impotent. First; we'd have to overturn Citizens' United, and institute public campaign financing. Then; we'd have to overturn some of the state laws that disenfranchise third parties. Etc., etc. All of this is doable, and those are all great ideas, but until then it's absolutely hopeless. It's a mathematical impossibility.

ed miliband

9th October 2012, 19:54

romney/ryan 2012

Lowtech

10th October 2012, 20:41

romney/ryan 2012

You post this and not say why. you're leaving way to much to the imagination. But allow me to speculate if I may.

Obviously you do not support romney based on economic principles, unless you are a part of the plutocratic elite which is limited to 20 percent or less of the world population, everyone else is mathmatically raped by the plutocratic class.

I am sure its not due to his political principles. losing a political debate and resorting to falsifying and out right lying, which is nothing new from politicians as a whole, is, I am sure, nothing an intelligent individual would support.

This would rule out everything except being sexually attracted to the man,

If so, vote as your heart guides you, you have my blessings.

Krano

10th October 2012, 23:12

romney/ryan 2012
Cheney 2012.

ed miliband

10th October 2012, 23:51

You post this and not say why. you're leaving way to much to the imagination. But allow me to speculate if I may.

Obviously you do not support romney based on economic principles, unless you are a part of the plutocratic elite which is limited to 20 percent or less of the world population, everyone else is mathmatically raped by the plutocratic class.

I am sure its not due to his political principles. losing a political debate and resorting to falsifying and out right lying, which is nothing new from politicians as a whole, is, I am sure, nothing an intelligent individual would support.

This would rule out everything except being sexually attracted to the man,

If so, vote as your heart guides you, you have my blessings.

what you goin on about mate?

Doflamingo

11th October 2012, 07:35

Lil B/Soulja Boy 2012

Bring SWAG back to America!

Yuppie Grinder

11th October 2012, 08:27

I wanted a Gingrich/Santorum presidency more than anything and that possibility disappearing has left me deeply jaded.
If America can't have sodomy on the moon, I don't want to be an American.

Comrade Hill

15th October 2012, 01:44

There are no "lesser of two evils" in this election. You have the choice between a pseudo-social democrat and a reactionary yes-man who does whatever it takes to get votes.

Both want to cut Social-Security, both support imperialism, and neither of them have the magical "power" to contain the productive forces of capitalism. Instead, they advocate for expanding them by giving away tax cuts, expanding geopolitical imperialist interests, or trying to restore profitability of capital with only temporary measures. It would be one thing if Obama was actually "center-left" with a little bit of backbone.....but he's not even THAT. There is clearly nothing "vapid" about Obama's economic policies. They are literally a continuation of the neo-liberal groove that was born out of the crisis of the 1970s. This policy continuation is in large part responsible for the birth of the Occupy movement. If Obama's policies are so much different, then why did the Occupy movement come along to raise questions about this?

I find the criticism of NDAA to be a meaningless for many reasons. "Habeus Corpus" is nothing more than a declaration which can be interpreted in various ways. It can be interpreted to only apply to "American citizens" but no other persons. Without the NDAA, people would still be getting indefinitely detained by the U.S government....they would just be the "evil terrorists/foreign enemies" or whatever. The hidden chauvinistic principles behind "habeus corpus" and other bourgeois legalist concepts are something all leftists need to watch out for.

These issues are merely a reflection of the internal contradictions of the capitalist system itself, which needs to be exposed for everyone to see. The United States, as an imperialist empire, is as the center of these contradictions. The reasons not to support Obama are not because he supports the NDAA, or because he supports drone attacks. The reason not to vote for Obama, to put it plainly, is that he, as the president of the United States, has no other material incentive but to act as the CEO of the largest ruling class in the world. The job of the left is to expose the system and prepare the working class in each of their own countries for revolution. I personally do not see the need to vote unless we absolutely have to in order to save the working class from complete and utter destruction. This is not a situation we are dealing with in the U.S at this moment in time. What we have now is a typical, business-as-usual bourgeois-democratic system; tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum are running for office, each representing a unique set of interests to one sector of the ruling class or another.

Jimmie Higgins

15th October 2012, 15:00

Christ. I hardly know where to start with this. First of all there are a number of glaring omissions, including, but not limited to; gay rights, immigration, environmental policy, abortion, and, perhaps, most importantly; the fact that there's a good chance that the next administration might get one, or even two seats to fill on the Supreme Court. By some metrics Romney is the same, but by most of them he's worse, in some cases significantly so.

What's really missing from this rambling diatribe is context, context, CONTEXT. I'm not trying to be mean, here, but, clearly, you lack a fundamental understanding of American politics. That's the real problem, here.

First, what is the context here? I'm old enough to have been eligable to vote in the last 5 presidential elections if you include this one. Each one has been "the most important election ever" and each one has had liberals saying, "yeah, he's not great, but we have to think about the Supreme Court!". And in each Democratic victory I have been alive for, they immediatly turn around, once elected, and tell their base that it will be "too hard" to pass anything that people voted them in to do. Democrats spend more time trying to defeat the arguments of their supporters than their party opponents. This is because both the Democrats and Republicans ultimately want the same things, even if they sometimes propose different paths.

Second, on those specific issues you mentioned? Where has Obama taken initiative in a progressive way on these - not because he was pressured or as simply rhetroic with no real legislation or policy changes?

Immigrant Rights: Obama has deported 1.5 million people, mostly workers through no-match letters. Here in the Bay Area, some workers were fired and deported shortly after their company failed to prevent them from unionizing and when the government got an "annonomous tip" about undocumented workers being there. That's just one local example I can think of. But the bottom line is Obama is deporting people faster than Bush did.

Gay Rights: Obama got rid of "Don't Ask, Don't tell" but even that was under pressure and it took activists protesting outside of where Obama was recieving an award from a prominent liberal gay rights organization to make him look bad enough to take some small action. But other than that, he leaves it up to the states to decide: in other words "I don't feel this is an important enough issue to fight for, unlike say the TARP bailout". How do we look at Eizenhour and Civil Rights today? Do people say he was a great supporter of rights because he said he didn't like Jim Crow, but that it should be up to the states to decide? No. People see it for what it is: allowing oppression to continue while paying lip service to the oppressed.

Abortion: well abortion rights seem to be as much under attack as ever, if not more under Obama. Sure he isn't leading the charge, but I haven't heard even a peep about a counter-charge coming from the top of the Democrats. They only offer: well abortion is why this election is so important, because we can't let the right get control of the Supreme Court. Well the court seems to be getting away with a hell of a lot as it is, and the Democrats aren't even upholding the rights as we have them now, let alone expanding them. So lesser-evilism for abortion rights only means that it will take longer for them to be removed. But really, Democrats only use abortion as an issue for elections and scaring their base about the possibility of Republicans in power - but again, then they get elected and turn their back on their supporters and say, "The anti-abortion side is too strong, so we have to negotiate with them".

Environment: Keystone pipeline is the thing most people cite, but this was also only opposed by Obama because environmentalists had mobilized over it. In most other ways Obama has maintained the same policies as Bush.

So what's the point? That Republican or Democrat in office matter less than our ability to mobilize for ourselves. As Howard Zinn said, it doesn't matter who's sitting in the White House, it matters who is sitting-in. So if a socialist or anarchist as an induvidual wants to vote for this or that Democratic candidate, I think it's a mistake, but it's fine it doesn't matter much anyway. But I do think it's very important that we rejectr and argue against voting for Dems or Lesserevilism as strategy.

Dean

15th October 2012, 22:48

NGNM85

17th October 2012, 21:15

First, what is the context here? I'm old enough to have been eligable to vote in the last 5 presidential elections if you include this one. Each one has been "the most important election ever" and each one has had liberals saying, "yeah, he's not great, but we have to think about the Supreme Court!".

That's a good point, which, incidentally, cuts across ideological lines. Case in point being Citizens United. It was a complete fucking disaster. The question you have to ask yourself is; how much worse do you want it to get? Depending on the results of this election, we could be looking at a strong Liberal majority on the bench, or, and I'm not beoing hyperbolic, here, the most Reactionary Court in American history. Both Governor Romney, and his running mate, congressman Ryan, have repeatedly, and explicitly said that they would choose Pro-Life judges, with the explicit intention of overturning Roe. Again, I'm not being hyperbolic, but there's a very real possibility that they could send us back to 1973. This is a very real possibility.

And in each Democratic victory I have been alive for, they immediatly turn around, once elected, and tell their base that it will be "too hard" to pass anything that people voted them in to do. Democrats spend more time trying to defeat the arguments of their supporters than their party opponents. This is because both the Democrats and Republicans ultimately want the same things, even if they sometimes propose different paths.

That's not true. Look at social policy, it's night and day. There's no desire on behalf of the Democratic leadership to amend the Constitution to ban abortion, and gay marriage. That only exists on the Right.

Second, on those specific issues you mentioned? Where has Obama taken initiative in a progressive way on these - not because he was pressured or as simply rhetroic with no real legislation or policy changes?

Nothing exists in a vacuum. However, as I've said before, part of the differences between the parties owes to the fact that they reflect different elite constituencies.

Immigrant Rights: Obama has deported 1.5 million people, mostly workers through no-match letters. Here in the Bay Area, some workers were fired and deported shortly after their company failed to prevent them from unionizing and when the government got an "annonomous tip" about undocumented workers being there. That's just one local example I can think of. But the bottom line is Obama is deporting people faster than Bush did.

Gay Rights: Obama got rid of "Don't Ask, Don't tell" but even that was under pressure and it took activists protesting outside of where Obama was recieving an award from a prominent liberal gay rights organization to make him look bad enough to take some small action. But other than that, he leaves it up to the states to decide: in other words "I don't feel this is an important enough issue to fight for, unlike say the TARP bailout". How do we look at Eizenhour and Civil Rights today? Do people say he was a great supporter of rights because he said he didn't like Jim Crow, but that it should be up to the states to decide? No. People see it for what it is: allowing oppression to continue while paying lip service to the oppressed.

You seem to be answering a question, or responding to a statement nobody made. Although, I'll give you the credit of assuming this is just an unconscious mistake. Nobody claimed the Presidents' administration was fantastic/wonderful/etc., I said it was better than the alternative, which is kind of like saying; 'Water is wet.'

Abortion: well abortion rights seem to be as much under attack as ever, if not more under Obama.

There's been quite a perplexing surge, recently, on the Right in proposing extreme social legislation, particularly related to abortion.

Sure he isn't leading the charge, but I haven't heard even a peep about a counter-charge coming from the top of the Democrats. They only offer: well abortion is why this election is so important, because we can't let the right get control of the Supreme Court.

That happens to be a strong point seeing as Romney/ryan have explicitly stated, several times, (In fact; Ryan said it in the debate with the Vice President the other night.) that they will seek to appoint a Pro-Life justice, with the specific intention in mind to overturning Roe. If that happens; you can probably expect abortion to become illegal in most of the South, and Midwest. That's an ugly picture. However; this is just one reason. Again; look at Citizens United as the cost of allowing Reactionaries to get on the bench. Do you honestly want another Scalia, another Thomas up there? How is that helpful to us?

Well the court seems to be getting away with a hell of a lot as it is,

What the Court decides is law, literally. Their only limits, for the most part, are those defined in the Constitution, which they interpret, as they see it. Overturning Citizens would require a Constitutional Amendment. (Which I absolutely support, and should be the primary focus of the American Left.) The President can't do that much about it. They couldn't even get the Disclose Act passed, predictably, because the Republicans blocked it.

and the Democrats aren't even upholding the rights as we have them now, let alone expanding them. So lesser-evilism for abortion rights only means that it will take longer for them to be removed. But really, Democrats only use abortion as an issue for elections and scaring their base about the possibility of Republicans in power - but again, then they get elected and turn their back on their supporters and say, "The anti-abortion side is too strong, so we have to negotiate with them".

No offense, but it seems like you don't understand the fundamentals, here. As long as Roe stands, abortion is legal across the United States, within the perameters, up to around 28 weeks. (Incidentally, surprisingly, this is more liberal than France.) That's the law of the land, and essentially equivalent to similar laws passed in virtually every single country that has legalized abortion, with the exception that, as the United States does not have nationalized healthcare, the government only assures that Americans have the right to seek an abortion, whether or not they can pay for it is their problem. Some insurance plans cover it, some don't. Etc., etc. However; what individual states can do is pass various laws to make abortion harder to get, or to disenfranchise women seeking abortions, things like requiring parental consent, the most egregious of these is certainly the requirement for unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds passed in Tennessee, this is what we've seen quite a lot of, in the South, and Midwest, primarily. Now, unless these laws are found to be unconstitutional, and many, if not most of them aren't, or wouldn't be considered to be, by most of this present Court; those restrictions stand. That's a state issue. These restrictions were introduced by Republicans in the state governments, primarily in the South, and midwest, many of whom campaigned specifically on their extreme Pro-Life agenda. Much of the Radicals in these states, as far as I can tell, saw no reason to oppose these politicians, etc., and here we are, today, with abortion less accessible than it was a few years ago. Again; all of you principled abstentionists; give yourselves a hand. Smashing success, there. Really. Good show.

Also, as I've said, this is not an idle threat, it isn't scaremongering. Republicans, again, with essentially no opposition from the Radical Left, have succeded in passing a wave of restrictions on abortion in the state legislatures, and, depending on what happens in November, may very well send reproductive rights back to 1973.

Environment: Keystone pipeline is the thing most people cite, but this was also only opposed by Obama because environmentalists had mobilized over it. In most other ways Obama has maintained the same policies as Bush.

See above.

So what's the point?

That's entirely dependent on your prerogative. If Romney wins, he'll probably get to make one or two appointments to the bench, which will have a broad range of consequences, not in the least being the strong possibility that abortion could become illegal, again, in much of the United States. Another is the fact that he has pledged to overturn the Affordable Healthcare Act, which he says will be his first act as President, that means 36 million Americans lose their insurance, actually, more, because that only counts for Americans that are presently eligible, thats' not evencounting the future generations of Americans which will be impacted. He's going to turn Medicare into a voucher program, basically destroying Medicare as we know it, increasing costs on seniors, dramatically. Etc., etc. I just don't see how a self-described Socialist could want those things, or be indifferent to those things.

That Republican or Democrat in office matter less than our ability to mobilize for ourselves. As Howard Zinn said, it doesn't matter who's sitting in the White House, it matters who is sitting-in.

First of all; there's an implied false dichotomy, that voting replaces, or undermines other kinds of political activity, or that anyone suggested that it should. This is totally false, on both counts.

Second; Howard Zinn was not an abstentionist, he was not an 'impossibilist', his position was exactly the same as I've advocated, here, let's be clear about that.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/zinn1008.html

So if a socialist or anarchist as an induvidual wants to vote for this or that Democratic candidate, I think it's a mistake,

That's nice, but you have to make a cogent argument to that effect, and you haven't, not in the least because there aren't any.

but it's fine it doesn't matter much anyway.

It matters if you're a gay American who wants to get married. It matters if you want to be able to have an abortion. It matters if you're one of the 36 million Americans who stand to lose their healthcare. It matters if you're nearing the age of 65, and are depending on Medicare to be there for you. It matters if you're someone who cares about these things.

But I do think it's very important that we rejectr and argue against voting for Dems or Lesserevilism as strategy.

Again; you'd have to make a cogent argument for this position, which, incidentally, Marx did not take, Lenin didn't, (Not that I have any respect for Lenin, whatsoever.) etc., etc., which you haven't done.

Second; there are no cogent arguments against what you misleadingly call; 'Lesser Evilism.' It never makes logical sense to choose the worst choice, out of a range of availible options, or to abstain, thereby risking the worst of possible outcomes. That never makes sense. So what you're calling; 'Lesser Evilism' is really just applied logic.

This is exactly the problem that Solnit was talking, about, that I was talking about. This is the most destructive disease plaguing the Radical Left. I don't question your motives, I think your ultimate agenda is something analagous to my own. What I don't respect is this puritanical, idealistic insistence on everything, or nothing, that sees any attempt at incrementalism as a form of ideological treason, and, among other things, by so doing, makes progress of any kind logistically impossible.

NGNM85

17th October 2012, 21:46

The context you are describing is precisely the context that has been emphasized by the leading political parties, and to the extent that US civil liberties are being targeted, the contextual political conflicts are manufactured on various grounds. The problem is that none of the civil liberties issues trump the very real slaughter of human life where resources are being sought by the US, nor do they trump the economic subjugation of people here and abroad. These issues are very profound; I don't think I need to extrapolate on the economic context in which 40% of middle class assets have been destroyed, which takes away the right to housing, education, and medical procedures for much of the population. And that's just the domestic situation, which is nowhere near as desperate as that in Afghanistan, Colombia or Honduras.

You might as well have responded by telling me the average annual rainfall in Bangladesh.

Look, we might disagree on the viability of third parties.

We're not fucking art critics, here. This is a matter of empirical fact.

But I do not view third party votes, or even "no confidence" votes as an attempt to honestly elect these choices.

Then, as I said; you might as well jack off, or play Halo. It's about as constructive. I might vote for the Socialists, or the Greens, for the Presidency, or I might just leave the box blank. It makes no difference. The President has Massachusetts in the bag. My vote for the presidential candidate is irrelevent. I'm going to vote for the elections where my vote matters, primarily to vote for Elizabeth Warren, and to legalize Cannabis, as well as a number of other things, y'know, state races, uhhh, there's a question on the ballot about allowing doctors to perscribe terminal patients a lethal dose of drugs, if there is no hope, and they would rather end their own life. I've always been a; 'Right to die' guy, myself. I see no wisdom in forcing terminally ill patients to suffer, needlessly, it just seems unnecessarily cruel. However;, again, I'm voting for the races I can actually influence. Unlike me, you can actually tip this thing one way or another, with the aforementioned consequences; 36 million Americans losing insurance, the possibility of abortion becoming illegal, again, the destruction of Medicare, as we know it, etc. That you would abstain from choosing, when that's whats' at stake, especially when we're talking about checking a piece of paper....it's baffling. I don't see how any Socialist could think like that.

What I do view them as, and there is evidence for this, are pressure positions. For me, the potential to pressure the mainstream political parties to stop slaughtering innocents and crushing the majority by repressive economic policies is more than enough incentive to vote this way. Whats more, the individuals I vote for invariably are profoundly more close to my positions on the issues, including radical positions on lgbt, women's rights, immigrant and environmental standards. So they are pressured, too.

Its worth pointing out some historical instances of this pressure that you might not be familiar with. The anti-rent movement was able to secure some historic tenet's rights legislation in New York state, despite having only elected 2 representatives to the legislature in question. Legislation on mine safety was passed but not implemented in the US due to popular demands to that end that nevertheless were not a part of a dominant political bloc. And the locofoco managed to influence government (at the behest of banking interests, it has been found) despite not having yet elected any of its leaders to public office.

This has no relationship to reality. What you're suggesting will have no net effect, whatsoever, certainly not the effect you're suggesting. Again; one of the primary problems is that you lack a sufficient fundamental understanding of American government, and American politics.

External pressure is by no means useless, and even if it is of extremely limited use, the sheer viciousness of the economic and military positions of the dominant parties makes it a hard sell if you happen to care about these issues.

Not if you understand the facts, and think rationally. This is exactly what I'm talking about. People like you dislike both parties, that's fine, so do I. However; you make a wild leap from this sound assesment to the asinine idea that you should not participate at all, inviting, and, in a number of cases, resulting in the worst possible outcome. Because of thinking like this abortion is dramatically less accessible then it was just a few years ago. If you care about abortion; that's galactically stupid. That's criminally negligent, presuming you actually do care about reproductive rights. People need to make a choice between their professed principles as Socialists, and this asinine conception of ideological purity. One must prevail, you cannot choose both.

Comparisons to voting for nazis or similar forms of brutality could be in order, and they would make a pretty good mockery of your position, but they honestly shouldn't be necessary.

It's not necessary because it's both completely asinine, and has no relationship, whatsoever, either historically, or in principle, to this situation.

The fact that Obama is knowingly engaged in the rather barbaric ethnic cleansing and destruction of civil society in a number of nations across the globe should be enough, and the fact that he is doing this as a joint project with capitalist and Republican players only makes it less appealing to vote for him, not more.

Again; nobody said the administration is awesome, I said; it's better than the alternative, which happens to be true.

RadioRaheem84

18th October 2012, 06:16

Again; one of the primary problems is that you lack a sufficient fundamental understanding of American government, and American politics.

Quit accusing people of this shit, man. It's getting tiresome. People on this forum understand American politics very well. We just do not drink the policy wonk kool aid that you chug down so gladly.

You are so full of liberal presuppositions that you cannot even wrap your mind around the fact that people fundamentally disagree with you and that they may have a point. Instead you come in here and talk like a liberal pundit on TV.

I mean just read your posts over again where you try to explain and apologize for the Obama administration by meticulously telling us every detail of the rumbles in Congress over legislation. How do you consider that a "radical" analysis?

And how can you say that FDR was not a reformist?

Drosophila

18th October 2012, 06:34

I just really hope that people like NGN won't be arguing for this in the event of a mass proletarian revolution. But, some part of me just thinks that they will.

Jason

18th October 2012, 08:52

I think it's cool we have a black president, but justice has to be enforced.

For instance, a new scandal is coming out about: "Obama lying to save his ass in an election" (and allowing people to get killed). I don't think he will make it out of this one. The sad thing is he doesn't deserve a "free pass" on this one. Even Nixon's "Watergate" didn't involve death.

Anyhow, whether it's Obama or Romney, it's doesn't make much of a difference, as they both support imperalism. In fact, keeping Obama on "slows the revolution".

Ocean Seal

18th October 2012, 13:08

Voting for a party more or less concedes that it is legitimate and it destroys any organization you have against it, especially if you agitate for others to vote for that same party.

NGNM85

22nd October 2012, 20:02

Voting for a party more or less concedes that it is legitimate and it destroys any organization you have against it, especially if you agitate for others to vote for that same party.

Absolutely not. This is completely false. One does not, on any level, have to internalize, or perpetuate any illusions in order to participate in the political process, or to pursuade others to do likewise. To interact with the state does not necessarily concede the legitimacy of the state, only the existence of the state. Similarly it is not necessary to like a candidate, or piece of legislation, in order to vote for them, or to convince others to do the same, but only to acknowledge it is better than the alternative. (Which, in the end, is the only thing that matters.)

Furthermore; this is a textbook example of the wooly-minded thinking I was criticizing. Let's take an example from the headlines, the race between Claire McCaskill and Todd 'Legitimate Rape' Akin. Obviously; Ms. McCaskill is no Socialist, she's not even close. So; therefore, 'out of principle' you abstain, and urge everyone within earshot that they absolutely must not vote. (Incidentally; this really only works against those who might possibly vote for Ms. McCaskill.) When the election happens, and Akin wins, the only thing you will have acheived is markedly reducing access to contraceptives, and abortion for the working class of Missouri. In other words, as our British friends like to say; 'Fuck all.' The election obviously hasn't happened yet, however;this hypothetical scenario is hardly far-fetched. In fact; as I've pointed out, nearly this exact thing has been happening, over the last few years, in state legislatures in the South, and Midwest. Over the last few years, the religious right, and their mouthpieces in the Republican party have launched a series of attacks against reproductive rights, at the state level, that has been quite successful. As a result; it's much more difficult for working class women, in these states, to get access to abortion and contraceptives than it was just a few years ago. So pretty much the exact scenario I proposed has played itself out, several times, in a number of states. This is the point; we cannot serve two masters. One priority must take precedence over the other. If our top priority was defending the working class, and, by extension, protecting reproductive rights, we would never let an idealistic, childlike insistence on perfection, or a misguided impulse towards perceived ideological purity, prevent us from doing everything in our power to pursue that end.

NGNM85

22nd October 2012, 20:08

I just really hope that people like NGN won't be arguing for this in the event of a mass proletarian revolution. But, some part of me just thinks that they will.

This makes no sense, unless you're expecting a; 'mass proletarian revolution', in the United States, between now, and November. It should be fairly obvious that isn't going to happen. Were such an even to be truly immenant, that would necessitate, among other things, that there be a large workers' party, or, perhaps several, that were of sufficient size, and organization, that had substantial support among the public, in such a case, there would simply be no logical reason for incrementalism, or 'lesser-evilism.'

NGNM85

22nd October 2012, 20:36

Quit accusing people of this shit, man. It's getting tiresome. People on this forum understand American politics very well.

If it wasn't true, I'd stop saying it. Obviously, there's a range, because we're talking about a sizable group of individuals, from a number of different ages, backgrounds, etc. However; by-and-large, it seems abundantly obvious that most American Radicals understand a great deal more about the Soviet Union than they do about their own government.

We just do not drink the policy wonk kool aid that you chug down so gladly.

Nothing in this conversation is remotely that sophisticated. You don't need a certificate in political science. This conversation is at about the level of; 'Intro to American Government.' Also; this, incorrectly, implies that my description of the AFCA, etc., is merely a matter of opinion, or cannot be factually verified. This is bullshit. I mean, if you want verification; be my guest. You don't have to take my word for it. However; when I say that, as a result of the AFCA, 36 million Americans have health insurance who, otherwise, would not, that is a fact, and a fairly easily confirmed one, at that.

You are so full of liberal presuppositions that you cannot even wrap your mind around the fact that people fundamentally disagree with you and that they may have a point.

I fully acknowledge that people disagree. However; they happen to be wrong. Again; this is not art criticism. This is an issue of empirical fact. If they cannot factually demonstrate that their contention is correct, and logically sound; then there's no reason I should treat it with any seriousness.

You're also repeating your familiar pattern of making broad, sweeping accusations, which you absolutely refuse to qualify.

Instead you come in here and talk like a liberal pundit on TV.

This is another thing you do all the time. You whine that somebody, or something; 'sounds like X.', or; 'looks like x.' This is irrelevent. Nobody should concern themselves with such things. We should be concerned with what is.

I mean just read your posts over again where you try to explain and apologize for the Obama administration by meticulously telling us every detail of the rumbles in Congress over legislation.

It's not apologetics. I would never apologize for this administration, or any administration. All I'm saying is that it's better than the alternative, which is the only thing that matters, at present.

This is part of your sickness. Because the political system is so deeply, hopelessly corrupt, not only do you refuse to interact with it, for any reason, but it's not even worth understanding, for that could only serve to sully your pure mind.

How do you consider that a "radical" analysis?

Again; it's not at all clear what you are referring to. However; what I've said has the virtue of being true, which I would think any principled Radical would care about. I should also emphasize the more fundamental truth that there is no such thing as an ideological fact. Facts transcend ideology. The minute we edit our understanding of reality to comport with ideology it ceases to be theory, and becomes religion. In terms of the AFCA, any Radical would conclude that it does significantly benefit the working class, (I would invite anyone to argue that 36 million is an insignificant number.) which is all any Socialist should need to know, seeing as supporting, and caring about the working class is one of the most fundamental sufficient conditions of what makes on a Socialist, probably the most significant. Ok. If that's the case; you want to protect that, and build on it.

And how can you say that FDR was not a reformist?

'Reformism' is Radical jargon for Socialists who believe that Socialism can be achieved, more-or-less, exclusively through parliamentary means. FDR was not a Socialist. FDR was a reformer, not a Reformist.

RadioRaheem84

24th October 2012, 05:44

If it wasn't true, I'd stop saying it. Obviously, there's a range, because we're talking about a sizable group of individuals, from a number of different ages, backgrounds, etc. However; by-and-large, it seems abundantly obvious that most American Radicals understand a great deal more about the Soviet Union than they do about their own government.

Nothing in this conversation is remotely that sophisticated. You don't need a certificate in political science. This conversation is at about the level of; 'Intro to American Government.' Also; this, incorrectly, implies that my description of the AFCA, etc., is merely a matter of opinion, or cannot be factually verified. This is bullshit. I mean, if you want verification; be my guest. You don't have to take my word for it. However; when I say that, as a result of the AFCA, 36 million Americans have health insurance who, otherwise, would not, that is a fact, and a fairly easily confirmed one, at that.

I fully acknowledge that people disagree. However; they happen to be wrong. Again; this is not art criticism. This is an issue of empirical fact. If they cannot factually demonstrate that their contention is correct, and logically sound; then there's no reason I should treat it with any seriousness.

You're also repeating your familiar pattern of making broad, sweeping accusations, which you absolutely refuse to qualify.

This is another thing you do all the time. You whine that somebody, or something; 'sounds like X.', or; 'looks like x.' This is irrelevent. Nobody should concern themselves with such things. We should be concerned with what is.

It's not apologetics. I would never apologize for this administration, or any administration. All I'm saying is that it's better than the alternative, which is the only thing that matters, at present.

This is part of your sickness. Because the political system is so deeply, hopelessly corrupt, not only do you refuse to interact with it, for any reason, but it's not even worth understanding, for that could only serve to sully your pure mind.

Again; it's not at all clear what you are referring to. However; what I've said has the virtue of being true, which I would think any principled Radical would care about. I should also emphasize the more fundamental truth that there is no such thing as an ideological fact. Facts transcend ideology. The minute we edit our understanding of reality to comport with ideology it ceases to be theory, and becomes religion. In terms of the AFCA, any Radical would conclude that it does significantly benefit the working class, (I would invite anyone to argue that 36 million is an insignificant number.) which is all any Socialist should need to know, seeing as supporting, and caring about the working class is one of the most fundamental sufficient conditions of what makes on a Socialist, probably the most significant. Ok. If that's the case; you want to protect that, and build on it.

'Reformism' is Radical jargon for Socialists who believe that Socialism can be achieved, more-or-less, exclusively through parliamentary means. FDR was not a Socialist. FDR was a reformer, not a Reformist.

You use what in media terms is called, "spinning the truth". You are big spin doctor for the Dems if I've ever seen it. Yes, 36 millions Americans will be insured but.....

Yes, the Obama health care reform will assist Americans by making health care more affordable. But there remain very real questions over the long-term about whether this plan is financially sustainable. The bill still relies on for-profit, private health insurers, and the bill does literally nothing to limit the increase in premiums paid to health insurance providers (which often grow by between 5 to 10 percent a year, on average). While American families may not legally be allowed under this legislation to spend more than 9.5 percent of their pre-tax income on health care costs, what is to stop health insurance providers from jacking up premiums (as they’ve already been doing for years) and transferring the costs to the taxpayers more generally? This “loophole” in the bill has been acknowledged by Democrats like Senator Dianne Feinstein to be a major potential weakness in the mandate. The legislation does say that insurance providers must allocate 80 percent of premium payments to medical care, while just 20 percent can go to administration, profits, and CEO pay, and this may be part of the reason why many predict (in line with the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office) that “Obamacare” will not add to the deficit or national debt in the next ten years (and may even decrease the debt slightly). Such rules may serve as a check on insurance companies, considering that most of the premium costs will have to be returned to customers in the form of better care. On the other hand, in a health insurance industry where the profit margin is typically between 3 to 4 percent annually, a 20 percent profit margin allowed by law may do little to stem increased premium costs. Furthermore, the 80/20 rule went into effect in 2011, and analysis of premium costs for this admittedly small sample size of one year suggest that costs of care continued to rise at about the average annual rate 8-9 percent – comparable to increases we’ve seen over the last ten years. In other words, real questions remain about whether the 80-20 rule will realistically reign in growing premium costs.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/12/obamacare-the-public-good/

Many of those millions will find out that the right to buy health insurance is not the same thing as the right to healthcare. The Act has the potential to force employees of low-wage firms to pay more than they can afford for lousy health insurance. In addition, the subsidies to purchase coverage are not enough to make it affordable to some middle-income families. So Mr. Spin, such families will be faced with paying more than they can afford for coverage or remaining uninsured—and sometimes having to pay a penalty

There are so many things wrong with the ACA (not AFCA) it's not even funny. For one, cuts to medicare were made, only the Obama administration said that it had no impact on seniors and will not have a future impact on medicare as a whole, but there is no bulletproof argument against those cuts likely having a substantial effect on Medicare beneficiaries.

I laugh watching liberal pundits try to wiggle out of this and what that weasel Paul Ryan brought up. While he was offering his own right wing spin, he was kind of right, the Obama team did shift funding from Medicare to Obamacare, and while they argue back and forth about it's effects on Medicare as a whole, no one knows for sure what this will do in the future, in other words, the Dems have no concrete answers.

But of course, we cannot argue against the ACA because, it's a "fact", I'll repeat it, a "fact", an empirical undeniable, unquestionable, and all out scientific, lightning bolt to the head razor sharp FACTICTY FACT FACT FACT, that 36 million will now be insured under the ACA!!!

Please, get your lips off Obama's ass and start thinking like a radical. You might as well praise Clinton too for getting so many people off welfare and to work! :lol:

Jimmie Higgins

24th October 2012, 13:21

That's a good point, which, incidentally, cuts across ideological lines. Case in point being Citizens United. It was a complete fucking disaster. The question you have to ask yourself is; how much worse do you want it to get? Depending on the results of this election, we could be looking at a strong Liberal majority on the bench, or, and I'm not beoing hyperbolic, here, the most Reactionary Court in American history. Both Governor Romney, and his running mate, congressman Ryan, have repeatedly, and explicitly said that they would choose Pro-Life judges, with the explicit intention of overturning Roe. Again, I'm not being hyperbolic, but there's a very real possibility that they could send us back to 1973. This is a very real possibility.And my argument is that it is a possibility either way! Having two parties wouldn't work if there weren't some difference between them, but does the sucess of one really make a difference? Both parties agree on moving forward with austerity right now, even if they disagree on the specifics. Ruling classes in all the bourgois-democracies are pushing austerity right now (and both the Democrats and Republicans are set on this) and so minimizing any means of public resistance is the agenda everywhere from Greece to the US. Republican Scott Walker and Democrat Rahm Emanuel may have differnet means but they both want to destroy the power of public sector unions so that austerity can move ahead. The Republicans in one state use threats, while the Democratic Govoner of my state uses blackmail: I don't really want to do this but I'll have to unless you take some cuts.

The only way to resist this is not finding the less agressive Camp Crystal Lake budget and "entitlement" slasher, but to advance a real opposition; from a marxist/anarchist perspective an independant working class opposition.

Abortion rights and intergration were won in the streets, not in the courts. The courts are not sitting in a poltical vaccume as US mythology tells us, throughout history the balence of social forces in society has impacted the Supreme Court's rulings and how they felt compelled to rule. The power of corporations right now is not due to court rulings, the court has ruled in this way since the 80s because of the lack of real opposition to corporate power.

That's not true. Look at social policy, it's night and day. There's no desire on behalf of the Democratic leadership to amend the Constitution to ban abortion, and gay marriage. That only exists on the Right. There's no desire to put up an opposition to these things either. When one side says: "Abortion is mass murder!" and the other side responds, "Yeah it's pretty bad, but what are you going to do?" where's the political momentum?

Abortion is a good example because the early gains were backed by a social movement and since the 1990s pro-abortion forces have followed a lesser-evil strategy, lobbying, and supporting Democrats. And the result has been the massive push back and a reversal of public opinion on abortion. Why? Because while NOW was giving money to the Democrats, the anti-abortion right was out in the streets, mobilizing in the grassroots, convincing church organizations that abortion was a major religious issue etc.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. However, as I've said before, part of the differences between the parties owes to the fact that they reflect different elite constituencies. Um Ok. So Obama represents finance-capital and Romney represents other sectors of capital?

There's been quite a perplexing surge, recently, on the Right in proposing extreme social legislation, particularly related to abortion. Yeah, election year. The right-wing strategy since the 1970s has been to link a pro-business agenda with certain social forces in order to create a coalition (a "base") that could counter the old New Deal coalition of the Democrats. Also known as a wedge issue. The Democrats usually offer great reforms in elections (which are then never heard from again) and the Republicans do a similar thing and will try and drum up support through hyping these "culture-war" issues.

This is what the right did with gay-rights in 2004. How did the Democrats respond to this? They didn't fight for gay rights, they just said that the status-quo was fine. Then after the election when Kerry lost, major figures in the Democratic party blamed gay-rights: "too much too soon" they said.

That happens to be a strong point seeing as Romney/ryan have explicitly stated, several times, (In fact; Ryan said it in the debate with the Vice President the other night.) that they will seek to appoint a Pro-Life justice, with the specific intention in mind to overturning Roe. If that happens; you can probably expect abortion to become illegal in most of the South, and Midwest. That's an ugly picture. However; this is just one reason. Again; look at Citizens United as the cost of allowing Reactionaries to get on the bench. Do you honestly want another Scalia, another Thomas up there? How is that helpful to us?When is the supreme court EVER helpful to us on its own? They ordered de-segregation after years of NACCP court attempts, but it did NOTHING to challenge segregation in practice, that took a social movement that made the issue impossible to ignore for any real action to take place. And now in the absense of an antiracist movement of significance in the US, segregation has returned to 1960s levels in US schools, not because of the people on the bench alone but because forces counter to real public education have mobilized and organized. (In fact, Obama is fully apart of the policies helping create greater education inequality [class and race] in the US through his charter-school agenda.)

What the Court decides is law, literally. Their only limits, for the most part, are those defined in the Constitution, which they interpret, as they see it. Overturning Citizens would require a Constitutional Amendment. (Which I absolutely support, and should be the primary focus of the American Left.) The President can't do that much about it. They couldn't even get the Disclose Act passed, predictably, because the Republicans blocked it. The primary focus of the (radical) left should be in helping our class best prepare to be able to defend itself and make it's own demands and set it's own priorities. The labor didn't elect politicians who then made unions legal - workers fought and organized and even died to make unions fact even while still not legal. The right to organize only came after workers were already fighting and organizing and so our rulers and their politicans had few other options.

No offense, but it seems like you don't understand the fundamentals, here. As long as Roe stands, abortion is legal across the United States, within the perameters, up to around 28 weeks. (Incidentally, surprisingly, this is more liberal than France.) That's the law of the land, and essentially equivalent to similar laws passed in virtually every single country that has legalized abortion, with the exception that, as the United States does not have nationalized healthcare, the government only assures that Americans have the right to seek an abortion, whether or not they can pay for it is their problem. Some insurance plans cover it, some don't. Etc., etc. However; what individual states can do is pass various laws to make abortion harder to get, or to disenfranchise women seeking abortions, things like requiring parental consent, the most egregious of these is certainly the requirement for unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds passed in Tennessee, this is what we've seen quite a lot of, in the South, and Midwest, primarily. Now, unless these laws are found to be unconstitutional, and many, if not most of them aren't, or wouldn't be considered to be, by most of this present Court; those restrictions stand. That's a state issue. These restrictions were introduced by Republicans in the state governments, primarily in the South, and midwest, many of whom campaigned specifically on their extreme Pro-Life agenda. Much of the Radicals in these states, as far as I can tell, saw no reason to oppose these politicians, etc., and here we are, today, with abortion less accessible than it was a few years ago. Again; all of you principled abstentionists; give yourselves a hand. Smashing success, there. Really. Good show. I'm not saying ABSTAIN, I'm saying create an actuall effective vehicle for moving forward, rather than tie ourselves to a great while whale and fooling ourselves into thinking we are steering it back to the shore rather than being pulled deeper into the ocean.

Roe was won in the streets as part of a whole movement against sexism. In the absense of those kinds of things, the right to abortion has been steadily erroded. It may be the "Law of the Land" but in much of the land, practical access to abortion has become prohibitive for many people - often people need special permissions from parents or lovers or there just aren't services provided for hundreds of miles.

This is not the result of the Supreme Court, it is the result of lack of a pro-abortion movement capable of opposing the right because what was left of these forces took a lesser-evil strategy around the time of Bill Clinton.

That's entirely dependent on your prerogative. If Romney wins, he'll probably get to make one or two appointments to the bench, which will have a broad range of consequences, not in the least being the strong possibility that abortion could become illegal, again, in much of the United States. Another is the fact that he has pledged to overturn the Affordable Healthcare Act, which he says will be his first act as President, that means 36 million Americans lose their insurance, actually, more, because that only counts for Americans that are presently eligible, thats' not evencounting the future generations of Americans which will be impacted. He's going to turn Medicare into a voucher program, basically destroying Medicare as we know it, increasing costs on seniors, dramatically. Etc., etc. I just don't see how a self-described Socialist could want those things, or be indifferent to those things. I'm not indiffernet to these things.

1. Healthcare. See "Sicko" - health insurance is part of the problem. Obama's "healthcare" plan is no real solution for workers - it's a tax like the supreme court states.

2. Medicare and Social Security. Read Paul Krugman. Obama's advisors advocate a plan for going into Medicare and Social Security after the election. The Legislature is trying to come up with a bi-partisan alternative. Both parties agree on cutting "entitlements" - the sticking points are only if the Bush Tax Cuts should be extended or not.

A solution which does not come on the backs of the working class will not come volutarily from the two parties.

First of all; there's an implied false dichotomy, that voting replaces, or undermines other kinds of political activity, or that anyone suggested that it should. This is totally false, on both counts. Maybe not voting in the abstract, but in practice, a strategy involving getting "good democrats" elected means that those Democrats are constantly telling the people not to demand too much, not to go on strike, not to protest or else it will hurt that politician on election day.

Second; Howard Zinn was not an abstentionist, he was not an 'impossibilist', his position was exactly the same as I've advocated, here, let's be clear about that.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/zinn1008.html

Well here's the quote:

One might assume from the above that I see no difference between McCain and Obama, that I see them as equivalent. Not so. There is a difference, not a significant enough difference for me to have confidence in Obama as President, but just enough for me to vote for Obama and to hope he defeats McCain.

Whoever is President, the crucial factor for change will be how much agitation there is in the country on behalf of change

So while I disagree with him on voting for Obama, he is still making the same point that I raised in my Zinn-quote. Sadly Zinn didn't live to see the development of Obama's administration. In the article you linked, he said that Obama would probably be more suseptable to pressure from the left than McCain and probably have to pass more reforms to help the people suffering in the recession. This didn't turn out and there should be no question for those of us who've seen how Obama has responded to the crisis to believe he will turn around and help people once he's been re-elected - especially this time when he isn't even promsing to do anything for the people and his only mandate will be not being Romney.

It matters if you're a gay American who wants to get married. It matters if you want to be able to have an abortion. It matters if you're one of the 36 million Americans who stand to lose their healthcare. It matters if you're nearing the age of 65, and are depending on Medicare to be there for you. It matters if you're someone who cares about these things.36 million americans are not about to lose their healthcare, the don't have it as it is. I'm uninsured so don't give me this "oh-la-ti-dah, you don't care about the things that impact people". I'm in my mid-30s and the last time I saw a doctor, Saddam was still alive and in power. My argument is that WHAT PEOPLE'VE BEEN DOING DOESN'T WORK. People have always been voting lesser-evil when it comes to Democrats and they always just end up with EVIL!

Second; there are no cogent arguments against what you misleadingly call; 'Lesser Evilism.' It never makes logical sense to choose the worst choice, out of a range of availible options, or to abstain, thereby risking the worst of possible outcomes. That never makes sense. So what you're calling; 'Lesser Evilism' is really just applied logic.Build a real opposition, not abstain.

This is exactly the problem that Solnit was talking, about, that I was talking about. This is the most destructive disease plaguing the Radical Left. I don't question your motives, I think your ultimate agenda is something analagous to my own. What I don't respect is this puritanical, idealistic insistence on everything, or nothing, that sees any attempt at incrementalism as a form of ideological treason, and, among other things, by so doing, makes progress of any kind logistically impossible.This is a straw-man. I fight for reforms, but not for the reform itself but as a means to try and help our class better organize itself, better develop it's own voices, organization, leadership and power. Relying on the cracker with the lighter whip doesn't help us build our independant political force in society.

Jimmie Higgins

24th October 2012, 13:24

The ultimate irony of "incramentalism" in the context of the two US parties right now, is that the incraments are in the negative. Do we want the Democrats to just cut seven fingers or will the Republicans cut off the whole hand?

NGNM85

25th October 2012, 17:22

And my argument is that it is a possibility either way!

Not, it isn't. Roe is the litmus test for appointing Supreme Court justices, on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats will only appoint a justice who supports the majority decision, in that case, the Republicans will only nominate judges who have criticized, or opposed that decision.

Having two parties wouldn't work if there weren't some difference between them, but does the sucess of one really make a difference? ...

It really boils down to two things; the policy record, and the effects of those policies, all of that is just basically hard data. There's really no room for debate, on that. The subjective part is how we should evaluate that information.

The only way to resist this is not finding the less agressive Camp Crystal Lake budget and "entitlement" slasher, but to advance a real opposition; from a marxist/anarchist perspective an independant working class opposition.

To be clear; no-one has suggested that the Radical Left subordinate itself to any party, or organization, or that other forms of political action outside the prevailing institutions is not absolutely vital. What I'm saying, among other things, is that we need to be doing both, in a smart, and coordinated way.

Abortion rights and intergration were won in the streets, not in the courts. The courts are not sitting in a poltical vaccume as US mythology tells us, throughout history the balence of social forces in society has impacted the Supreme Court's rulings and how they felt compelled to rule. The power of corporations right now is not due to court rulings, the court has ruled in this way since the 80s because of the lack of real opposition to corporate power.

The Supreme Court is one of the the most insulated government institutions. Once appointed, the judges are, essentially, impossible to remove, they decide which cases they want to hear, etc. So; the Supreme Court doesn't respond to public pressure the way elected officials do. The relationship between the Pro-Choice movement, and the decision in Roe was the effect of changing people's attitudes to where that decision could be made. That, and the fact that abortion was not a key pillar of the Republican platform, at that time, in fact; all of Nixon's appointees voted with the majority. Today; it's a different story.

There's no desire to put up an opposition to these things either. When one side says: "Abortion is mass murder!" and the other side responds, "Yeah it's pretty bad, but what are you going to do?" where's the political momentum?

This seems to be an issue of a fundamental misunderstanding. Again; what's happening is Republicans in state legislatures, primarily in the South, and midwest, have been finding various ways to limit access to abortion, or to intimidate people out of getting abortions. Politicians can only govern if they are elected.

Um Ok. So Obama represents finance-capital and Romney represents other sectors of capital?

Actually the financial sector has been overwhelmingly supporting Mitt Romney, mostly because of Dodd-Frank, and some muted, vague populist sentiments expressed by the President. The larger point, however, is correct; what we basically have, again, is a choice between two sectors of the business party. However; there is a slight policy difference owing to the fact that they reflect different elite constituencies.

Yeah, election year. The right-wing strategy since the 1970s has been to link a pro-business agenda with certain social forces in order to create a coalition (a "base") that could counter the old New Deal coalition of the Democrats. Also known as a wedge issue. The Democrats usually offer great reforms in elections (which are then never heard from again) and the Republicans do a similar thing and will try and drum up support through hyping these "culture-war" issues.

That's correct. It's difficult to hype people up about deregulation, at least, outside of Wall St., etc., so they talk about homosexuality, because that turns out the base, at least, it does in the South. However; this isn't to say it's necessarily just an act. I think Todd Akin, or Rick Santorum are sincere in their convictions, deeply bogus as they may be. I think Mitt Romney's just playing the role he has to play. In either case, at the end of the day, it's the results that matter.

When is the supreme court EVER helpful to us on its own?

Nothing exists in a vacuum. However; this is not the pertinent question. The question is how is allowing the Republican party to stuff the bench with Reactionaries, very possibly establishing the most Reactionary Court in American history, productive? How does that help?

They ordered de-segregation after years of NACCP court attempts, but it did NOTHING to challenge segregation in practice, that took a social movement that made the issue impossible to ignore for any real action to take place. And now in the absense of an antiracist movement of significance in the US, segregation has returned to 1960s levels in US schools, not because of the people on the bench alone but because forces counter to real public education have mobilized and organized. (In fact, Obama is fully apart of the policies helping create greater education inequality [class and race] in the US through his charter-school agenda.)

Yes, the Supreme Courts' decision was the culmination of years of struggle, but it wasn't a case of stimulus followed by response, it was much more gradual, and indirect.

The primary focus of the (radical) left should be in helping our class best prepare to be able to defend itself and make it's own demands and set it's own priorities.

I'd say the primary focus should be advancing the interests of the working class whenever possible, defending it when necessary, and minimizing the damage, when all else fails.

The labor didn't elect politicians who then made unions legal - workers fought and organized and even died to make unions fact even while still not legal. The right to organize only came after workers were already fighting and organizing and so our rulers and their politicans had few other options.

I'm not saying ABSTAIN, I'm saying create an actuall effective vehicle for moving forward, rather than tie ourselves to a great while whale and fooling ourselves into thinking we are steering it back to the shore rather than being pulled deeper into the ocean.

No-one's asking you to internalize, or perpetuate any illusions, quite the contrary.

Ok. This is a major distinction, because most people here, do take that position, so this is a significant departure. I think that's an excellent idea, but it certainly isn't going to happen before November. Also; again, much of the Radical Left not only has no understanding of the mechanics of how to acheive that, but is actually adamantly opposed to doing so.

Roe was won in the streets as part of a whole movement against sexism. In the absense of those kinds of things, the right to abortion has been steadily erroded. It may be the "Law of the Land" but in much of the land, practical access to abortion has become prohibitive for many people - often people need special permissions from parents or lovers or there just aren't services provided for hundreds of miles.

Yes; again, because of Republicans in state legislatures. They campaigned on being Pro-Life, they won the election, and they did what they said they were going to. This should shock no-one. This is why I'm saying
that as people who supposedly care a great deal about reproductive rights we might want to try and keep Pro-Life candidates from being elected.

This is not the result of the Supreme Court,

Right.

it is the result of lack of a pro-abortion movement capable of opposing the right because what was left of these forces took a lesser-evil strategy around the time of Bill Clinton.

Again; it's because Republicans keep winning elections in the South, and Midwest.

I'm not indiffernet to these things.

If you care; then you act. This is the metric by which we evaluate whether someone 'cares', or not. I mean, this could possibly be verified through a series of brain scans, etc., but primarily we look at actions. The welfare state is under attack. If you care about the working class; you want to preserve that, to the extent that you can.

1. Healthcare. See "Sicko" - health insurance is part of the problem. Obama's "healthcare" plan is no real solution for workers - it's a tax like the supreme court states.

I've seen the film. I saw it in the theatre when it came out. More importantly; this movie was released in 2007, the Affordable Healthcare Act, or, if you want to be super technical, the; Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act, wasn't even signed into law until 2010.

You're missing the point. The only question that matters is; does the bill benefit the working class? The answer is; yes. The working class will be significantly worse off if this bill is repealed, which Mitt Romney says will be the first thing he does, if he wins in November.

2. Medicare and Social Security. Read Paul Krugman. Obama's advisors advocate a plan for going into Medicare and Social Security after the election. The Legislature is trying to come up with a bi-partisan alternative. Both parties agree on cutting "entitlements" - the sticking points are only if the Bush Tax Cuts should be extended or not.

There's a qualitative difference. Compare the President's plan for Medicare with his opponents'.

A solution which does not come on the backs of the working class will not come volutarily from the two parties.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Again; the question is; which choice is better for the working class? This is the only thing that matters.

Maybe not voting in the abstract, but in practice, a strategy involving getting "good democrats" elected means that those Democrats are constantly telling the people not to demand too much, not to go on strike, not to protest or else it will hurt that politician on election day.

Politicians are, by nature, cautious, and conservative creatures. What we should be doing, among other things, is electing the most left-leaning politicians, and pushing them with a strong mandate, and holding them to it.

Well here's the quote:

I've read it.

So while I disagree with him on voting for Obama, he is still making the same point that I raised in my Zinn-quote.

No, not really. He's saying, quite accurately, that we basically are limited to a choice between the two wings of the business party, and they both suck. However; he's also saying, again, quite accurately, that there are slight policy differences between the two, owing to the fact that they reflect different elite constituencies, and because of that, those of us who live in swing states, etc., should vote for the lesser evil, without illusions.

Again; no-one denied the importance of political action in the streets. I'm saying that we should be using all of the means at our disposal, in a smart, and coordinated way. As the saying goes; 'Work smarter, not harder.'

Sadly Zinn didn't live to see the development of Obama's administration. In the article you linked, he said that Obama would probably be more suseptable to pressure from the left than McCain and probably have to pass more reforms to help the people suffering in the recession. This didn't turn out and there should be no question for those of us who've seen how Obama has responded to the crisis to believe he will turn around and help people once he's been re-elected - especially this time when he isn't even promsing to do anything for the people and his only mandate will be not being Romney.

Obviously, McCain lost the election, so we can't do a perfect one-to-one comparison, but we can bet it would be a little worse.

36 million americans are not about to lose their healthcare, the don't have it as it is. I'm uninsured so don't give me this "oh-la-ti-dah, you don't care about the things that impact people". I'm in my mid-30s and the last time I saw a doctor, Saddam was still alive and in power.

I didn't say; 'As a result of the bill, everybody has insurance now.' Of course there are still uninsured Americans. Apparently; you're one of them. I'm sorry to hear that. What I said was; 'As a result of the Affordable Healthcare Act, 36 million Americans have healthcare that otherwise would not. Personally; I would rather that number be a few million lower, than a few million higher.

My argument is that WHAT PEOPLE'VE BEEN DOING DOESN'T WORK. People have always been voting lesser-evil when it comes to Democrats and they always just end up with EVIL!

This illustrates another part of the problem, here. It seems like a lot of people are getting stuck in a feedback loop.

Build a real opposition, not abstain.

I think that's a great idea. However; in order to do that you have to participate in the political process, specifically to make the institutional, structural changes necessary for that to be possible. You'd have to overturn Citizens' United, for starters', which should be the top priority of the American Left, anyhow, you'd also have to institute transfer voting, etc., etc.

This is a straw-man. I fight for reforms, but not for the reform itself but as a means to try and help our class better organize itself, better develop it's own voices, organization, leadership and power. Relying on the cracker with the lighter whip doesn't help us build our independant political force in society.

Support for the working class should be total, and completely unconditional. That said; to my mind, anything that improves the lot of the working class also, by definition, empowers the working class.

The ultimate irony of "incramentalism" in the context of the two US parties right now, is that the incraments are in the negative. Do we want the Democrats to just cut seven fingers or will the Republicans cut off the whole hand?

If they were your fingers; which would you choose? If you said; 'Seven.', or; 'Surprise me.' you'd have to be galactically stupid. You would never say that.

Also, as I've said before, the problem with this puritanical opposition to incrementalism is that it prevents us from making any progress, whatsoever. It's like the line from the Tao Teh Ching; 'The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.' Because any type of incrementalism, any step, great, or small, is seen as hopelessly compromised, as ideological treason, this makes progress, of any kind, pretty much impossible.

hetz

25th October 2012, 17:39

Does is really matter whether you vote for Romney, Obama or abstain from voting?

Ocean Seal

25th October 2012, 17:40

Absolutely not. This is completely false. One does not, on any level, have to internalize, or perpetuate any illusions in order to participate in the political process, or to pursuade others to do likewise. To interact with the state does not necessarily concede the legitimacy of the state, only the existence of the state. Similarly it is not necessary to like a candidate, or piece of legislation, in order to vote for them, or to convince others to do the same, but only to acknowledge it is better than the alternative. (Which, in the end, is the only thing that matters.)
It absolutely is not false. If it were false then how come you cannot separate the two? You do not only vote for Obama, but you spend post after post trying to convince us to do the same? Not only that, but this has confused and destroyed the workers movement several times. It is not worth anything tactically.

NGNM85

25th October 2012, 18:02

You use what in media terms is called, "spinning the truth". You are big spin doctor for the Dems if I've ever seen it. Yes, 36 millions Americans will be insured but.....

No, I'm not 'spinning' anything, nor do I have any allegiance to either party, or any party, for that matter. It's simply that your binary, manichean worldview doesn't allow for this degree of nuance.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/12/obamacare-the-public-good/

It's also telling that you only cited part of the article, for instance, you deliberately omitted this;

'It’s not that we should refuse to acknowledge positive aspects of the Obama health care reform..' (Note; this is exactly what you are doing.)

and this;

'The first step in this process is to recognize what the strengths of the current reform are – namely the government stepping forward to actually do something to make health care more affordable.'

and this;

'Most generally, “Obamacare” demonstrates that government can play a positive role assisting the middle class and poor.'

and this;

“As of 2012, the average family of four earns on $67,000 a year, and their total health care costs were on average $20,000. Families on average pay 59 percent of health care costs, versus employers who pay 41 percent. This means the average family of four pays $11,800 a year for health care, or about $1,000 a month, or a total of 17.5 percent of their pre-tax income.
“Under the affordable care act, by law a family of four cannot pay more (through the state exchange) than 6.5 percent of their pre-tax income for health care or about $4,355 a year. If you subtract the previous cost of $11,800 from $4,355, this would translate into a savings via the exchange of $7,445 a year, which constitutes 11 percent of their family’s pre-tax income.”
“For single persons, the average salary is about $31,000 a year. Individuals pay on average $5,900 for their own health care, or 19 percent of their pre-tax income, or $490 per month. Under the Affordable care act, they can’t by law pay more than 9 percent of their pre-tax income into health care for exchange-based insurance, which translates into $2,785 a year, or $232 a month. This represents a savings of about 10 percent of your income, or $3,115 dollars for the year.”
“How it’s paid for: the bill introduces a tax on those making $250,000 a year, through a tanning tax, through a tax on higher end health care plans, and through a tax on Medicare advantage (a high-end Medicare program). The catch is that, if you don’t buy health insurance, you have to pay a $695 a year fine, but only if you make more than the 133 percent of the poverty rate ($11,856 for a single person or $30,656 for a family of four). For those individuals or families making less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, they would not be fined because they would be eligible for Medicaid coverage.”

I believe you said something about 'spinning'... ???

Many of those millions will find out that the right to buy health insurance is not the same thing as the right to healthcare. The Act has the potential to force employees of low-wage firms to pay more than they can afford for lousy health insurance. In addition, the subsidies to purchase coverage are not enough to make it affordable to some middle-income families. So Mr. Spin, such families will be faced with paying more than they can afford for coverage or remaining uninsured—and sometimes having to pay a penalty

That's not a spin, because I never said otherwise. In fact, if you check the record, you'll see I've repeatedly said that there are very legitimate reasons to criticize the Affordable Healthcare act. So; this is a false dichotomy that you're proposing.

There are so many things wrong with the ACA (not AFCA) it's not even funny.

Again; nobody said it was perfect. The case you need to be making, the position that you are taking, is that not only should we not lift a finger to preserve the Affordable Healthcare Act, but we should be absolutely thrilled by the possibility of it being overturned, we should be actively opposed to it. In order to justify that, you have to demonstrate that the bill has a net negative effect on the working class. You've utterly failed in deonstrating this, not in the least because this contention is completely wrong.

For one, cuts to medicare were made, only the Obama administration said that it had no impact on seniors and will not have a future impact on medicare as a whole, but there is no bulletproof argument against those cuts likely having a substantial effect on Medicare beneficiaries.

I laugh watching liberal pundits try to wiggle out of this and what that weasel Paul Ryan brought up. While he was offering his own right wing spin, he was kind of right, the Obama team did shift funding from Medicare to Obamacare, and while they argue back and forth about it's effects on Medicare as a whole, no one knows for sure what this will do in the future, in other words, the Dems have no concrete answers.

You're the one who's drinking the kool-aid, sir. The referenced 700 billion, which hasn't been cut, yet, and the general wisdom is the cuts will actually be somewhat smaller, come from the supply end, from reducing the payments to hospitals, not from cutting benefits, also; these cuts actually extend the life of Medicare, as opposed to shortening it.

But of course, we cannot argue against the ACA because, it's a "fact", I'll repeat it, a "fact", an empirical undeniable, unquestionable, and all out scientific, lightning bolt to the head razor sharp FACTICTY FACT FACT FACT, that 36 million will now be insured under the ACA!!!

No, again, this is your manicheanism at work. I never said that there weren't very sound reasons to criticize the Affordable Healthcare act, quite the contrary. What I said was the benefits to the working class outweigh the negatives. That's just true. Similarly, it is also true that, as a result of the bill, 36 million Americans will have health insurance, who, otherwise, would not. Note; I did not say; 'Everyone will have health insurance.' I did say 36 million Americans, who, otherwise would have no insurance, will have health insurance. Feel free to verify that. Please. I mean, you're incredulous, but you've made absolutely no effort to confirm, or disprove this fact, and it is a fact, which any research would have revealed. Just Google it, for christs' sake. This is not art criticism. This is an empirical fact, and a very easily confirmed one, at that.

Please, get your lips off Obama's ass and start thinking like a radical. You might as well praise Clinton too for getting so many people off welfare and to work! :lol:

I have never expressed any adoration for the President, in this thread, or anywhere else. I am thinking like a Radical. First; Radicals should care about facts, and logic. Second; Radicals, by definition, should care about the working class. Thus; I don't want 36 million working class Americans to potentially lose their health insurance.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

25th October 2012, 18:12

NGNM85

25th October 2012, 18:22

It absolutely is not false. If it were false then how come you cannot separate the two? You do not only vote for Obama, but you spend post after post trying to convince us to do the same?

That's incorrect. Again; I never suggested that anyone internalize, or perpetuate any illusions. I'm not saying the President is a wonderful person, or that the Democratic party serves the interests of the working class, etc. I've never said anything of the kind. What I'm saying is that there are minor, to moderate policy differences between the two wings of the business party, owing to the fact that they reflect different elite constituencies, as a result, the working class tends to do better under Democratic administrations. We only have two choices in November, provided you live in one of the six swing states. One of these choices is slightly better for the working class than the other. If that happens to be a high priority for you, the rest should be obvious. That is the point that I am making.

It needs to be understood that this is only part of a much larger point that I was trying to make, which is much more fundamental, which is that we should be using the mechanisms built into our political system, that abstentionism is totally counterproductive. So; this goes way beyond the presidential race, it goes way beyond Novemnber. I'm not just talking about voting for candidates, I'm also talking about voting for individual pieces of legislation, and even introducing pieces of legislation. For example; gay marriage is going to be on the ballot in three states. Not only should we vote for it, that should go without saying, I'm saying we should be introducing it, we should be the ones putting it on the ballot. We should be leading the charge. So; I'm really proposing a much more complex, and multi-pronged strategy, combining our efforts in the ballot box, and on the steet, to maximize effectiveness.

Not only that, but this has confused and destroyed the workers movement several times. It is not worth anything tactically.

There's no reason why this should be the case. It's totally possible to make this argument without perpetuating, or reinforcing illusions. I've done it, here, several times. I'm not saying the Radical Left should subordinate itself to a particular politician, or a particular party, certainly not one of these two. However; we need to understand that what happens in Washington, and the state legislatures has real consequences for the working class, and we should be using all of the means at our disposal to secure the best outcome as opposed to what we are doing right now, which is not participating, and, even worse, actually promoting apathy, and inaction, primarily among young people, and minorities, the very people who need to be switched on, and who, overwhelmingly, tend to lean Left.

NGNM85

25th October 2012, 23:40

^ I think one needs to more thoroughly interrogate healthcare before one touts one's analysis of it as radical. Like, what interests are at play in "health" as defined by the state and capital? Would an authentically proletarian "care" look anything like the hospitals that resemble prisons in their functioning? And who benefits when we defend the existing health system?

As we live in a capitalist society our healthcare system ultimately serves corporate priorities, especially seeing as, unlike the rest of the industrialized world, we lack a public healthcare system. There's no question the Affordable Healthcare Act benefits coroporations, that goes without saying. However; it also benefits the working class. It should also be said that it is only the working class will suffer if this bill is repealed. This is why we should endeavor to preserve it.

^ I recently had a friend who was part of a collective - I forget what they were called - who traveled the Southern states providing pay-what-you-can care, and sharing skills. I'm not saying that it's "the" model, or necessarily something that could be universalized, but it does broaden the field of the political imagination vis-a-vis the relationship between a revolutionary project and "health"

Just some thoughts.

Universal healthcare is actually the norm in the industrialized world, so there's no shortage of models that we could look at. There's been several proposals, both in Congress, like the Public Option, which passed the house, but couldn't get through the Senate, and state legislatures, such as Vermont's Act 48, which will establish universal healthcare for the citizens of Vermont.

Jimmie Higgins

26th October 2012, 18:47

Universal healthcare is actually the norm in the industrialized world, so there's no shortage of models that we could look at. There's been several proposals, both in Congress, like the Public Option, which passed the house, but couldn't get through the Senate, and state legislatures, such as Vermont's Act 48, which will establish universal healthcare for the citizens of Vermont.

Yeah and the problem is that behind closed doors, before the debate began, the Democrats voluntarily took universal health-care off the table. Really it's because they had no intention of enacting anything like that which would challenge the over-tht-top profits of the health insurance industry. They claimed they took it off the table because it "wasn't realistic" - this coming from people who just argued for a trillion dollars in tax money going to the banks.

They said they'd be too opposed by Republicans. So let's take this reasoning at face value. The Democrats knew they were in for a fight with the minority party who had no contol of any part of the government at that time. So, say, that you are a union negotiator and you know you obviously are going to face some resistance. The rank and file wants a wage of $15/hr and you know the bosses don't want this and want to do $8/hour (this is a simplified analogy). So do you say, well $15 will be opposed, so let's ask for $11 and see what we can do? Or do you, knowing you will face opposition, ask for $15 plus extra breaks? Or ask for $18/hr for some room to negotiate? What do you think when you offer $11 from the start? Will the bosses, say , well that's reasonable? Or will they fight you down to $9? If the Democrats had any intention of meaningful healthcare reform, then they would have pitched high and negotiated down if they had to. Instead they offered a compromise position before the fight began and when their opponents had no political power both in popular support or in electoral power, and the Dems even caved on that compromise offer. The Tea-Party protests that happened rehabilitated the Republicans and gave them some leverage, but if universal healthcare was on the table, there would have been a counter-force of supporters who would have pushed back against the tea-party. Hell, even as it was, the Dems could have called up some union and had 60 unionists at any town-hall to shout-down the shouting tea-partiers. But the Democrats only mobilize for elections, mobilizing for social issues is dangerous because it sets a precedent they don't want - you know, people demanding things of politicians.

The thing about "Obamacare" is that it was originally introduced as a RIGHT-WING alternative to Clinton's health care reform. It was designed and pushed initially by the HERITAGE INSTITUTE. If that had passed back in the 1990s, then all the people defending Obamacare as a small step forward right now would undoubtedly call it out for the giveaway to insurance that it is since it came from more obviously Republican hands. The lesser-evil, however gets to be able to sell a right-wing plan as the "better alternative" or the "reasonable alternative".

Just goes to show that with "lesser-evilism" you still get the evil, you may have to wait a few years before the extreme thing proposed by the right is now the Democrat's "lesser-evil" option.

Jimmie Higgins

26th October 2012, 19:02

It really boils down to two things; the policy record, and the effects of those policies, all of that is just basically hard data. There's really no room for debate, on that. The subjective part is how we should evaluate that information.Yes, objectivly Obama has perused what are usually considered right-wing positions and policies. The effects have been increased wealth to the top while working class wealth have gone down - even as the economy has recovered... in fact part of the recovery is based on lower wages.

To be clear; no-one has suggested that the Radical Left subordinate itself to any party, or organization, or that other forms of political action outside the prevailing institutions is not absolutely vital. What I'm saying, among other things, is that we need to be doing both, in a smart, and coordinated way. Yes I agree, and in practice this is why lesser-evilism is a barrier to building politically independent class movements. You might think, well I advocate electorally here while I do direct politics in my union, workplace, school or community. But what happens when you want to go on Strike, but doing so might become a political issue in the election and hurt the chances of the "lesser-evil"? What Obama bombs some place in Pakistan - if you protest him, Romney might use that against Obama.

What if you live in Oakland and want to participate in Occupy. Our movement basically isolated and ended the career of our mayor (at least as far as a re-election goes). She has no support and is attacked by the right and left. She is also an ex-Maoist and probably one of the most liberal mayors in the US. So what if there was an election and occupy was still happening? What effect would lesser-evil views play there if she was running against a right-wing Democrat (Republicans don't even really run for office in Oakland)?

People might think they can keep these two things seperatre - and as induviduals maybe we can most of the time. But seeing this as a viable strategy means that in the long run there will be times when people following this strategy in an organized way are going to have to not advocate a strike, or not support a movement because doing so means "embarassing" the lesser-evil. I mean what if people were lesser-evil in 1968? Then there'd be no anti-war movement because a liberal-democrat was in power! There would have been no Black Panthers because such a movement will "scare white voters" from ever electing black politicians who had started making electotal gains at that time (and who would eventually be elected within an election or two). Of course these same black mayors also let loose the cops on the black power movement, but they were the liberal lesser-evil.

barbelo

26th October 2012, 20:43

Wow, I know that the discussion went very far but I just read OP posts and I agree so much with his opinion.
I'm not american but if I was to vote I wouldn't know what to do.

Between a reactionary mormon and a double-face populist... It's a hard choice.

I'm only capable of expressing my disappointment with Obama, which was elected in his first term with many promises of changes.

NGNM85

27th October 2012, 16:36

Yeah and the problem is that behind closed doors, before the debate began, the Democrats voluntarily took universal health-care off the table. Really it's because they had no intention of enacting anything like that which would challenge the over-tht-top profits of the health insurance industry. They claimed they took it off the table because it "wasn't realistic" - this coming from people who just argued for a trillion dollars in tax money going to the banks.

There are many criticisms you could make about the bailouts, that not enough resources were allocated to rescuing individual homeowners, that they didn't come with sufficient strings attached, that they weren't coupled with sweeping financial regulation, those are all valid points. However; there aren't any good arguments that the government should not have bailed out these institutions. That would have led to an economic catastrophe, the worst of which would have fallen on the working class.

They said they'd be too opposed by Republicans. So let's take this reasoning at face value. The Democrats knew they were in for a fight with the minority party who had no contol of any part of the government at that time. So, say, that you are a union negotiator and you know you obviously are going to face some resistance. The rank and file wants a wage of $15/hr and you know the bosses don't want this and want to do $8/hour (this is a simplified analogy). So do you say, well $15 will be opposed, so let's ask for $11 and see what we can do? Or do you, knowing you will face opposition, ask for $15 plus extra breaks? Or ask for $18/hr for some room to negotiate? What do you think when you offer $11 from the start? Will the bosses, say , well that's reasonable? Or will they fight you down to $9? If the Democrats had any intention of meaningful healthcare reform, then they would have pitched high and negotiated down if they had to. Instead they offered a compromise position before the fight began and when their opponents had no political power both in popular support or in electoral power, and the Dems even caved on that compromise offer.

This is mostly incorrect. Unlike most Western political systems, the United States government makes it unusually difficult for majorities to act. The only way to get anything through the Senate over obstructionist Republicans is to have a supermajority. It's often, disingenuously claimed that the President, and his party had a supermajority for two years. This simply isn't true.

The Tea-Party protests that happened rehabilitated the Republicans and gave them some leverage, but if universal healthcare was on the table, there would have been a counter-force of supporters who would have pushed back against the tea-party. Hell, even as it was, the Dems could have called up some union and had 60 unionists at any town-hall to shout-down the shouting tea-partiers. But the Democrats only mobilize for elections, mobilizing for social issues is dangerous because it sets a precedent they don't want - you know, people demanding things of politicians.

Again; politicians are cautious, and conservative creatures. We shouldn't expect the Democrats to do anything really adventurous, or bold, they need to be pushed to do those things. Since you brought it up; where was the Radical Left during the healthcare battle? Absolutely nowhere.

The thing about "Obamacare" is that it was originally introduced as a RIGHT-WING alternative to Clinton's health care reform. It was designed and pushed initially by the HERITAGE INSTITUTE. If that had passed back in the 1990s, then all the people defending Obamacare as a small step forward right now would undoubtedly call it out for the giveaway to insurance that it is since it came from more obviously Republican hands. The lesser-evil, however gets to be able to sell a right-wing plan as the "better alternative" or the "reasonable alternative".

Yes, Hillary's plan was more progressive, it was also viciously attacked, until it was abandoned.

You're not wrong on your facts, but you seem to continue to miss the point; is the working class better off with, or without it? That's what matters.

Yes, objectivly Obama has perused what are usually considered right-wing positions and policies. The effects have been increased wealth to the top while working class wealth have gone down - even as the economy has recovered... in fact part of the recovery is based on lower wages.

Yes I agree, and in practice this is why lesser-evilism is a barrier to building politically independent class movements. You might think, well I advocate electorally here while I do direct politics in my union, workplace, school or community. But what happens when you want to go on Strike, but doing so might become a political issue in the election and hurt the chances of the "lesser-evil"? What Obama bombs some place in Pakistan - if you protest him, Romney might use that against Obama.

What if you live in Oakland and want to participate in Occupy. Our movement basically isolated and ended the career of our mayor (at least as far as a re-election goes). She has no support and is attacked by the right and left. She is also an ex-Maoist and probably one of the most liberal mayors in the US. So what if there was an election and occupy was still happening? What effect would lesser-evil views play there if she was running against a right-wing Democrat (Republicans don't even really run for office in Oakland)?

People might think they can keep these two things seperatre - and as induviduals maybe we can most of the time. But seeing this as a viable strategy means that in the long run there will be times when people following this strategy in an organized way are going to have to not advocate a strike, or not support a movement because doing so means "embarassing" the lesser-evil. I mean what if people were lesser-evil in 1968? Then there'd be no anti-war movement because a liberal-democrat was in power! There would have been no Black Panthers because such a movement will "scare white voters" from ever electing black politicians who had started making electotal gains at that time (and who would eventually be elected within an election or two). Of course these same black mayors also let loose the cops on the black power movement, but they were the liberal lesser-evil.

Believe it, or not, but I've heard this before, too. The premise is fundamentally bogus. There aren't any criticisms, from a Radical perspective, that, if clearly, and intelligently expressed, would lead voters to think they should either abstain from politics, and wallow in apathy, or, worse yet, vote Republican. If that's what your audience is taking away; then you royally fucked up the message.

RedAnarchist

27th October 2012, 17:09

I'm wondering why the CPUSA supports Obama so much, when obviously he is supporting mass imperalism "at home" and abroad.

The CPUSA would support anyone/thing with a blue rosette attached to it.