What is the real American politics? [Archive]

ckaihatsu

14th April 2008, 01:00

I am forwarding the following commentary from a mailing list -- I have taken out the names out of consideration for the mailing list. I can certainly contact the list, if necessary.

It's a valuable exchange that cuts to the heart of the CP in the U.S., both today and in past decades.

Chris

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, labourstart.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

The response below on Obama-lesser-evil politics has some very interesting and useful information along with a defense of the CP's consistent support for 'lesser-evil' Democrats over the past 70 years. Both aspects are worth further consideration and discussion.

The writer gives us his experience doing exactly what I had suggested; he's way ahead of the curve here. He took petitions to Obama rallies to get signatures supporting concrete proposals for single payer and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Be sure to read it below. A real contribution based on practice. Thanks, [...].

As for the 'lesser-evil' politics, he argues that the CP only explicitly advocated voting for Democrats twice. Fine, but that avoids both what I actually say and, more importantly, what they actually did. The CP changed its outlook and practice after the 1932 election he discusses; beginning in 1936 and for every election thereafter, their line was to advocate defeating the 'greater evil', the 'ultra right'. Even when they ran CP candidates, this was their line. Thus, they ran 'Communist' candidates whose message was "Vote against the ultra right!" which translates into "Vote for the lesser-evil Democrat" since no one in their right mind could think that the CP candidate could win. This back-handed support came from exactly the thinking advocated below by the CP in this election and with which the writer, [...], so strongly disagrees.

So, yes, there is a difference; the CP is not running their own candidate now (not the issue), and no, there is no difference in content, in thinking, in strategy, or impact. There is continuity going back 70 years. Including under Gus Hall's years. Such lesser-evil thinking actively undermines breaking out of this 2-faced, 1-party system.

This is not just 'academic'; in fact, the 'lesser-evil' thinking the CP and other liberals promote works actively _against_ developing a real alternative, just as the CP worked against it back in the 30s, when sections of the working class wanted and even clamored for it in some key industries, like Auto, as expressed in a resolution for a labor party in a UAW convention. In this view, such attempts are 'unrealistic' and 'ultra left' and 'agents of the ultra right'.

And when the CP did 'support' the now-moribund1990's Labor Party initiative, it was to oppose actual moves to develop a mass base, develp actual campaigns, or run in elections. In practice, they acted as cops for the union hierarchies and against the active workers who wanted to actually go out and create a working class, social democratic party.

Any attempt to create a new politics must come to grips with and learn from this experience or repeat it in newer forms. After all, the major organizations, like unions, all promote this lesser-evil, rely on 'our friends' in politics who all happen to be tied to capitalism, from the wallet to the brain. It's not about the CP so much as about learning how to combat liberal theory/practice and create an alternative force.

in solidarity, [...]

In a message dated 3/29/2008 2:19:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [...] writes:

This exchange starts on the bottom, followed by a response and runs up to mine. Hope you find this useful or of interest. Your thoughts? [...]

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Cp's call for the widest coalition to defeat the ultra right is not new; it's been their line since their shift behind FDR and 'progressive capitalists' in the United Front Against Fascism back in 1936. The central point has been to promote support for the capitalist/imperialist Democrat of the moment and diminish/attack those who fought for a working class alternative as 'ultra leftists' if not fascist agents. In this sense, the CP's stand has been one factor in the unchallenged hegemony of openly pro-capitalist/imperialist political forces like the DP. Instead of challenging their actual class stand, they/he promote the illusion that electing Obama will open the doors for big reforms. That's where your focus on his actual stands is the key.

This is not exactly correct. The Communist Party has always been for defeating the most reactionary forces; but, not by simply supporting any Democrat to come along. Only for two Democrats is this somewhat the case. McGovern the Party line was, “If you can’t vote Communist then vote for McGovern.” With Clinton the Party line was arrived as a result of bitter internal squabbling where Gus Hall could not convince the Party to put forward Communist candidates for a variety of reasons, but, suffice it to say the Party line ended up being vote for Clinton.

In 1936 the CPUSA did not campaign for Roosevelt… this is one of the biggest myths that has stuck… it is not factual at all, there is no proof for this statement. Possibly the only statement one could provide would be the writings of Louis Budenz… and he was an FBI informant.

Here is what happened… William Z. Foster ran for President against Roosevelt in 1932 putting forward a very powerful working class program for real reforms and change together with a call for socialist revolution. Foster’s campaign is widely credited with building up the united front of the working class on many important levels around the issues of unemployment, social security, the right to organize, socialized health care, for an end to Jim Crow. Foster’s campaign also created an important contribution for working class/farmer political independence from the two party system and helped energize the national Farmer-Labor Party which ended up being most successful in Minnesota, so many people think the Farmer-Labor Party a Minnesota phenomenon… not true, it had national organization--- so much so that Roosevelt felt that a national Farmer-Labor Party ticket headed by Minnesota’s socialist governor could possibly deny him re-election; this is a matter of historical fact. It was widely suggested that Earl Browder might be chosen for the vice-presidential slot on this Farmer-Labor ticket. The young Olson’s untimely death threw a monkey wrench in these plans. Browder ran for president in 1936 as the CPUSA candidate for President insisting that Roosevelt was not bringing in the needed reforms fast enough nor were the reforms broad enough to alleviate the problems of workers and farmers created by the depression. Browder ran such a successful campaign the Roosevelt Administration actually became the “New Deal” Administration and for in reality took on the character of an all peoples front government. I would challenge anyone to show me any Communist Party publication or speech or leaflet where the Communist Party called for electing Roosevelt… on the other hand, it was never stated to vote against him. I have heard rumors that several state leaders of the Communist Party called for Roosevelt to be re-elected but no one has ever produced any facts to back this up as far as I know. Did Communists work in the Roosevelt campaign and in his administration? Yes, just as Communists have always tried to work in any movements of importance to working people to try to “push the Party line;” a line of united working class and all people’s unity to accomplish specific tasks, reforms, etc; but never to suck working people into believing real change was going to be had through the Democratic Party--- at least not until now (since 2000)… and this very serious and dangerous revisionist thinking should be widely discussed and challenged.

The Communist Party did make a series of very serious mistakes associated with revisionism which arose around the Budenz grouping and very negatively impacted the working class movement at the close of World War Two--- this is widely seen as the Browder-Foster dispute but this is too complex to get into here… I think it is sufficient to say that Foster was generally correct and Browder was absolutely wrong. Anyone who wants to read the two publications by Browder (Teheran) and Foster (Twilight of World Capitalism) that came to symbolize the dispute is free to do so.

It is very unfortunate that the Communist literature of this period from 1932 to 1948 has become so scarce that only a few people have access to it anymore so it is difficult to blame anyone for coming to wrong conclusions because most of what is available is published by those who have all kinds of bones to pick with the CPUSA and they use myth and outright fabrication.

I would go anyplace, anytime, with the facts in hand to defend (and explain) the Communist Party USA’s positions from 1932 to 1948. Send me a roundtrip ticket for bus or plane and I will be there facts in hand.

(At the same time, I don't see Nader as posing or even advocating that alternative, even though he is direct and upfront in attacking Corporate America's domination of the US and some of the great harm they cause. Nader promotes the fantasy of socially-responsible, Green capitalism as his strategic alternative.)

My opinion of Nader is the same as anyone else who wants to run for President or any other office: the more the merrier and let’s get all ideas and opinions before the voters, this is what democracy is all about. If someone shouldn’t be running because others feel they will take votes away from them, tough. Initiate discussions for united political action. It is not up to anyone to have to cow-tow to Democratic Party dictate over this feeble charge of “spoiler,” which holds no water. The Democrats can offer to sit down with Nader and anyone else to work in coalition… they don’t--- for very obvious reasons.

I would acknowledge that Obama receives support from many sources with contradictory interests, from working class to Wall Street. That has always been true of major parties and is true of Republicans as well. If they did not appeal to wider sections than big business, they would have no political value in maintaining the dominant class and their ideology.

Yes, the two parties of capitalism have been very successful in hoodwinking people and undermining efforts of working people to establish an alternative labor party. All kinds of capitalist politicians have enjoyed wide and diverse support, so what? What does this have to do with supporting anyone? Support has to be won based on the merits of platform and program as they relate to solving the problems of working people. I would challenge anyone, including [...] to bring forward one single reform being articulated by Obama (or Clinton) that will solve just one problem working people are experiencing… just one. They cannot do this because no such solutions have been articulated in detail.

Furthermore, there is nothing in what Obama (or Clinton) says that would lead one to believe that what is being advocated will put us on the road to a more progressive agenda. There is nothing to indicate that Obama or Clinton are any less the voice of the most reactionary sections of capital than George Bush… I would challenge [...] to prove that the capitalists supporting Obama and Clinton are any less reactionary than those supporting Bush (or McCain). One only has to look at the role of Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck to determine there is not one iota of truth to [...]’s assessment that Obama (or Clinton) represent any section of capital that is any less reactionary (or “ultra-right) than those capitalists supporting Bush and McCain. If [...] really believes this foolish nonsense he is peddling let him bring those capitalists forward to explain what they think should be done about making the minimum wage a real living wage, let them explain in detail--- along the lines of George McGovern’s concrete proposal--- what their plans are for ending the war in Iraq. Who are these enlightened capitalists by name… or even, what are the names of the corporations [...] has in mind. Anyone can make the kind of non-factual statement [...] has made.

I would acknowledge that there is a huge wave of support for Obama, much greater than in recent memory. Surely, much of this comes from both fear of the ultra-right and a hunger for a new path. How the left should intervene, interact is an important question. I think that we should look for ways to interact with such activists in ways that support their hopes and fears but challenge their assumptions about Obama and the DP. One might be organizing contingents to Obama rallies, local support meetings, and online lists that challenge his actual stands and call for him commiting to immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq, single-payer not more subsidies for corporate medicine, cutting the military budget by 1/2 and getting out of the what, 100? overseas military bases, as Ron Paul so effectively does.

Let me tell you my concrete experience at a large rally for Obama in Michigan attended by hundreds of people. I tried circulating a very simple petition based upon a resolution endorsed by the Roseau County Democratic Farmer-Labor Party County Convention which called for, “no-fee, comprehensive, all-inclusive, single-payer, universal health care to be publicly financed and publicly administered. This resolution was unanimously passed at a very well attended Roseau DFL Convention. I asked over two hundred people at this Obama rally to sign the petition… I could not get thirty signatures. At the same rally my colleague circulated a petition calling for ending the war in Iraq within one year from the day the Democrat is sworn in as President… he asked over three hundred people to sign… he got 27 signatures. At a Clinton rally in Wisconsin, I circulated an “Open Letter” for signatures calling on the new Democratic president to support a minimum wage that would be a real living wage based upon calculations which would be made by the United States Department of Labor for a living, non-poverty, annual income taking into consideration the Consumer Price Index for those things ranging from food, clothing, shelter, education, health care and recreation… out of 130 people I asked to sign this petition only nine people signed. One could argue I am not a very good signature gatherer or convincer--- however, I put forward a resolution of the same nature in my MN DFL precinct caucus and it passed unanimously. As did the resolution I introduced for public ownership of the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant and another resolution calling for “what tax-payers finance, tax-payers should own” in response to this call for a massive government subsidy of the new “green collar” economy. Not only do I see next to nothing progressive coming from Obama or Clinton… it is very difficult to find anything of substance progressive from their wildest supporters.

In fact, the most reactionary and conservative elements in the Democratic Party are supporting Obama and Clinton just about evenly.

I was the one lone voice on the Minnesota DFL state central committee calling for Israel to end its campaign of carnage against the Palestinian people--- the leaders of the Obama supporters responded by removing me from the DFL State Central Committee list serve, for, as Brian Melendez, the MN DFL Party Chair said, “Making derogatory remarks about Israel.” When I insisted on him citing exactly what the “derogatory” remarks were, Melendez stated, “You said that Israel was carrying out a murderous campaign of carnage against the Palestinian people. This remark is derogatory and anti-Semitic.” This is the way these people operate. Thousands of Minnesotans were denied the right to participate in their precinct caucuses both to vote for their choice for president and by introducing resolutions on issues of concern to them because the Obama forces intentionally created so much chaos at the precinct caucuses that participants only had half the time allotted for their participation--- planned chaos; then they said, “So many people turned out we were short of volunteers. In fact, people were intentionally disenfranchised from participating in the precinct caucuses in this was. In some precincts hundreds of people were standing in line to vote… had the precinct caucuses begun on time as scheduled they would have been allowed to vote… how many came with the intent of bringing forward resolutions we will never know. Any other time voters are standing in line waiting to vote after the polls close they are allowed to vote.

I would advocate that a real left would seek to win a hearing from among those actually commited to making change happen, turning them against Obama and the DP as part of a perspective for socialism, for working class leadership, not pinning our hopes of the so-called progressive coalition. Obama's call for change reflects widespread fears and hopes; it does not at all focus on the corporate players, let alone call for major reforms that Roosevelt initiated in order to save capitalism from itself. Of course, neither did FDR when first elected in 1932.

Right, the Communist Party and the many organizations it helped to build among workers and farmers and small business people brought forward the calls for this change in 1932.

The CPer's appetite and outlook are illuminated in his comment on the New Deal and the elections of 936 and 1964 come in, writing " This is an election like 1936 or 1964. Look at the legislative result of those elections." Those reforms came directly in response to very deep social movement that directly confronted and challenged the dominant forces. By giving credit to the elections and FDR/LBJ, they are politically ass-backwards. The best path to reform is to fight for mass-based, revolutionary-led struggles, not promoting fairy tales.

I agree with this statement, but would make sure included in this is a good strong program for real reforms that will make life better for working people.

In the mid '30s, this included major working class struggles such as the Minneapolis Teamster Rebellion, the SF docker's/general strike and others led by open socialists/communists, midwest farmers holding 'penny aiuctions where they used the threat of violence to take over farm foreclosures and invaded courtrooms to intimidate judges with shotguns in hand. Roosevelt understood the mood and the desperation shown in these and other radicalizations; that brought the reforms he led that the CP'er here claims credit for.

Ad to this the Flint sit-down.

Turning things upside down, John writes below as if the popular forces first won the election, then " impose their will in the post election period - like with Roosevelt?" As I say above, the popular forces were already radicalizing in both periods BEFORE the election; that challenge led to the progressive laws and government programs, not vice-versa.

He sure did turn everything upside down.

Your starting point is critical: where does Obama promise to lead this hunger, this upwelling of support?

[...] writes here: "This upsurge is a beautiful thing - it represents a total rejection of the Bush doctrine, for an end to the Iraq War, for a reorientation of domestic priorities." Is this true?

Obama explicitly supports the Bush doctrine of -pre-emptive first strike' used to justify the Iraq invasion- recall WMD? Obama does not call for an end to the Iraq War, but a winding down and upholds the 'strategic national interest' ( i.e.imperial domination) outlook to justify a long-standing commitment of US forces there to sustain a 'friendly government' there.

One only has to read Obama’s own essay in “Foreign Affairs Magazine,” published by the ultra-right, reactionary voice of U.S. Imperialism to understand that Obama is not a progressive by any stretch of one’s imagination.

Is Obama for" a reorientation of domestic priorities"? That would require slashing the military budget, the largest single area of the federal budget, excluding Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Obama stands for increasing military spending and the number of active-dury soldiers by something like 37,000 troops. As you point out in your note, he does not challenge the for-profit medical industry, even as he says he's for single payer as his preferred option, one he considers 'unrealistic'.

Obama is clearly for the status quo. More than likely, acting at the behest of Wall Street, he will move the country to the right of where Bush leaves off.

Obama does not promise to upset the corporate domination of anything. In the current debacle in the credit/financial field, he does not even hold the thieves and liars to account, even rhetorically. Not coincidentally, he has a slight edge over Hillary in funds raised from the hedge fund fatcats and each have millions more than McCain.

well, that's more than enough for a start. I've sent this to others as Obama's support is a key question that the aspiring left should think about and act on. Others' views?

[...]

This election is the Democrats to lose. If they lose they will have no one to blame except for themselves. That the Democrats would even have the unmitigated gall to expect working people to participate in their campaigns after going along with, and acquiescing to, Bush every step of the way is disgraceful. I wouldn’t waste my time walking across the street to vote for Obama or Clinton; neither one has demonstrated a modicum of consideration for the plight of working people. Nader has never done anything to foster the creation of any kind of movements he could not control… let him rely on his select little cronies for his support, too.

Working people and all progressives should focus on building the kinds of movements that were built to look after their interests in the thirties and forties… it is just as illusionary to believe that such movements will be created without a strong and vibrant Communist Party USA as it is to think that Obama or Clinton will turn this country around… in fact, both Obama and Clinton will fight any and all attempts to push this country in a progressive direction… one only has to take note of the way one of the most “progressive” democrats in the country, John Conyers treated Cindy Sheehan when she took him at his word that he was pursuing impeachment of this warmongering and corrupt Bush/Cheney bunch.

I hope that John Bachtell, Sam Webb, Scott Marshall are in the first delegation after the election to go visit John Conyers to discuss H.R. 676 and let him know that we expect him to make good on his promise to support H.R. 676… I bet Bachtell/Webb/Marshall get a billy-club across their skulls from Capitol Hill police instead of a commitment to fight for H.R. 676.

It will take some effort to turn the CPUSA away from the revisionist and delusional thinking displayed here by John Bachtell; sometimes these people require a good clunk on the head from a policeman’s billy-club to help them shed their illusions, delusions and revisionist thinking.

This entire fiasco called a “primary” has all the phoniness of a professional wrestling match and its purpose is just about the same.

I might add we saw what happened with Reverend Wright’s support for Obama… I find it very interesting with all their talk about defeating the ultra-right Bachtell and his revisionist chums have failed to take note of the vicious, right-wing injection of racism into this campaign from the KKK threatening to kill Obama to the right-wing talk radio hosts who call anyone opposed to the war or for single-payer universal health care “pinko,” “commie,” “Marxist”. I am wondering if the “progressive” Obama will end up disowning the support he is getting from the 200 remaining members of the Communist Party USA?

Anyone heard right-wing rocker Ted Nugent lately discussing the elections? Now, there is a real trip down memory lane… talk about your little Hitlers.

What about the way the right-wing radio talk circuit, on cue, has kicked up its racism around the issue of “reparations?”

One does not have to be an Obama nor a Hillary supporter to condemn the vicious racist and fascist campaigns being instigated by the right-wing… however, I find it very strange that neither the People’s Weekly World nor Political Affairs has explained how this country is being pushed to the right, nor attempted to mobilize against this thrust to the right, which is creating the base for fascism in this country.

Think about this… Bachtell and these revisionists talk about defeating the “ultra-right” and they make no attempt to combat the openly fascist and filthy racist diatribes the American people are being bombarded with and subjected to daily via the airwaves and the Internet.

The Associated Press openly--- and falsely--- calls the Reverend Wright’s remarks “racist” and “un-American” yet Ted Nugent spews his racist fascist filth wrapped in the American flag and the right to bear arms, all permeated with the use of the most obscene language as he calls upon people to vote for John McCain and there isn’t a newspaper, television or radio station that challenges any of this or calls on John McCain to renounce the support coming from Ted Nugent--- or get out of the campaign. Bachtell, Webb, Marshall and the People’s Weekly World and Political Affairs are silent on this well organized and orchestrated hate campaign. So much for the talk of “defeating” the “ultra-right.”

Neither Obama or Clinton have had the courage to defend themselves from this hate campaign--- figure it out, are these kind of gutless politicians going to take on big capital and challenge the big-business agenda of trying to squeeze everything they can from the working class?

One prominent member of the Communist Party from Indiana has had the courage to explain what is really behind this move by the CPUSA to go all out to elect “Obama,” stating the present revisionist leadership of the CPUSA has chased away its working class base and is now so weak it can do nothing more than sit in million-dollar glass offices creating You Tube videos and writing articles in a newspaper that hardly anyone reads anymore--- Plant-gate distributions have ceased, Communist Party Clubs have been “cleansed” of any activists, and Sam Webb is on a campaign to prove the capitalists have nothing to fear from the Communist Party USA as he relies on the “wisdom” of George Soros and Robert Borosage to do his thinking for him.

The entire leadership of the Communist Party goes to the “progressive” love feast organized by “The Campaign for America’s Future” and not one suggestion for solving the problems of working people is brought forward as hundreds of the most “progressive” Democrats in America are assembled; is this anything to compare with the activities of the Communist Party USA from the 1930’s? One would have expected that it would have been possible to at least come out of this “Campaign for America’s Future” conference with the idea that if tax-payers are going to be subsidizing the creation of this new “green industry” that it would have been suggested that tax-payers should own that which they finance. Nothing of the kind came out of this conference.

I a recent blog posting one of the revisionist leaders of the CPUSA actually compared Obama’s supporters to the members of the Committees to Defend the Revolution in Cuba. I would love to see this comparison made at a rally for Obama.

We know Obama and Clinton have to say some things to trick working people into voting for them… otherwise the circus couldn’t continue; but, when Communists start believing and buying these lies, then peddling them as if they are true this is something else. We can expect Obama and Clinton to try to cover up and conceal their ties to people like Frank Fertitta… but what reason would Communists have for failing to inform working people of such connections… at least inform people so they can walk into the voting booth aware and with eyes wide open. Concealing these facts from working people can only result in working people being further confused.

Bachtell and the revisionist leadership may be “totally excited” by this campaign… I don’t see any such excitement on the part of workers at the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant about to lose their jobs when the Plant closes… it is unfortunate that the Communist Party USA leadership cannot get as excited about getting involved in a campaign to save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant and two-thousand jobs as they are about electing Obama. I noticed Obama has remained silent about the Ford Plant closing… I guess this is expecting too much for a presidential candidate to come forward to a specific solution to such a problem… but, think about this… isn’t “progressive politics” all about solving the problems of working people? Not problems in general, but specific problems.

I find Bachtell’s remarks comparing the Obama campaign to the New Deal Administration of the 1930’s almost amusing. When FDR’s Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins was red-baited with the charge that her New Deal package of reforms came straight out of the pages of the Communist Manifesto, Perkins responded to the effect, “I would rather see these programs implemented than remain words on he pages of a pamphlet.” Can anyone even imagine anyone in the Obama entourage making such a statement let alone advancing a program building upon the New Deal reforms to make life better for working people? When I see Bachtell and Obama standing in front of Sheriff Deputies preventing evictions I will share Bachtell’s enthusiasm for Obama. Really, can’t we expect such action from a “community organizer” running for President?

Yours in the struggle… the class struggle,

[...]

In a message dated 3/27/2008 11:30:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [...] writes:

How would you gentleman respond to this communist?

[...]
Sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:50 am
Subject: Re: question about Obama

Hi [...],

Good to hear from you.

Naturally I have a different take on the issues you have raised.

First, we view the framework of this election as mounting the biggest, broadest movement to defeat the ultra right and the most extreme sections of monopoly capital. We simply can't afford another 4 years of Bush style Republican right wing administration.

Secondly, our tactical approach is to build the broadest movement that will result not just in a defeat of the ultra right, but a landslide defeat, an annihilation! The political reality of this is it means electing Democrats to the Presidency and Congress.

Is the Democratic Party a party dominated by corporate interests? Yup. But you can't paint the Democrats with one brush. Some are very progressive. Some are more conservative. Many come out of movements. Most were elected with broad coalitions that include labor and peoples organizations and business. We believe most can be moved if the movements are big enough. If not they will suffer the same fate as the candidate in Maryland.

We want to completely change the political terrain of struggle in this country - one where the extreme right is weakened and impotent. With a new political terrain that is more favorable to the working class and people, we can go on the political offensive.

Thirdly, we are totally excited by the broad unprecedented upsurge that is taking place. This is an upsurge we have been working for for years. It is an upsurge that is taking place in the electoral arena and within the Democratic Primary. A lot of people on the left weren't expecting it, and now that it's here are belittling it.

This is an election like 1936 or 1964. Look at the legislative result of those elections.

This upsurge is a beautiful thing - it represents a total rejection of the Bush doctrine, for an end to the Iraq War, for a reorientation of domestic priorities. And while is has expressed itself in the support of all the Democratic candidates, its broadest and most energetic expression is in the Obama campaign.

This is an incredible thing. After 30 years of the most vile racism by the ultra right - the leading candidate is an African American! What history being made! What effect this will have on the struggle for democracy!

We believe the Obama candidacy has the greatest potential to amass the broadest coalition that can win the landslide victory in November.

Obama is giving voice to the sentiments of millions. Why would millions of people be supporting and volunteering for him and contributing to his campaign if he were a pro-war candidate? I don't think we're all suckers.

The base support of his campaign is against the war. This may not be where the organized peace movement is, and they are missing the boat.

He was against the Iraq war from the get go. He voted for the appropriations like the rest of the Dems because they didn't have the votes to cut off the funding. They weren't about to be accused of not protecting the troops. I don't consider that pro war.

Do we agree with Obama on every question? No. For example, we're not for this nonsense in Afghanistan, for building up the military, etc. We're for single payer. Whether this is political posturing or not, I don't know. The struggle will go on.

By the way, I think you may be too cut and dry on his positions on NCLB, NAFTA, health care, etc. I don't hear those things.

Is Obama a corporate tool? I don't pose the question that way.

Does Obama reflect a coalition of forces that include sections of monopoly capital? Yes. At this point he's an "all people's candidate." There are splits in the ruling class, differences in the corporate forces even within the DP and he reflects that.

But beyond that, it's not so neat. In my view, he's not a captive of monopoly any more than he's a candidate of the people.

The movements will have to determine where he ends up. And the movements are shaping a people's agenda. The question is who will leave the bigger imprint - the people or monopoly?

Can the people impose their will in the post election period - like with Roosevelt? Some of that depends on what happens during the election, on the unity and strength of the people's coalition of forces, and electing more progressives to Congress.

But, beyond question he is a unique political figure that doesn't come along too often. Did you read/see his speech on racism? Did you see/read his speech at Ebeneezer Church? Did you read/see his speech in Janesville WI? Did you read/see his speech on connecting the Iraq War to the domestic spending crisis?

He openly says he will change the policy toward Cuba! Meet with the Cubans, end the restrictions on travel and remittances. Isn't this a huge change?

He calls for elimination of all nuclear weapons. When was the last time a leading candidate advocated that?

In some ways he's a product of the anti-ultra right movement of the last 30 years.

I admire Nader for his positions, but I don't care at all for his tactics. I think he is placing himself outside this tremendous upsurge and won't be much of a factor this time around.

So Jim, that doesn't cover everything, but that's how I see it. Hope to talk to you more about it sometime.

Peace,

[...]

[...] wrote:
> [...] - What do Wall Street and the Communist Party People's Weekly > have in common - they both support Obama? John - you have written a > glowing article about Obama, why? What the heck do I want to vote for > someone who is pro-war (very hawkish on Pakistan & Iran and wants to > increase our troop levels overall, votesto fund Iraq war, not to > mention pro-Israel), very pro-corporate (does not support universal > health care but rather limitations on suing corporations, still in > favor of NAFTA), has received more money than any other candidate from > ugly health care industry companies and still supports the horrendous > NCLB crap. This list goes on and on John. He's a total ruling class > tool to get good people like yourselves suckered into voting for > tweedle dee or tweedle dumb. Get real - VOTE NADER!
> -[...]
> [...]
> Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides > <http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000015>. >

Planning

[...]