10 January 2012

Why do "Progressives" support President Obama ?

That's the key question asked by Glenn Greenwald in a Salon column:
The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested... He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth...
 
He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law... He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs... He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government... Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before...

The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that...  I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars, believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to individual rights, transparency and economic equality.
Although he does NOT endorse or support Ron Paul's candidacy, Greenwald then makes the point that Paul is, in many regards, more progressive than Obama:
The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views...

His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?..

I wish there were someone who did not have Ron Paul’s substantial baggage to achieve this... Still, for better or worse, Paul — alone among the national figures in both parties — is able and willing to advocate views that Americans urgently need to hear. That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all the more significant...

It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President.
Much, much more at the link.  For the record, at present, TYWKIWDBI does not endorse anyone to be the next president of the United States.  Still looking (thus exemplifying Voltaire's old saying that "the perfect is the enemy of the good.")

21 comments:

  1. Paul has my vote.
    I can't in good conscious vote for anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Annoying an miserable" sums up Greenwald.

    I'd hardly call a man who
    • opposes women's reproductive freedom,
    • would vote against the Civil Rights Act as an attack on property right which he values more highly that human/civil rights
    • thinks the Civil War could have been averted with a buyout (anyone who has read the Cornerstone Speech will see that this is nonsense)
    • either knew about those racist newsletters and is therefore unqualified for the office he now holds, or didn't know what was going out in his name and is therefore unqualified for the office he now holds

    more progressive than Obama.

    The bottom line is that so many of the things that pundits like Greenwald complain about could be thwarted by a co-equal branch of government, one that holds the power of the purse. If only there was such as thing as a check on presidential power, some kind of balance…

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wish someone would explain why Gary Johnson has been totally excluded from the discussion. His views and record seem preferable to Paul's on many points.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I will be voting for Paul and if Paul doesn't get the nomination I will write in his name. Obama is a dangerous pawn and I will not vote for him again under any circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There has never been a preferable candidate for me. I'm beaten by the tirade of douche bags and turd sandwiches that do not represent me or my generation. I can only hope things will change, as I see it in my peers but am obviously speculative from the history of changes past.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is why I'm hopeful that AmericansElect.org can inject more choice, or at least dialog into this process. It's absurd that we otherwise don't have a choice between a president forced by party and partisan politics to ignore his roots and whatever republican extremist the first few primaries choose for the rest of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To answer Glenn Greenwald Of The Libertarian Cato Institute, I would say that no self respecting progressive supports Obama, or even worse a neo-confederate racist like Ron Paul. Unless of course progressiveness has less to do with Scandinavia than the antebellum United States.....

    ReplyDelete
  8. It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President.

    No duh. Do Greenwald's readers like being talked to like they're infantile or extremely partisan Obama fans?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've enjoyed this comment:

    "We had to vote for Obama to prove we weren't racists; now we have to vote against him to prove we're not idiots."

    Don't really know the original source.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Obama fought two wars he didn't want and removed us from Iraq and is removing us from Afghanistan. What's he to do while getting this done? Fight the good fight, I'd hope.

    Paul says he wants no foreign entanglements and would give no foreign aid.

    Obama gave us better health care coverage at the cost of all else. That was the prize for decades. He signed the Fair Pay Act, stopped the GOP plan to defund Planned Parenthood, closed the Medicare donut hole, he increased child insurance coverage, he's fought for extended unemployment assistance, passed job programs and education grants in the stimulus, Wall Street Reform, he ended institutional discrimination against gays in the military and signed the Matthew Shepherd Act, and single-handedly gave gays hospitalization visitation rights.

    All with Republic obstruction and the 2010 mid-terms.

    Paul would cut off all social programs and close entire federal departments.

    Who is smoking crack?

    Jim in Maine

    ReplyDelete
  11. I gave Paul the $2500 max.

    Because he is standing against the bastards that are ruining our country.

    He's very imperfect.

    But he is against foreign entanglements. And the TSA/Dept of Homeland Security. That last one makes me think we are living in late 1930's Germany or Russia

    Do we really have to imprison a million a year?.

    Anyone else doesn't come close to his honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As a progressive I cannot vote for someone who would end Social Security, Medicare, Welfare,the EPA, and all government protection against corporate malfeasance, (Paul)neither can I support Obama for all the reasons Greenwald enumerated...and more. All I am left with is Rocky Anderson if I am to vote my conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It seems no one took up my mention of the fact that the government of the US is more than one man, that the Congress is complicit in almost everything Obama is accused of. But when you had a majority who have made their number one goal limiting the president to a single term, you're not going to see a lot getting done.

    I wish the Founders had written in some kind of "no confidence"/dismissal of congress measure.

    All politics is local and a representative government needs more/better representatives.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When I vote, I vote against the more dangerous candidate. This negative logic leads much more quickly to a choice than does positive logic.

    Lurker111

    ReplyDelete
  15. Progressive crank,
    You can lay a good portion of the blame for the Dems loss of control to the right leaning actions of the Obama admin, and in particularly Rahm Emanuel. Obama also has done little to at least make his supporters think that he's the remotest bit passionate about fighting the GOP.

    Let's stop making excuses for him.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Do we really have to imprison a million a year?.

    He wouldn't change that. Each state would do as it pleases under Paul, whether that's what we have now or something more akin to life pre-civil rights.

    ReplyDelete
  17. One or two acrimonious political debates (~8 years) ago, I recall being told "if you don't like it, vote with your feet" - at the time, this seemed like a puerile way to say "just leave the country if you don't agree with my position" ... in retrospect, this is inadvertently-sound advice for anyone who does not appreciate the false dichotomies of US politics.

    Paul is hardly perfect, but that's no reason to ignore his talking points - our country's congress really is bought, our country's economy really is broken, et cetera.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It amazes me that so many intelligent people can accept some parts of Ron Paul's ideology, while completely ignoring others. Paul opposes choice, civil rights, equality of rights domestically (to name a few), and would have us become totally isolated from all relations with other countries. His popularity scares me.

    As for Obama, he has accomplished a great deal when you consider that the House of Representatives and the new super-majority rule in the Senate have nearly hog-tied all progressive programs.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Paul Carney -- I believe Gary Johnson has been excluded because he has a knack for putting his foot in his mouth. Not like either of the George Bushes or Dan Quayle -- malapropisms or saying things that don't really make sense, but by insulting and offending people, particularly other politicians.

    I attended a rally in 1997 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, (for the 1998 presidential election) for Bob Dole, the Republican candidate. As the Republican governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson introduced Bob Dole. Johnson spent over 2 minutes repeatedly inviting Dole to play golf with him and extolling the virtues of the game. Dole only has one arm. It was painful to watch. An aide finally stopped Johnson.

    That behavior was not out of character for Johnson. I can't imagine other Republican politicians getting behind Johnson -- he's probably offended most of them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nobody is perfect. Ron Paul has my vote, no matter which party endorses him.

    ReplyDelete