Political Oz
February 28, 2008
Oh no, it’s officially political ninny season in America. And we all know what that means. It’s time to shelve the issues and the activism and don our favorite party’s slippers, tap our heels three times and repeat this line until November: There’s no better place to kiss than your candidate’s ass.
And so it goes – especially with the Democrats when it comes to their expert-like ability to suspend logic and cheer the candidates who seemingly ignore their issues the most. Tap those slippers, baby, and forget that Clinton and Obama won’t even mention universal health care. Tap, tap, tap and forget that they both have military industrial complex henchmen crawling all over the top echelons of their campaign brass. And tap, tap, tap and ignore the fact that both are swimming in the big moneyed interests of Wall Street, nuclear energy and big oil, and the corporate consumer and food monopolies that bring us the big-box toxins.
There is apparently no end to the suspension of logic. But I guess we already know that since the dominant theme of the apparent winner of the Dem Oz-fest is the “man of hope,” Obama. At least he’s being honest. He’s not talking about accomplishments. Revolution. Systematic overhaul. Peace. Or any such measure of true change. Nope, just hope. And the crowds go wild, tap, tap tapping away….
All this hope comes from a most distinguished place of privilege too. If you’ve got a couple of years to do little but hope you certainly aren’t amongst those who are dodging bullets and IEDs in Baghdad. Or amongst those who are drowning in the financial atrocities of the subprime fiasco. Or amongst those who are so marginalized by the workforce that they no longer even qualify to be counted in unemployment numbers. And just try to send a hopeful note to your insurance corporation seeking an extension on the policy you can no longer afford. Good luck with that.
Sorry, but hope works better on a bumpersticker.
After publishing my piece on Nader vs. The Fundamentalist Liberals earlier this week, I received an avalanche of emails – mostly supportive – from folks immune from our nation’s spell of hope. None were better than the missive I received from Joel Hirschhorn. Titled “Delusional Hope: The Obama Rapture,” Hirschhorn offered this bit of reality:
Never have so many hoped for so much because of rollicking rhetoric and pulsating platitudes. A tsunami of hope has plunged America into electoral euphoria. In its path is the wreckage of critical thinking about what ails the US and what bold, revolutionary actions are needed. Barry Obama has accomplished semantic alchemy, turning justified but grim distrust and outrage with government and politics into hallelujah hope. But most hope never materializes and is a terrible predictor of reality.
Think about the prevalence of hope: sports teams heading into a championship game, research scientists envisioning a Nobel Prize, people in the criminal justice system awaiting trial, entrepreneurs starting a new business, people starting off on a long-awaited vacation, American Idol contestants, college seniors dreaming of becoming superrich, and all those supporters of Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and other presidential candidates that will not reach the White House.
Hope produces far more losers than winners. Hope is enjoyable until failure hits. But most people do not give up on hope, just move on to the next hope.
Indeed, we’ve seen this kind of “hope” before. Before we had today’s “Man of Hope,” we had the “Man from Hope.” Yeah, that man: Bill Clinton. Like today, the liberals of ’92 were enraptured by the Dem ticket, silencing themselves on the issues and demanding that everyone “shut up and get in line” no matter how ill-defined the destination was.
We were told that Clinton – along with his VP Gore — would be the nation’s first “environmental president.” Oh, the hope of it all. But, like today, the hope of yesteryear required that we not “rock the boat” in the election season and, instead, just ride the wave to change. The result? Well, here’s what I wrote in the Spring 1993 issue of Safe Food News:
In a very short period of time, the “Environmental President” and his hand picked administration have done the following:
-
Promoted food irradiation as a “solution” to the meat contamination crisis;
-
Advocated doing away with the Delaney clause, one of the nation’s most important food safety laws which, if enforced, would ban the use of many carcinogenic pesticides;
-
Given final approval to a hazardous waste incinerator located near a grade school in Ohio, despite EPA studies demonstrating its danger and promises from Gore that he’d stop it;
-
Rescinded five important anti-pollution regulations drafted by outgoing Bush EPA head William Reilly, including one which would have phased out the ozone-destroying chemical methyl bromide and another which would have required exporters of pesticides to provide clear danger warnings and safe handling instructions on labels.
I guess it’s rarely pretty when hope meets reality. And the reality of the Clinton/Gore finger to the eye of the enviros and liberals was that they allowed themselves to taken advantage of in the election season. Or, if you’d rather, they let their hope get the best of them. Instead of making demands from the Clinton/Gore team they hoped for the best and silenced themselves all the way to those heady days of White House invitations and more hopes for presidential appointments.
It’s as if we’ll never learn that the squeaky wheel gets the grease – especially in politics. But the panderers simply get taken advantage of. Worse, we seem to forget that our Democracy was intended to be “people” driven. Remember, the politicians were supposed to follow – not lead – the will of the people. And when the people cede that essential power to the politicians we do, indeed, get led…by our noses.
And all of this is just a very long way to say: Don’t forget or ignore the issues. We don’t owe any candidate anything other than the responsibility to make sure they FOLLOW the will of the people. They must EARN our votes. And, from my perspective, they will only earn that vote by stopping the rhetorical gimmickry and begin seriously addressing the war, health care, the culture of fear, the obscene economic inequalities, the environment and the outright betrayal of democracy that exists today.
In other words, I’m not tapping my heels. I’m demanding answers.
Comments
21 Responses to “Political Oz”
Got something to say?
Posts
“Audacity of Hype” is more like it in regards to Obama.
Obama’s not talking abut revolution, because frankly, I don’t think most America’s are clamoring for one, either. It’ s easy to forget that much of what you, I, and others believe (of course, we have our own differences within that) is still considered ‘radical’ by huge chunks of the electorate. That’s not to say that we’re ‘wrong’ about those ideas, but we shouldn’t act all shocked that there’s not a viable candidate out there talking that talk right now.
Good takedown on Clinton, BTW.
Let’s remember what happened after the ‘92 “hope” of Clinton: The ‘94 “reality” Gingrich and his dopey Contract with America brought us. The political push back is inevitable. So wouldn’t it be better to fight from a place we believe in rather than a place we’re neck-deep in delusion with? Now is the time to push the issues and the agenda, not become big Pander-bears like the Kos and GMD crowd.
As JD Ryan notes, “the people” aren’t all that progressive. That’s why Nader’s best showing, under the Green Party banner, was only 3%. That’s why G.W. Bush won 2 elections (or near enough).
You’re criticizing a campaign slogan. That is just the label, not what people are voting for. You seem to think that everyone who puts a bit of their hope behind Obama’s run for the Presidency is an idiot. And when he turns out not to be the savior you can sit back in your grim self-satisfied reality and smirk.
My impression of Obama is that he is attuned to the ambivalence and even dissonance of what “the people” think. And then he nudges them to what might work for all of us. But you can see for yourself how he thinks in his book. As I said before, it’s not Nader, but it does move us in the right direction where someone like Nader can be a part of our public life again.
Since only a mainstream Democrat or Republican is going to be President, you always win by refusing to play — clever you!
I’m proud of my 3 votes for Nader, but I’m under no illusions that they changed anything. I voted my hopes. And they were dashed — O wicked world!
But for the real ninnies, please explain the principled left’s putting their hopes in with John Edwards.
Mike: So wouldn’t it be better to fight from a place we believe in rather than a place we’re neck-deep in delusion with? Now is the time to push the issues and the agenda, not become big Pander-bears like the Kos and GMD crowd.
I agree about pushing the issues and the agenda. Nader is most certainly NOT the guy to do that. The only reason he’s even on the talk shows at this point is because he divides the left, and the media loves that. When’s the last time you saw them feature any other speaker with strong progressive values? So if we’re going to get a message out, howzabout getting it out with someone that has a chance of getting it out there? Nader sounds like a grouchy old crank. His message resonates with people like you and me… regular mainstream America, not so much. We need someone out there who doesn’t have the personality of soggy bread, a fresh face that people might actually listen to. I agree with you on a lot of stuff, dude, but sometimes I don’t know if you grasp how far we are from the mainstream.
As far as Kos is concerned, I’m miles away from that world. I post on there occasionally when I have a good piece on FBC and I wanna try to get some attention. There’s some smart people over there and some idiots. And many people at GMD are hardly jumping up and down over Obama.
Mike, we’re right on the issues. You and I seldom disagree on that. I just want to how we’re going to affect change in this country when we’re so far away from the predominant mindset in the country. A lot of people actually do share the same values, but we don’t have someone out there that they’ll listen to.
And back to what I said.. I’m not pandering, or buying anyone’s pandering. i simply do not want another American president. Nader might be okay with it, but I certainly am not.
Oops… that last paragraph… I don’t want another Republican president. I’m ok with an American one.
I really, really like what Derrick Jensen says about the hope
phenomenon:
”
Hope is a longing for a future condition over which you have no agency: I don’t hope that I eat tonight I’m gonna do it.
On the other-hand the next time I get on a plane I’ll hope it doesn’t crash because I have no agency once I get into the air, I do have agency over whether I eat tonight, I have agency as to whether I stand up right now,
so if I say I hope the coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon survive what I am saying is i that I’m powerless.
so i don’t hope that coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon survive I’m saying I’ll DO WHATEVER IT TAKES to make sure they survive…
imagine if we all started saying and actualizating: I WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES to STOP GLOBAL WARMING, whatever it takes to……… and meaning whatever it takes, not meaning whatevers comfortable, not whatevers legal, not whatevers safe, not whatevers considered moral by those in power. I WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES. What will happen when we do that?!”
”
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBIudbPDzVw
1. A lot of people do hope they will eat tonight.
2. There seems to be an assumption that if you participate in the Presidential election (hope) then you aren’t otherwise active (will do), which is obviously ridiculous.
3. The hoping vs. doing argument is another example of changing the subject. Colby’s initial essay set the tone. A well justified criticism of baseless Nader-bashing (though hardly new) just became a vehicle for his own baseless Obama-bashing.
But it appears that Obama is the one who gets things done, not us bitter lefties. And for the most part he gets things done in a direction that is more toward our hopes than against them.
4. Question to Ivan: do you eat salmon?
I’m not in any way convinced that Obama’s gonna deliver the goods, based on what he’s done before and such. But the point is he will undoubtedly do more good/less harm than McCain. Nader will not change anything even by being in the race at this point.
Honk for Hope Honk for Peace
Honk for Justice (nah)
Honk while you guzzle that oil away
Honk Honk Honk
Cause your car has a higher IQ than you
America Honks
And goes home
God dat Activism almost run down me battery
JD sez: Nader will not change anything even by being in the race at this point.
MC Hammer sez: Well, he’s already changed things because he’s the ONLY candidate bringing up the issues the other Dem candidates won’t touch — even though the Dem base is yearning for it. It’s Nader who has been on Meet the Press talking about universal health care, not Obama/Clinton.
As far as Rosa’s comments regarding it’s “Obama who is getting thing’s done,” I simply have to ask: What is he getting done? Or better yet: What has he ever gotten done? You can’t be serious. Nader’s given nearly 50 years of his life to public interest activism and — trust me — he lives a most frugal life. I think the Obama folks are treading on mighty thin ice when taking the debate to “accomplishments” when comparing Obama to most anyone, especially Nader. The next time you buckle up, feel the airbag in a wreck, or ponder the plethora of other public interest initiatives that Nader and his dozens of organizations have accomplished, think Nader. Better yet, thank Nader.
And while we’re on the topic of accomplishments, what exactly are Obama’s? Well, other than continuously voting to fund the war he’s supposedly against….
Again, I think the importance of the Nader candidacy is his ability to put the taboo issues on the table and make the Dems either squirm or embrace them. So far it’s all squirming and attacking and little embracing. As he exemplified when Edwards was in the race, Nader is more than willing to fade away when the Dems address the issues he’s addressing.
As for Peter: Keep honking. But I think you’ll need a car first. You commie bastard.
Just remember what Miller said in REPO MAN: “The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.”
Nader doesn’t own a car. Never has.
Nor does my mechanic, interestingly enough. While going over the latest in breakdowns with our Subaru I asked the fine fellow what he would do, fix it or sell it? Well, he said, this is why I don’t have a car. “I bike.” Cool. And there I was, the idiot with the broken car (again), negotiating with the bike-riding auto-mechanic.
The moral of the story is always the same: I’m a loser. Vote Nader. Fix the car. Whatever.
Well, he’s already changed things because he’s the ONLY candidate bringing up the issues the other Dem candidates won’t touch — even though the Dem base is yearning for it. It’s Nader who has been on Meet the Press talking about universal health care, not Obama/Clinton.
How has that changed anything? We still don’t have universal healthcare, and I’m hardly seeing “Nader calls for healthcare” everywhere. Nader’s changed a lot in his lifetime. I’d never dismiss all he’s done. He’s not changing anything in this race because he’s not going to get the visiblity, the votes or anything. There’s a difference between changing and attempting to change. Nader’s done a lot of attempting since his Prez runs and should be commended for that, but I hardly see any of these changes coming to fruition.
1. A lot of people do hope they will eat tonight.
Yes, But they don’t SAY I “hope I eat tonight” they say “I’m going to get up and do everything I can to find dinner” I have no evidence but I would bet that those who spend time hoping/praying have less success.
when hope dies, action begins.
2. There seems to be an assumption that if you participate in the Presidential election (hope) then you aren’t otherwise active (will do), which is obviously ridiculous.
Agreed.
3. The hoping vs. doing argument is another example of changing the subject. Colby’s initial essay set the tone. A well justified criticism of baseless Nader-bashing (though hardly new) just became a vehicle for his own baseless Obama-bashing.
But it appears that Obama is the one who gets things done, not us bitter lefties. And for the most part he gets things done in a direction that is more toward our hopes than against them.
My point in bringing up the Derrick Jensen hope thing is not to bash the electoral process or Obama. Voting is extremely important and Obama is pretty great. Hell, He’ll be the best Dem to get the nomination in my lifetime, but his rhetoric is dangerous.
My point is that ‘hope’ is a very dangerous word/concept to be throwing around and I would argue that it can lead to people to disavowing their responsibility as citizens; they see themselves as voters (consumers) who need to choose between candidate A and candidate B. NOT as citizens who need to constantly push the issues that are important to them regardless of who holds office.
I canvass for a living. Every week I talk with 150 people about environmental issues and I will tell you that the ones who bring up the electoral stuff NEVER get involved with our organizations. When I hear “We just need to get rid of Bush, I’m counting the days.” or “things will change when we get a new president” I know I’m wasting my time if I talk to them much longer; they will invariably come up with excuse after excuse for their inaction.
These people place hope in others rather than allowing themselves to look clearly at the world and feel the intense despair that leads to action.
4. Question to Ivan: do you eat salmon?
Yes, I really enjoy Sushi.
Obama was a community organizer and civil rights lawyer before he went into politics. He has a good grounding. He is determinedly mainstream and respectful of the system, but he is derailing Hillary Clinton’s hope for the Presidency, and if he’s successful we can all be very thankful indeed for that. Just helping to make that a reality is worth supporiing him for.
Yet he also determinedly believes in bottom-up activism, which is certainly in line with how progressives think.
J.D.: I’ll throw the question right back at you: How has Obama’s campaign — or electoral career, for that matter — changed anything?
Rosa: You say Obama believes in “bottom-up activism,” but how does that fit with his vote for EVERY Iraq War funding bill, the re-authorization of the Patriot Act, his support of Lieberman over Lamont, his apparent disdain for universal health care and/or his declaration as a new U.S. senator that his views on the war aren’t that much different from Bush’s? How can Obama’s supporters keep ignoring all this? Or, better yet, how can you ignore the news over the weekend that Obama is considering Republicans like Hagel and Hatch for possible cabinet positions? Why do almost all of Obama’s supporters silence themselves on these matters? Isn’t this the time to speak up/sound off?
Ivan: Great comment and personal observation, especially this:
I canvass for a living. Every week I talk with 150 people about environmental issues and I will tell you that the ones who bring up the electoral stuff NEVER get involved with our organizations. When I hear “We just need to get rid of Bush, I’m counting the days.” or “things will change when we get a new president” I know I’m wasting my time if I talk to them much longer; they will invariably come up with excuse after excuse for their inaction.
Are you still in Florida?
Ah…. the infamous, tried-and-true “Colby deflection”, in which you deflect criticism back upon the questioner to avoid answering it yourself, or when you show the inability to answer it completely.
I never claimed Obama changed anything. I’m sure that somewhere in there in his Illinois senate days or even earlier in his community organizer days he did something, but you’ll have to ask one of those Obama fans.
He will change things, however, simply by not being John McCain. Nader will not change anything, for he will not get his message out there nor will he even get a half a percent of the electorate. It’s really quite simple.
Okay, I’ll play your game. Using your logic/argument, I’ll respond this way: Nader will also change things “simply by not being John McCain. ” But, I’ll also add: He’ll change even more things by not being Obama.
Oh, and by the way, how do you feel about Obama saying that he’d consider Republicans like Hagel and Lugar for cabinet positions? I guess you’ll just ignore statements like that and keep kicking Ralph around instead.
Odd, I responded to this yesterday, it didn’t post.
Nader will change things by not being Obama? Considering he’s got no shot at the presidency, nor will his message even make it out there thanks to the MSM, how? How does a guy who won’t even get a half of a percent change anything?
And I’m pissed as all hell about the Hagel/Lugar thing. I’m not some Obamaton,and you know that.
Pissed as hell? Show it. Not here, but at on of your little Dem circle jerk sites, please. And that’s my point: Now’s the time to stick it to the Dem contenders on THE ISSUES. It’s not the time to let one issue after another get swept under the carpet just because “Obama’s not McCain.” Sorry, but I’ve got higher standards than that.
As for the problems with posting, let me fire off an email to the fine fellow who helped me set this site up. Oh hell, it’s you! Now what?
What I don’t get is why you care so much to insist that you don’t care. If activism is what matters, then why does it matter to you who gets elected President?
The President will never be a perfect partisan leftist, so if you couldn’t care less if it’s McCain, Clinton, or Obama, why bother bashing Obama? For that matter (I ask again?), what was with the support of mainstream Democrat and DLCer John Edwards?
As for hope, the formula “when hope dies, action begins” is nuts. Hope has to be awakened for action to be directed toward a hoped-for goal (like “eyes on the prize”). The person who goes out to scare up a meal is obviously hoping for one at the same time.
People overlook a lot when they vote, especially for President. You seem to be overlooking what a change from Clinton et al. Obama represents. By the way, he is very strongly in favor of universal health care. He’s hardly going to say during the campaign that we should have a socialized — or even slightly more socialized — system to achieve it. Or are you looking for false promises on the issue to hang your hopes on (like Edwards’ labor populism)?
When a native Indian becomes president of a South American country, we hail the change. Does it not matter to you the effect that a mixed-race man, with close relatives still in Kenya, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawai’i, whose half-Indonesian sister is married to a Chinese man, would have on the view of our country around the world? Does it not matter to you the effect a black man as President would have on kids in East New York or West Chicago? Might that not justify a small measure of hope? Or are your interests as small and blinkered as those of any muslim-fearing racist in Ohio?
FInally, eating salmon hardly accords with DOING WHATEVER IT TAKES to make sure they survive.