I’m arriving late to this party, but I wanted to say that I believe Hue’s comment is key. I’d say tens of millions – instead of just “millions” – still think the “wedge” issues are the problem. Until most of those folks have an awakening, there won’t be a progressive movement. There won’t be a mass movement to destroy the corporatist, patriarchal, white supremacist machine.

I also think “progressive” covers far too big of a landscape. And in it, too many people get away with too much. The progressives often seem to be too regressive and the Left seems to be too “Right”. It’s all a bit too airy-fairy and wishy-washy. Those of us who are foreign born are accustomed to a completely different kind of Left. I’m very sorry, but people voting for Obama and calling themselves Left/Progressive, is just a bad joke.

And one more thing before I go. About nine or ten weeks ago I was so disgusted and offended that I decided to go help the Nader camp. Just an unofficial activist. And I did it after my second job. You would not believe the amount of abuse leveled on us by Obama supporters. It got to a point that I started calling them Obazis (Obama Nazis). There weren’t that many of us around so most of the time we were working alone. We’ve had sign wars, sticker wars and loads of profanity thrown at us. Apparently every crime that the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress has committed in the past eight years was Ralph Nader’s fault. The day before the election some Obazi tried to ram his car into mine. There was actually a car chase for about ten seconds. It made me so angry I planted about twelve signs that night. And this is not the boondocks, this is in Silicon Valley, with that perpetual yet false myth of tolerance, acceptance and liberalism. To make a long story even longer, I can not believe, not for one second that Obama supporters are people who want to end war, end torture etc. etc. Nope! They just want to be in charge of it all. They want a kinder, gentler war, a kinder, gentler method of torture. They want to be the benevolent dictators. That is why the voted for change that is not really change.
Ok I said my piece
Done and gone

Ps: Many many thanks to most of you for your lucidity, sobriety and rationality. It is good to know that intelligent life actually exists out there. So thank you for existing.

In fact, the opening moves of this “herald of change” have been to place in positions of high authority the same minds that led us into the mess in the Middle East to begin with. The only thing that is different, in actuality, are the levels of denial, and shades of rhetoric that are chosen to defend the imperium.

Those who attempt to bring this up are dismissed as “purists”. Well, no, actually we’re not. We just don’t find war crime acceptable just because the side we tend to favor now endorses it. If you Obama supporters want to support imperial war crime, that’s on you. But never again write long, moving editorials about how “we” have to get control of our government. No, ladies and gentlemen. YOU need to get control of that matter between your ears, and oppose war atrocity consistently. And if you can’t do it, get the hell out of the way, will you, please?

Appreciate how you articulated your thought process about Nader and the Dems/Obama.

I don’t expect to see a lot of movement from those who voted for Obama – included so-called progressives. I want to be clear and re-emphasize the words “a lot of movement” because I do think there will be some who have had significant doubts and they will move back from the euphoria of Nov. 4 to once again see where there doubts came from.

Will conditions demand progressive solutions from Obama?Progressives who voted for Obama (and against McCain) did so on the slight hope that Obama would be more receptive to progressive solutions based on dire problems than would a Republican. That rationale has been in play for many decades and only made its way into electing Obama – imo – because of the collapsing economy. I suspect, had the collapse come after the election, the race would have been very tight and it’s quite possible McCain would have won. But that’s sheer speculation.

We know what Obama has said, we really don’t know what he will do. I don’t think an Obama administration should be the focus of progressives; at least not the primary focus. The system knows how to quell an uprising. While I think Nader’s desire to put pressure on the Congress is something worthy of consideration, I think the system is really broken. The mix in the Congress is not progressive – it is center/right whether Dem or Repub. (Only Repub talking points say otherwise.)

Where can energies be best served:
Let’s take Community Health Care. There is an opportunity to create community health care systems which are affordable for all and in some cases free. Examples abound. Neither the States nor Feds have the capacity to deal with healthcare. The same can be said of economic solutions. Local, sustainable economies are where progressive ideas can be implemented; not at the Fed/State. Home rule allows much. It will be up to local progressive grass-roots to re-connect with regional localities and then outward to the rest of the world.

I hold promise for the Earth Charter. Read it. Local grass-roots organizing can lead to Cities/Towns/Villages signing on to this charter and making it a living document within the community.

I see very little hope in Fed/State politics because they are by necessity, representative, and are not scaled for direct participatory democracy. I’m not saying we should ignore Washington – that’s impossible – but we need to understand what we can truly effect and what we cannot. If you can’t change city hall you’ll never change State capitals or DC. I suggest starting where you’re at; build out from there.

The election’s over – get to it.

October 29, 2008
http://www.votenader.org
http://www.officialnaderstore.com

Howard Zinn now says he’s voting for Nader.

The famous historian lives in Massachusetts, where Obama is ahead by 20 points.

Zinn created a stir earlier when he said he was voting for Obama.

He legitimately took some heat for supporting the corporate Obama.

But late last night, Zinn admitted in an e-mail to our campaign that he made a mistake and now says he will vote for Nader.

And Zinn urges all people of conscience to vote for the true progressive in slam dunk states.

Of which there are now many.

(Zinn says that in non slam dunk states, he urges people to vote for Obama. We obviously disagree with that bit of advice.)

Or as Ralph Nader put it today:

“A vote for Nader/Gonzalez on November, rather than being wasted by piling onto an Obama landslide or McCain implosion, will produce a stronger hammer and watchdog for what millions of Americans want — including public Medicare for all with private delivery and a living wage for the one in three workers who don’t make one.”

I voted for Nader even though I knew he wouldn’t win or get as many votes as in 2000 in order to hold the Democrats accountable and to show that there is a portion of the population that is willing to break with them.

After 8 years of Clinton and the last 2 of Dem control of Congress, I feel that progressives who still support the Democratic Party suffer from the same syndrome as kidnapping victims and people who are beaten by their spouses. Maybe this time it’ll be different… they said they won’t do NAFTA and destroy welfare and kill Iraqis. You don’t know this candidate – he’s not like the rest – this time it’ll be different.

When you vote for the Democrats “without illusions” you are basically still endorsing them and telling them that you know you don’t have any other options. This means that you are telling Obama that you won’t oppose him if he bombs Pakistan as he said he would in the debate. It tells Nanci Pelosi that you don’t care that she said that the Democrats would not put Bush on trial and that you can’t do anything when the Democrats go along and vote for Bush’s war funding. It means you feel impotent to stop the government from giving 700 Billion bucks to the rich.

Even if we could get 5% of the population regularly voting for a progressive 3rd party, then it means the Democrats would know that they don’t have a blank check from liberals and progressives. At least the religious nut-job make the republican candidates give them concessions – like selecting Sarah Palin to appeal to crazy right-wing voters: “the base”. Conversely, progressives who support Dems make concessions to the party rather than the other way around! Imagine what would happen if Republicans told their base they need to be pro-choice in order to win over voters and they should empasise with people who see things differently? Well this is what the Democrats tell us! Don’t support gay-rights or the Repubs will win; don’t push for more abortion access because the Republicans’ll win; don’t tax the rich or the Repubs’ll win; don’t scare swing voters by adressing racial or economic inequality in this country.

Barack Obama is an attractive candidate despite himself and his actual positions and I find it inspiring that so many people got excited and wanted to vote for him because they are tired of racism and war. But what’s going to happen when they eventually get disappointed – will they fight back or become cynical? Progressives should make sure that we are sharply critical of the new Prez and don’t let him get away with more wall street bail-outs or bombings around the world and hopefully we can bring some of the people who misplaced hopes in the Democratic party over to building a really independant and militant left.

I appreciate the info on Zinn. It surprises me that he even votes, but it doesn’t surprise me that he’d go progressive.

Yeah, I remember swing states being their focus for an Obama vote, which makes sense unless you’re behind a progressive candidate winning. I, too, was surprised that Chomsky gave any advice at all on the matter.

While it’s all a head scratcher, we’ll have to wait and see if Obama is able to make consecutive jump shots, or if he tosses up bricks. It’ll be interesting to see how the intellects criticize his course of action depending on what he does/doesn’t do.

Thanks for the input.
Best to you.

Both seemed to encourage progressives in non-swing States to vote for non-duopoly for the reasons you mentioned.

The idea, and one I share, is make as strong a case as possible for progressive change. It could be viewed as a vote to influence or simply a vote to reject the status quo.

I was disturbed that they even mentioned any difference between these candidates and didn’t simply either: 1) make no comment on the issue (which is in line with Chomsky’s general take on offering advice on such matters), or 2) simply state who he was planning to support (in this case the Green Party’s candidate and the independent progressive, Nader).

The lesser-evil makes no sense. In part, because, as you noted, both candidates are simply outcomes of the same system AND because we REALLY don’t know which of the two are the most “evil”. The guess that Obama is, is just that a shot in the dark given all we know at this stage.

No, progressive supporter of Obama has yet to make the case FOR Obama without bringing up the boogeyman – McCain. Weighing their differences could lead one (minus party affiliation) to either one over the other.

In any case, we have what we have. As it unfolds we need to gauge what is happening. The ball is in Obama’s court.

you raise an important observation in behavioral changes amongst the intellectual community, I’m glad that you brought it up. Most disappointing for me initially, was hearing Chomsky and Zinn’s pre-election analyses on the candidates’ minor differences which they concur can pose observable differences in policy. They do make a valid point, though.

When I heard them recommend to choose between the lesser of two ‘evils’ (without illusions), I immediately thought that it’s still playing the ‘evil’ card, for better or worse. I also wondered if the Albert Hoffman effect was coming on out of nowhere.

In short, it seemed to me that they were repudiating their own message of so many years.

Chomsky was more or less selling the Obama vote, although his absence in the mainstream makes it grossly irrelevant, and then he voted an alternative candidate if I’m not mistaken. That seemed a bit misleading for Chomsky scholars, but he also knows that nobody outside of the duopoly stood a chance as usual, and likely that not many who are Stateside listen to him, let alone know who the man is. As a result, he voted his conscience for a good poke in the eye at the Establishment, and suggested for what he likely estimates to be “in the system voters”, to vote the lesser. Keep McBush out was the main point I believe.

Zinn has been advocating for at least 20 years that there really isn’t much value in voting since both candidates essentially represent the same interests. One of the most convincing statements he has made in regard to this position is that “this (election frenzy) seizes the country every four years because we have all been brought up to believe that voting is crucial in determining our destiny, that the most important act a citizen can engage in is to go to the polls and choose one of the two mediocrities who have already been chosen for us. It is a multiple choice test so narrow, so specious, that no self-respecting teacher would give it to students.” His message has never been more transparent. I still don’t know who he voted for, spent some time and didn’t find anything. From his interviews he was clear to vote against McCain, so did he follow the lesser theory, his conscience in an alternative candidate, or did he boycott the corrupt system all together? Anyone know that answer? Max?

I’ve spent the last decade+ reading everything I could get my hands on from these two dissidents of the establishment, and thanks to them I’ve developed a greater understanding of our nation’s history, and have changed over time as a result, mainly through correlation with what I read and what I observe around the world. Abandonment of their future opinion is not in my cards any time soon.

Thanks for the stimulation, Pablo.

Best to you.

It’s best to refrain from replying when stoned, lmao!

That’s poetic.

Best to you.

PS still laughing my ass off…

The only objection I have to above is lumping in those who would vote for Obama as being seduced by his so-called cult of personality. It’s insulting. As for the rest of your post, I didn’t read it. I would say, though, that those who resort to that sort of shallow criticism are forever in debt to the GOP. Congratulations.

If you’d like to get into a cock wagging contest, I’m sure there are those who might indulge, however.

“who here can honestly say that their vote for Nader or McKinney changed anything.?”

You’re even stuck using the language of Obama. Tell me, how did a vote for Obama “change” anything? If you really want to think about it, what State do you live in, and was your vote for Obama neccessary? Did he win by one vote where you live? No, you miss the point of voting. Voting is when you use your voice to support what you believe in…. if you believe in Obama that’s your prerogative, but I think you’re deluding yourself if you do.

The reason your circular reasoning is relevent is because too many “progressives” think like you, or were told to think like you by our “intellectuals” prior to the election. Had everyone who supported Nader’s policies voted for him he would have brought in a significant number of votes… no not enough to win, but enough to send a message that a third party candidate is viable, because a third party candidate is speaking to the people. So once again, don’t you see the fallacy, the logical error in your reasoning? Do you will that the U.S. political system remains a duopoly?

A good lesson: Canada. The NDP has always been “the third party” that “can’t win”, so, by your logic, people might as well not vote for them. Well, if no one had voted for them in the early days, they wouldn’t even exist currently…. talk about an incremental set back, that would have been terrible for Canadian history (you see the NDP has managed to do a lot because they have the support of people…)! It takes people with conviction to support the best candidate and not the “less evil” candidate because they’re going to win. That’s how you make “incremental changes”… and in the meanwhile I guess I’ll sit in my classroom and cook up some schemes for overthrowing the government… I guess I’ll be doing it single handily, since I wouldn’t look to “allies” the likes of you for any sort of courage or assistance in the real fights needed in this country.

Here’s the deal, we might as well cut to the chase here. I knew going into this election that Nader wasn’t going to be elected. That said, I don’t feel bad about voting for Obama. I think he’s a strong candidate with obvious drawbacks. I had and have no illusions about the man, but I don’t feel like my vote was cast into a vacuum, either. Progressives are rather finely fucked; we all know this. However, until I see true momentum verifiable through numbers, I realize that there will have to be increments (yes, increments) of progress made. For all of the moral grandstanding I see, I see nothing which supports how a vote for Nader changed anything this time around. Believe me, it’s not with pride or arrogance that I write such a thing. I’m not happy about it. But who here can honestly say that their vote for Nader or McKinney changed anything.?

I want to remind everyone, though, that has seen fit to ciritcize my vote for Obama (and I welcome it; I’m glad about it) are overlooking that which I was critical of in the first place: the crude accusation that those who voted for Obama were somehow seduced by his debatable cult of personality. I did and still do maintain that this charge is arrogant, thoughtless and insulting, not only to me, but to millions of Americans who arrived at their decision, I hope, through careful consideration of many facts, of political analysis of Obama’s words and of the entire context of unfortunate political realities.

I really would like to see Nader as head of the EPA, but after his calling out of Obama as potentially being an Uncle Tom, well, I highly doubt that will happen. That’s too bad.

So, call me a coward. Say I’m a victim of Cartesian dualism (risible, that), or whatever else you may want to. That’s fine. But for some to suggest that Obama was elected because of his, erm, electrifying, mesmeric personality IS an insult.

“…I’d like you to show me why I should realistically vote Nader and expect enough people to do so with me”?

If this were anything other than this election, could you see the cowardice in this type of statement?