Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Why I Won’t Vote for Obama...or Hillary, And Certainly Not McCain, And Not Even Ralph
An Anarchist View of the U.S. Elections
In the United States, there has developed an enthusiastic movement of support for the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama. Besides the large forces he appeals to, especially among young adults, he is overwhelmingly supported by the left: liberals, social democrats, and Stalinists. I appreciate the movement-like aspect of his popular support, yet I personally will not vote for him. I do not try to persuade individual friends, family members, and co-workers not to vote for him, but I would like to change their attitudes. It is typical of liberals, etc. that they start elections by declaring the Democratic candidate to be the “lesser evil” (which admits that he or she is an evil). But as the election gets closer, they become convinced of the great goodness of the candidate. (In psychology, this is called the operation of cognitive dissonance. After all, who wants to believe of oneself that we are supporting someone evil? So we persuade ourselves that the evil politician is actually good.)
Let me give some anecdotes about the real Obama. In the left-liberal journal, The Nation (2/18/08), Christopher Hayes wrote a pro-Obama article, “The Choice.” He recalled, “For the Chicago left, his primary campaign and his subsequent election to the Senate was a collective rallying cry….Young Chicago progressives felt…He is one of us and now he is in the Senate (p. 20).”
And yet…. “That’s not, alas, how things turned out,” writes this supporter of Obama. “Almost immediately, Obama…shaded himself toward the center….His record places him squarely in the middle of Democratic senators (same).” This is a typical story of a young idealist becoming corrupted by playing the game of bourgeois electoral politics.
Hayes suspects that this was due to Obama having “an eye on national office.” But there were other corrupting forces. For example, Obama has boasted to campaign crowds in Iowa that he had passed a law to increase regulation of nuclear power plants. Specifically this was a response to the Exelon Corp. which had failed to inform the public about radioactive leaks at one of its plants. Senator Obama scolded both Exelon and federal regulators. He presented a bill to force nuclear power companies to disclose even small leaks. On the stump, Obama stated that this was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed. I did it just last year (New York Times, 2/3/08, p. A1).”
However, this was a lie. Obama had introduced such a bill, but it was repeatedly weakened until it no longer imposed any demands on the nuclear power industry…and then it was dropped. Obama never got any law regulating the nuclear power industry passed. Why did he cave in? The New York Times reports that Exelon was “one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money (same, p. A17).” Since 2003, Obama has gotten more than $227,000 from officials and employees of Exelon. Two of the top executives are among his biggest donors. Obama’s chief political strategist has been an advisor to Exelon.
In short, good intentions (I assume Obama had good intentions and that it was not a fraud from the start) were overwhelmed by the influence of big business. Of course Obama is a supporter of the capitalist economy. He hopes to be the top administrator of the capitalist economy. In no way is he anti-business, no matter how many unions endorse him. No doubt he would deny that there are necessary conflicts between labor and business. The bringing together of clashing forces is one of his central ideas. For example, rather than fight for a single payer health insurance plan —which would alienate the insurance industry— he proposes a health program which would include the insurance companies, providing them with lots of cash. But like his nuclear regulation bill, the insurance companies will do all they can to water down his original plan and then to kill it if they can.
Perhaps to most people, Barack Obama’s biggest appeal is his opposition to the Iraq war. Unlike Senator Hillary Clinton (let alone John McCain), he opposed the war in the beginning. But this does not make him an anti-war candidate. He proposes that most U.S. troops withdraw, but that a significant number (precise amount unspecified) will remain to guard U.S. personnel, to train forces of the puppet Iraqi government, and to “strike at Al Qaeda.” What he would actually do in the face of a collapse of the Iraqi government is anyone’s guess.
But whether or not Obama will continue this particular war, he remains a supporter of the U.S. empire. This empire has military bases in approximately 150 countries and military alliances around the world. Despite its decline, it still dominates the international economy and drains wealth from every continent. Obama is for this empire , which he discusses in terms of the “national interest,” meaning the interest of the U.S. ruling class (including the executives of Exelon). Because he supports this empire, he is most likely to remain in this war and to get into other wars. In interviews, he has already said that he might bomb Pakistan and that he would consider military action against Iran.
Another major appeal is his race. Just by being himself, an African-American, he makes the point that it is possible for People of Color to rise in our society, even to be president. However, this distracts us from the real problems of U.S. racism. Most African-Americans will remain at the bottom of society, impoverished, last hired and first fired, and subject to police violence. This will not change by having a cool Black man as president. True racial change will require a social upheaval, not just the election of one person.
When pressed, many liberals and social democrats will admit that Obama, like Hillary Clinton, is a candidate of capitalism, militarism, and imperialism. But, they argue, he is far less of an evil than Senator John McCain. In McCain the Republicans have put their best foot forward. Unlike the inept Bush, he is intelligent and witty, a war hero, and he sometimes shows some humanity (as in opposing torture, before he caved). He is still hated by the far right, which does him credit. Yet for all that, he is pledged to carry on the Iraq war, if necessary for a “hundred years..” In general he will continue the programs of the vile Bush regime. It is important to oppose him. Since the U.S. population is far from ready to support a socialist (or anarchist) alternative, it is argued, we must support Barack Obama as the lesser evil.
In response, I accept that the Democrats, however evil, are indeed the lesser evil. I only doubt that the greater evil can really be defeated by supporting the lesser evil. After all, liberals, unionists, the African-American community, the women’s movement, the environmental movement, the GLBT community, etc., etc., have been supporting the Democrats for decades, generations. And yet the Republicans have moved more to the right, and the Democrats have also moved to the right (but remain just a little bit to the left of the Republicans). Lesser-evilism has not worked very well.
Instead of comparing the Democrats to the Republicans, I propose a different standard: What is necessary to save the country and the world from disaster. Does the candidate have a program which will prevent the economic crisis we are sliding into? Will he solve the danger of ecological/ environmental/ energy catastrophe? Will he reverse the spread of nuclear weapons before there is a nuclear war? To claim that Obama (or even Ralph Nader, the independent) reaches this standard is absurd.
No one person can be an effective chief administrator of a unit as large as the United States. On the other side of the coin, any one person’s vote does not make a difference, considering the size of the country. This is just too big a social unit. We need vibrant local democracies, political, economic, and social, more than we need an imperial president.
People argue with me: But what if everyone (or if a lot of people) had your (my) negative attitude toward elections or for supporting pro-capitalist candidates? My response is: Great! Then there would be a mass movement.
The gains of the thirties labor movement were won mainly through sit-ins in the factories as part of mass strikes. The gains of African-Americans in the fifties and sixties were won through mass civil disobedience and urban uprisings (“riots”). The struggle against the Vietnam war was fought through massive demonstrations, student strikes, and a virtual mutiny in the army.
The gains of most social movements have been won through non-electoral means, not by electing lesser-evil politicians. Independent electoral actions, such as that of Ralph Nader or the Green Party, have never been very useful. If successful (as in some European countries), they will also be corrupted by the pressures of electoralism, money, and the need to administer a giant capitalist government.
My goal is not to persuade individuals to not vote. It is to raise the idea of independent mass struggle. A single general strike in a U.S. city would do more to advance the struggle for freedom than any number of Obamas.
It is exciting to see the popular response to Obama, especially by young people. This lays the basis for a new New Left, a new wave of radicalization. But that will be based on recognizing the truth and telling the truth, as best as we radicals can see it — not by capitulating to the illusions which others still have. A new radicalization will develop when people are disillusioned by Obama and the Democrats. And this will happen. Or we are all in big trouble.
http://nefac.net
Let me give some anecdotes about the real Obama. In the left-liberal journal, The Nation (2/18/08), Christopher Hayes wrote a pro-Obama article, “The Choice.” He recalled, “For the Chicago left, his primary campaign and his subsequent election to the Senate was a collective rallying cry….Young Chicago progressives felt…He is one of us and now he is in the Senate (p. 20).”
And yet…. “That’s not, alas, how things turned out,” writes this supporter of Obama. “Almost immediately, Obama…shaded himself toward the center….His record places him squarely in the middle of Democratic senators (same).” This is a typical story of a young idealist becoming corrupted by playing the game of bourgeois electoral politics.
Hayes suspects that this was due to Obama having “an eye on national office.” But there were other corrupting forces. For example, Obama has boasted to campaign crowds in Iowa that he had passed a law to increase regulation of nuclear power plants. Specifically this was a response to the Exelon Corp. which had failed to inform the public about radioactive leaks at one of its plants. Senator Obama scolded both Exelon and federal regulators. He presented a bill to force nuclear power companies to disclose even small leaks. On the stump, Obama stated that this was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed. I did it just last year (New York Times, 2/3/08, p. A1).”
However, this was a lie. Obama had introduced such a bill, but it was repeatedly weakened until it no longer imposed any demands on the nuclear power industry…and then it was dropped. Obama never got any law regulating the nuclear power industry passed. Why did he cave in? The New York Times reports that Exelon was “one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money (same, p. A17).” Since 2003, Obama has gotten more than $227,000 from officials and employees of Exelon. Two of the top executives are among his biggest donors. Obama’s chief political strategist has been an advisor to Exelon.
In short, good intentions (I assume Obama had good intentions and that it was not a fraud from the start) were overwhelmed by the influence of big business. Of course Obama is a supporter of the capitalist economy. He hopes to be the top administrator of the capitalist economy. In no way is he anti-business, no matter how many unions endorse him. No doubt he would deny that there are necessary conflicts between labor and business. The bringing together of clashing forces is one of his central ideas. For example, rather than fight for a single payer health insurance plan —which would alienate the insurance industry— he proposes a health program which would include the insurance companies, providing them with lots of cash. But like his nuclear regulation bill, the insurance companies will do all they can to water down his original plan and then to kill it if they can.
Perhaps to most people, Barack Obama’s biggest appeal is his opposition to the Iraq war. Unlike Senator Hillary Clinton (let alone John McCain), he opposed the war in the beginning. But this does not make him an anti-war candidate. He proposes that most U.S. troops withdraw, but that a significant number (precise amount unspecified) will remain to guard U.S. personnel, to train forces of the puppet Iraqi government, and to “strike at Al Qaeda.” What he would actually do in the face of a collapse of the Iraqi government is anyone’s guess.
But whether or not Obama will continue this particular war, he remains a supporter of the U.S. empire. This empire has military bases in approximately 150 countries and military alliances around the world. Despite its decline, it still dominates the international economy and drains wealth from every continent. Obama is for this empire , which he discusses in terms of the “national interest,” meaning the interest of the U.S. ruling class (including the executives of Exelon). Because he supports this empire, he is most likely to remain in this war and to get into other wars. In interviews, he has already said that he might bomb Pakistan and that he would consider military action against Iran.
Another major appeal is his race. Just by being himself, an African-American, he makes the point that it is possible for People of Color to rise in our society, even to be president. However, this distracts us from the real problems of U.S. racism. Most African-Americans will remain at the bottom of society, impoverished, last hired and first fired, and subject to police violence. This will not change by having a cool Black man as president. True racial change will require a social upheaval, not just the election of one person.
When pressed, many liberals and social democrats will admit that Obama, like Hillary Clinton, is a candidate of capitalism, militarism, and imperialism. But, they argue, he is far less of an evil than Senator John McCain. In McCain the Republicans have put their best foot forward. Unlike the inept Bush, he is intelligent and witty, a war hero, and he sometimes shows some humanity (as in opposing torture, before he caved). He is still hated by the far right, which does him credit. Yet for all that, he is pledged to carry on the Iraq war, if necessary for a “hundred years..” In general he will continue the programs of the vile Bush regime. It is important to oppose him. Since the U.S. population is far from ready to support a socialist (or anarchist) alternative, it is argued, we must support Barack Obama as the lesser evil.
In response, I accept that the Democrats, however evil, are indeed the lesser evil. I only doubt that the greater evil can really be defeated by supporting the lesser evil. After all, liberals, unionists, the African-American community, the women’s movement, the environmental movement, the GLBT community, etc., etc., have been supporting the Democrats for decades, generations. And yet the Republicans have moved more to the right, and the Democrats have also moved to the right (but remain just a little bit to the left of the Republicans). Lesser-evilism has not worked very well.
Instead of comparing the Democrats to the Republicans, I propose a different standard: What is necessary to save the country and the world from disaster. Does the candidate have a program which will prevent the economic crisis we are sliding into? Will he solve the danger of ecological/ environmental/ energy catastrophe? Will he reverse the spread of nuclear weapons before there is a nuclear war? To claim that Obama (or even Ralph Nader, the independent) reaches this standard is absurd.
No one person can be an effective chief administrator of a unit as large as the United States. On the other side of the coin, any one person’s vote does not make a difference, considering the size of the country. This is just too big a social unit. We need vibrant local democracies, political, economic, and social, more than we need an imperial president.
People argue with me: But what if everyone (or if a lot of people) had your (my) negative attitude toward elections or for supporting pro-capitalist candidates? My response is: Great! Then there would be a mass movement.
The gains of the thirties labor movement were won mainly through sit-ins in the factories as part of mass strikes. The gains of African-Americans in the fifties and sixties were won through mass civil disobedience and urban uprisings (“riots”). The struggle against the Vietnam war was fought through massive demonstrations, student strikes, and a virtual mutiny in the army.
The gains of most social movements have been won through non-electoral means, not by electing lesser-evil politicians. Independent electoral actions, such as that of Ralph Nader or the Green Party, have never been very useful. If successful (as in some European countries), they will also be corrupted by the pressures of electoralism, money, and the need to administer a giant capitalist government.
My goal is not to persuade individuals to not vote. It is to raise the idea of independent mass struggle. A single general strike in a U.S. city would do more to advance the struggle for freedom than any number of Obamas.
It is exciting to see the popular response to Obama, especially by young people. This lays the basis for a new New Left, a new wave of radicalization. But that will be based on recognizing the truth and telling the truth, as best as we radicals can see it — not by capitulating to the illusions which others still have. A new radicalization will develop when people are disillusioned by Obama and the Democrats. And this will happen. Or we are all in big trouble.
http://nefac.net
For more information:
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?stor...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Why is it even necessary for any anarchist to weigh in on the continual farce that is electoral politics--especially in a country known for ignoring "the popular vote"? Oh yeah, I remember now. It's because there are so many self-described anarchists who actually believe in the sham of parliamentary democracy. Anarchists should be spending more of our time promoting our projects and visions than needing to remind the baby anarchists, the wannabe anarchists, and the liberals masquerading as anarchists that we anarchists are the champions of direct action, not legislative or electoral action. Fucking morons.
Wayne Price wrote;
"A new radicalization will develop when people are disillusioned by Obama and the Democrats. And this will happen. Or we are all in big trouble."
The question is WHEN will this radicalization happen, BEFORE or AFTER we're all in big trouble? My belief is that it will happen AFTER we're all in big trouble, and by then elections won't matter diddly-squat because we'll all be roaming through what is left (whatever we don't destroy today with development, pollution, warfare, etc..) of the natural ecosystems looking to extract every gram of nutrients from whatever plants, fungi or animal we can get our hands on..
That sums up the prospects for democracy, socialism and anarchism all in one idea; tribalism. Whether the remaining humans decide to rebuild nuclear weapons, cars and other forms of industrial technology after a few hundred years or not isn't my concern either, only that there is enough natural ecosystem components remaining today to support the survivors of the upcoming petroleum infrastructure's collapse and resulting chaos. Naturally the people who live closest to the Earth-based lifestyles of original indigenous peoples (hunter-gatherer) will have the greatest probability of survival. That is a fair and just outcome, as the detached and ignorant suburban residents within the U.S. who destroy so much of nature in their pursuit of wealth and power are also the least knowledgeable of natural food sources and would thus die off in the greatest numbers. That could be considered as natural systems restoring their balance independent of human actions. Leaving forests, jungles, wetlands, deserts and other natural ecosystem refuges intact is in our best collective interest to maximaze survival potential. As far as the wealthy elites and their supposed stockpiles of food, they wouldn't last long without their class of worker-slaves to support them, canned food stockpiles or not..
Personally i have been scolded and chided by many an activist for not trying hard enough to prevent this inevitable petro-collapse by either protesting, educating, organizing or sabotaging. The creating of safety nets like organic farming communities is only possible with greater aquisition of land, otherwise the majority of land remains locked up by industrial agriculture and will remain sterile following the impending collapse. Basically i do nothing but sit around commenting and leaching off the existing system, waiting for the day when the chaos of collapse begins, then i'll get a head start out into the hills and wait for my end to come from starvation. However many bugs i can catch and eat would prolong my physical existence for another few days. Have no desire to work well with others and try to obtain an anarchist or any other type of utopia, my wish is for the total collapse of modern civilization and nothing less. Following the collapse the remaining people would be too busy searching for food to worry about petty political ideologies, at least for a few generations. Then mini-utopias could be found during the collecting and eating of available wild foods, watching sunsets, simple survival, etc.. However many people die in the process of petro-collapse is of no concern to me either, at least it would be random instead of orchestrated by fascist governments as in the U.S. bombing of Iraq. In addition, the military oppression and other forms of colonialism would no longer be effective following a true collapse, as borders and governments would dissolve overnight, freeing people from the tyranny of wage slavery at plantations, mines, etc.. Once hunger sets in, our only bosses are our stomachs. People in the third world already experience hunger daily while first worlders are always full, so maybe a collapse of industrial agriculture will balance the scales? How's that for some realism flying into the face of idealism??
In the meanwhile i would try to maintain my existence as a parasite living off the excesses of the land in the first world while it lasts by choosing the lesser evil of Obama who may provide us with a few more years of "plenty" without bringing the entire structure of civilization down upon our heads as McCain certainly would with his 100 years of occupation of Iraq. Preferable even to that would be the chance of the organized communists finally gettin' their act together here in the U.S. and with the help of Hugo Chavez and other allies prompting an overthrow of the capitalist ruling establishment (GW bush regime), i'll take bread lines and uniformed socialists in the street any day over the current capitalist system of unequal oppression, state prisons and homelessness, poverty, etc..
Have said before that if the GW Bush regime were overthrown by a communist revolution and put on trial for war crimes i would like to be first in line to execute ALL of the GW Bush cabinet if and when they are found guilty of war crimes. Just hand me an axe and i'll do it for free, no extra energy needed besides my arms. Call me a Stalinist, but i would also like to continue the purging of the tyrants by executing the CEOs of the top Fortune 500 corporations (ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, etc..) who made their billions in profit from the suffering of others and destruction of ecosystems. Please don't try to tell me that nothing good came out of the French Revolution at the hands of Maximillian Robespierre and that sometimes the spilling of the blood of tyrants is a needed event for the collective well being..
Am eagerly waiting for any and all insults (neo-Nazi, psychopath, Stalinist, hatemonger, etc..) ya'll self-righteous anarchists or whomevers can throw at me. Maybe the cycle of hatred, oppression and murder is only waiting to swing into the other direction to cleanse the Earth of corporate capitalist tyrants. Really, what are the benefits of keeping GW Bush regime alive? Til then, let's keep our heads up and attached to our bodies..
"A new radicalization will develop when people are disillusioned by Obama and the Democrats. And this will happen. Or we are all in big trouble."
The question is WHEN will this radicalization happen, BEFORE or AFTER we're all in big trouble? My belief is that it will happen AFTER we're all in big trouble, and by then elections won't matter diddly-squat because we'll all be roaming through what is left (whatever we don't destroy today with development, pollution, warfare, etc..) of the natural ecosystems looking to extract every gram of nutrients from whatever plants, fungi or animal we can get our hands on..
That sums up the prospects for democracy, socialism and anarchism all in one idea; tribalism. Whether the remaining humans decide to rebuild nuclear weapons, cars and other forms of industrial technology after a few hundred years or not isn't my concern either, only that there is enough natural ecosystem components remaining today to support the survivors of the upcoming petroleum infrastructure's collapse and resulting chaos. Naturally the people who live closest to the Earth-based lifestyles of original indigenous peoples (hunter-gatherer) will have the greatest probability of survival. That is a fair and just outcome, as the detached and ignorant suburban residents within the U.S. who destroy so much of nature in their pursuit of wealth and power are also the least knowledgeable of natural food sources and would thus die off in the greatest numbers. That could be considered as natural systems restoring their balance independent of human actions. Leaving forests, jungles, wetlands, deserts and other natural ecosystem refuges intact is in our best collective interest to maximaze survival potential. As far as the wealthy elites and their supposed stockpiles of food, they wouldn't last long without their class of worker-slaves to support them, canned food stockpiles or not..
Personally i have been scolded and chided by many an activist for not trying hard enough to prevent this inevitable petro-collapse by either protesting, educating, organizing or sabotaging. The creating of safety nets like organic farming communities is only possible with greater aquisition of land, otherwise the majority of land remains locked up by industrial agriculture and will remain sterile following the impending collapse. Basically i do nothing but sit around commenting and leaching off the existing system, waiting for the day when the chaos of collapse begins, then i'll get a head start out into the hills and wait for my end to come from starvation. However many bugs i can catch and eat would prolong my physical existence for another few days. Have no desire to work well with others and try to obtain an anarchist or any other type of utopia, my wish is for the total collapse of modern civilization and nothing less. Following the collapse the remaining people would be too busy searching for food to worry about petty political ideologies, at least for a few generations. Then mini-utopias could be found during the collecting and eating of available wild foods, watching sunsets, simple survival, etc.. However many people die in the process of petro-collapse is of no concern to me either, at least it would be random instead of orchestrated by fascist governments as in the U.S. bombing of Iraq. In addition, the military oppression and other forms of colonialism would no longer be effective following a true collapse, as borders and governments would dissolve overnight, freeing people from the tyranny of wage slavery at plantations, mines, etc.. Once hunger sets in, our only bosses are our stomachs. People in the third world already experience hunger daily while first worlders are always full, so maybe a collapse of industrial agriculture will balance the scales? How's that for some realism flying into the face of idealism??
In the meanwhile i would try to maintain my existence as a parasite living off the excesses of the land in the first world while it lasts by choosing the lesser evil of Obama who may provide us with a few more years of "plenty" without bringing the entire structure of civilization down upon our heads as McCain certainly would with his 100 years of occupation of Iraq. Preferable even to that would be the chance of the organized communists finally gettin' their act together here in the U.S. and with the help of Hugo Chavez and other allies prompting an overthrow of the capitalist ruling establishment (GW bush regime), i'll take bread lines and uniformed socialists in the street any day over the current capitalist system of unequal oppression, state prisons and homelessness, poverty, etc..
Have said before that if the GW Bush regime were overthrown by a communist revolution and put on trial for war crimes i would like to be first in line to execute ALL of the GW Bush cabinet if and when they are found guilty of war crimes. Just hand me an axe and i'll do it for free, no extra energy needed besides my arms. Call me a Stalinist, but i would also like to continue the purging of the tyrants by executing the CEOs of the top Fortune 500 corporations (ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, etc..) who made their billions in profit from the suffering of others and destruction of ecosystems. Please don't try to tell me that nothing good came out of the French Revolution at the hands of Maximillian Robespierre and that sometimes the spilling of the blood of tyrants is a needed event for the collective well being..
Am eagerly waiting for any and all insults (neo-Nazi, psychopath, Stalinist, hatemonger, etc..) ya'll self-righteous anarchists or whomevers can throw at me. Maybe the cycle of hatred, oppression and murder is only waiting to swing into the other direction to cleanse the Earth of corporate capitalist tyrants. Really, what are the benefits of keeping GW Bush regime alive? Til then, let's keep our heads up and attached to our bodies..
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$115.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network