If Obama wins, there will be a collective sigh of relief that Romney has been defeated but probably not much excitement over a meandering and uninspiring campaign’s victory. But if Obama loses there will be a great debate among Democrats as to what went wrong. Some will say that Obama went too far to the left, others to the right. But inevitably, the Left will be blamed for not being sufficiently supportive– not recognizing his achievements, saving us from another Great Depression, achieving health care and banking reform, supporting women’s rights, etc., etc. For me, Obama needed nothing so much as an independent, critical Left, but if he fails to gain reelection the failure will be his. Consider the record:
1-The Budget: Since 1933 the Right has had one mantra: cut government spending; balance the budget. In one way or another Democratic politicians have had to finesse this issue for the simple reason that the government’s budget is not the same as a household, and the government can run a deficit for such ends as wars or to make social advances. As to entitlements, they are called that for a reason. They were instituted to counterbalance the permanent inequities that the market brings.
Obama’s first great failure is that he has allowed the Republicans to define his agenda for him, by falling into their trap of conceding that the budget was the number one problem facing us. Its Obama that appointed Bowles-Simpson, that agreed to sequestration, that has made cutting government spending THE inevitable issue for the next decade or so. This is one huge reason for his failure, if he fails.
2- Health Care: The health care issue is left over from the New Deal reforms. Health care is a right, an entitlement, just as good public schools and safe streets and roads are rights. Obama’s second great failure was to redefine health care as a cost-cutting issue. Reforms don’t speak for themselves. Of course if the Republicans win, they will gut health care, but even if they lose we are in for a series of fights centered on cutting health care costs. Let us never forget, it was Obama who first raised the issue of how much money we were spending on people in the last six months of their life. In doing so, he let the Republicans pose as the defenders of Medicare, his second disastrous mistake.
3- Unions: Under Obama we have seen union rights rolled back drastically, teachers and policemen fired, services cut in state after state. In all of this Obama NEVER said one word about the need for unions. He stayed out of Wisconsin, for example. This is the third great reason that working people do not see him as their advocate.
4- Afghanistan: Obama’s supporters are few but powerful. In essence, they are apologists and it is from them that the left can expect to be blamed. One of their greatest distortions has been their claim that Obama was forced to expand the war in Afghanistan because of his original campaign statement that it was a “good war.” Many people, both American and Afghan died because Obama did not have the gumption to resist the pressures from the military, who know only one thing: more killing. His decision to launch this wasteful, pointless war was one of the many ways in which he validated Bush’s Iraq war, and the destruction of civil liberties, which he supposedly ran against.
5- China: American’s ignorance of Asia is so vast, that no one has even noticed that Obama referred to China as our adversary in the last debate. The US-China agreement, beginning in the late nineteen sixties to avoid war, is one of the cornerstones of global order. Obama is threatening this, for no reason other than his inability to resist the Generals, and his desire to score politically. Historically, his China policy may turn out to far more consequential than it seems today.
6- Israel: Obama has completely subordinated America’s interests, not to mention social justice, to Netanyahu. The idea that he is preventing Israel from launching a strike against Iran is a ridiculous piece of theatre. Such a strike would be folly and everyone knows this. Obama has empowered the Israeli right, way beyond anything Bush ever dreamt of, just as he has empowered the Japanese right through his Asia policies. The heart of the matter is Israeli racism toward Arabs, and everyone in the Arab world knows this.
Conclusion: Obama’s biggest failure is none of the above. His biggest failure is to have discounted the hopes he raised in 2008. Electing the first African-American President was a fantastic achievement, and because it coincided with the discrediting of Bush’s economic and foreign policies, it opened terrific possibilities for a new path. Obama has not only not moved in a new direction, he has subtly encouraged the idea that those hopes were overstated, and that the obstacles he faced were structural, overwhelming, etc– a series of vacuous excuses. I for one want to reaffirm the hopes I had in 2008– the desire to break with neo-liberalism both domestically and in foreign policy. Obama’s refusal to attempt such a break is the main reason for his weak electoral position today.
Eli Zaretsky is the author of Why America Needs a Left.
It could also be that he’s been a lousy president
Eli Zaretsky’s strong insights (many of which i agree with) would go beyond the easy Obama-bashing attitude of the left if they could be balanced with an acknowledgment of the president’s positive traits, such as his integrity (even, paradoxically, in the ways he has betrayed his own intentions) and his deeply human realism. That realism amounts to working with the situation one is given, which proved to be much more complex than it looked from outside the office. Anyone who has tried to accomplish a positive change in the world understands the requirement of realism, and in that acceptance, the way opens up if one persists without losing integrity. Ifor one still have a modified version of the hope of 2008. But i now realize that short of a bloody revolution, change takes time, especially against the odds (and who knows what threats were leveled against him?). I’m not voting for the “lesser of two evils,” but to further grow the plant whose seed was sown in 2008.
That was not a “seed that was sown in 2008” that was a diagnosis of terminal cancer! I will reread “Why America needs the left” but the left’s only intention has been to destroy America
Yeah, I know- those “lefties”, right? I see them walking around in a daze muttering, “..must..destroy..America..must..destroy..” Seriously, your assertion is so ridiculous to me as to not be worth a thoughtful response but here goes: So what does it mean to be “left” or liberal? To want social programs to assist those in need or to maintain public services such as police, fire, library, roads, schools,etc.? Does it mean to you that I want to destroy America because I believe health care is a right and we need regulations to prevent abuses of power and privilege by the wealthy? Maybe I don’t believe in toll roads, privatized police, fire services. Maybe I don’t want a voucher system for Medicare or schools where my only choice is to send my kids to a school that teaches God created the world in six days, dinosaurs and humans co-existed and other religious nonsense. Maybe I want to know if my food has GMO in it. Maybe I believe communities should be able to ban fracking if they think it will adversely effect their health. Does mean that I want to destroy America? It does mean that I want to see “destroyed” the structural inequalities that creates so much wealth for so few at the expense of so many.
I agree with much of Mr. Zaretsky’s analysis of our current situation. I’ll probably vote for Jill Stein in CA. I’m more interested Prop. 37 to require labeling of GMO food. I hope Obama wins mostly for the Supreme Court and because Romney appears to lack any principles at all. If the right wins and they implement their vision of America I believe it will lead to large-scale civil break-down and possible violence. Of course, global warming will probably be a game changer for all of us. In spite of it all, I remain hopeful and compassionate because I see existence through the eyes of a Buddha.
Usually I am called loquacious. I find nothing to add to this article and supportive comments except-if citizens were less concerned about the “appearance” of an acceptable person of color for the presidency, and understood more of the psycho-social influences on a person, Obama included, we would have expected the actions of the president. Look at the company a person keeps to determine who has his/her ear.
a very intelligent response. I would be more impressed had Obama tried to lead the country in a new direction, on such matters as the centrality of the budget and the “war on terror.” As to his personal virtues, no doubt he is a decent person.
PLEASE READ THIS LINK’S ARTICLE:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_voting_green_20121029/
Knowing what is most likely to bring the best results is so especially difficult in these times.
Trying to sort out the endless points of view offered online is a great challenge, yet sort out, we must, and then look deep inside our hearts and souls to make the decision most valuable to each of us.
We all deserve so much better than what we have to face now……..yet there’s not much choice but to share our thoughts and feelings, listen to one another and then listen to our own heart.
By an intelligent response, I meant Michelle’s.
Eli,
In regards to MichelleBe, this is the debate between idealists and realists. I believe I am both. I will vote for Obama because I live in a swing state, Colorado. If I lived in my previous home, California, I would be voting for Dr. Jill Stein. I acknowlege both the accomplishments and faults of our President. I wonder how many of my fellow voters do. I fear that many of my fellow voters see reality as a black and white cartoon.
Yes, the debate between idealists and realists … how does that work into a course of thought and action that makes a difference, rather than remain academic? So many of us who believe this can be a better world can see that ideal potential within reality, wondering why it isn’t here already, asking that question. More questions than answers, which seem to be on another level, on a level perhaps of Gandhi, presenting a compelling view of a new reality and active practice ready to be born. I thought Obama was and maybe is of that ilk; I could hear strains of Martin Luther King in his 2008 eloquence. During the first debate, I couldn’t help but feel empathy for the shallow destructive dishonesty he’s up against. The next four years will tell…
And thank you, Professor Zaretsky, for stimulating our thoughts. I hope you’re safe in the storm over there in New York!
My online dictionary defines integrity as: “adherence to moral and ethical principles…;” Adherence to moral & ethical principles is a personal characteristic, & since I will never meet him, I have no interest in President Obama’s personal characteristics. I do however have considerable interest in his political characteristics, because these are the characteristics that affect myself, this country & the world. President Obama’s political actions in the last 4 years make it extremely difficult, at the least, for any honest person on the left to vote for him. From his deal within a month of taking office with the pharmaceutical & insurance industries to sell out the Public Option he stood for during his ’08 campaign, in return for their promise not to finance the GOP in the 2010 elections, to his $16 trillion bailout to the banks, to his failure to prosecute the banksters who crashed the economy, to his $800 billion Bailout bill that was just large enough to restore corporate profits to their now record levels while starving the 99% of the recovery they still desperately need, to continuing the $1 trillion yearly defense budgets begun under Bush, to the massive expansion of the surveillance state signified by his support for immunizing the Telecom industry from liability for assisting Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, to his signing the NDAA that abolished due process for American citizens, to claiming the right to execute U.S. citizens without judicial oversight & twice exercising that ‘right,’ to using the National Parks Service to coordinate the breaking up of the Occupy encampments, to completely turning his back on his repeated promises in 2008 to push through the Employee Free Choice Act to ease union organizing, to signing off on the ‘surge’ in Afghanistan despite the public statement of his own National Security Advisor James Jones that there were only 100 al-Qaeda members left in Afghanistan, to his attacks on Whistleblowers that led to the conviction of John Kiriakou, the man who informed the world of Bush’s torture policy, while failing to prosecute a single member of the Bush Crime Family for imposing that torture regime, to his failures to support the 99% against the attacks on unions & to protect Social Security, Medicare & other domestic spending programs desperately needed by the 99% against billionaire Pete Peterson’s anti-deficit campaign, as mentioned in Eli Zaretsky’s post above, to his vast deployment of drone warfare across the Muslim world without Congressional oversight. This is President Obama’s political record. Must we not admit to ourselves that Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report was right when he said that President Obama was not the lesser of 2 evils but the more effective evil?
Bertram Miller–Just as the local and non-local are connected, so are the personal and the political All actions are political, for dialogue is dual, between self and “self,” and outward. Each dialogue is a political act. I make no distinction between academic and anything else, ideal/philosophical and real/pragmatic. There is a false dichotomy in duality. The seemingly simplistic statement that “all things are connected” is scientifically (within the search to know) accurate.
Eli says “don’t blame the left if Obama loses” and then goes on to explain why Obama has only himself to blame if he loses owing to the policies he did or did not pursue. Eli’s critique is well taken. It assumes that Obama made bad choices from the point of view of the legitimate interests of the vast majority of the American people. The choices, however, were not bad for Wall Street and the Pentagon and for those who profit from their machinations. The choices were not bad for the private health insurance companies who were given thirty million new customers. The choices were not bad for the deficit-reduction hawks, as we will soon come to see in spades if Obama is re-elected. Most importantly, the choices were not bad for those who blatantly violated domestic and international law by means of torture, fraud and other assorted crimes whom Obama failed to prosecute. Fine. But the real question is whose side Obama is on? Has he simply made “mistakes” and is therefore oh so human and deserving of forgiveness? Has he done the best he could when faced with political impediments beyond his control? Such claims ignore the fact that his “mistakes” are so huge, class-driven, and mean spirited, and his legislative pursuits so truncated and corrosive of Constitutional rights, that he does not deserve to be re-elected. He is a success and not a failure if viewed as a self-conscious Machiavellian pursuing a corporate and imperialist agenda increasingly divorced from the rule of law, one adept at hiding and obscuring that fact with liberal rhetorical flourishes and a lack of transparency. There is no good reason to vote for Obama except to defeat Romney/Ryan, whose agenda is qualitatively worse, if you could imagine it.
Yes, one can ahrdly balme the left, of which there is little ‘left’ for Obama’s mendacity and lack of integrity. I would point the finger at hucksterism and the selling of a civilian face to cover up a military run and ordered government.
It will take the devastation of many lives, both here and abroad, and many crisis to build a real movement towards social justice in a country where ‘social’ translates into socioal pathology’ and ‘justice’ is always a two tiered argument.
Obama is the symbol of a decaying left, unabashedly waiting for Plato’s protaganist to come down to their chain covered chairs. the issue is one cannot wait for a ‘leader’. We must change life, not leaders.
I think blaming the left would be a GOOD thing! As Bertram has pointed out, Obama’s record has been terrible. How has the Obama presidency been radically different from another term for W.? Obamacare is just Romneycare 1.0 repackaged at the national level. If Obama loses, it will hopefully send a powerful message – don’t take the left for granted! You’d think they would have learned this by now. I have to assume that either they really don’t care if they win or lose, or that they have jettisoned the left in hopes of getting more votes from the center. Either way, I’m voting Green.
good point. I blame the left too. Had they been willing to criticize obama from day one, he might be in better shape today, and so might we all
Gwendoline Y. Fortune: Here is the problem that I think loyal Dems are facing. If ALL of the personal is political, and we are all therefore urged to overlook the manifest flaws in President Obama’s policies (see, for example, my post above) & vote for him to have a 2nd term because of the quality of personal integrity attributed to him, certain conclusions must follow. That is, if we are right to vote for Barack Obama today because of his personal qualities, we must have been wrong in the past to vote for Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy & Bill Clinton. Both men were blatant adulterers. Clinton publicly lied to his wife, & the country, when he said of Monica Lewinsky: “I never had sex with that woman,” JFK & his ‘girlfriend’ Marilyn Monroe publicly humiliated his wife Jackie when Marilyn sang an openly seductive version of “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” to him at a public Birthday Party for JFK held at Madison Square Garden. Yet I doubt that many Dems today would say they wish they had voted for Nixon against JFK in 1960 or Bob Dole against Clinton in ’96. While Feminists did say that “the personal is the political,” I do not believe their aim was to begin basing our political decisions on the personal qualities of individual politicians. Rather, they were making the point that a decision had been made to consign women solely to the ‘private’ sphere – that of the family alone – & keep them out of the ‘public’ sphere, which includes politics. This was a socially based decision about how we should live – about the roles to be played by the 2 genders – & was thus inherently political. Taken from this perspective, I think that it is perfectly possible to state that the personal is political, while at the same time retaining a space for private actions that are not within the purview of politics – if for no other reason than that it is not really possible for individuals who never have met & never will meet a given politician to know enough about that politician to make an informed judgment about his personal qualities, for good or ill, to cast a vote based on those qualities. . I therefore believe that the best basis on which to cast a vote is the public, policy record compiled by that politician. As I said above, if we apply that standard to President Obama, it is difficult to avoid agreeing with Glen Ford that Obama is not the lesser of the 2 evils, but the more effective evil – & base our vote upon that..
We know both parties are co-opted but the Republican Party is unlike anything I’ve seen before. They are not a party but a collection of far right-wing ideologues. Compromise is not in their lexicon, nor are science and facts. They are guided by their own gut feelings and personal beliefs. Given that this “party” has gone off the edge, why would we pick this time, right before the election, to slam Obama yet again? Would you rather Romney win?
A Romney win could very well mean we will have a Supreme Court of Scalias who will control the destiny of this country for another 50 years. Obama has –so far–put two sane judges on the Supreme Court.
You don’t have to go through Obama’s litany of disappointments. We know them but, based on what I’ve seen of Romney who is completely unprincipled and who for example, has surrounded himself with the same foreign policy advisors as George W. Bush, why do you choose this moment to make another stab at Obama? Think things can’t get worse? Think again.
believe me, I wish it was as simple as a choice between obama and romney Thats not a hard one. The problem is that unless we get a voice to the left of obama, that is willing to criticize obama from the left, he will simply continue to move right, as he has. He would be in better shape if such a voice existed.
I agree we need a voice. The progressives in Congress have been somewhat of a voice for the left but what happens to them? Big money moves in at election time to destroy them. They run ads against them 24/7 and their seat is in jeopardy. Look what happened to former Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, or Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida and now Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Sherrod Brown is being outspent about 4 to 1 in ads and it’s now a tied senate election and, from what I’ve read, he’s done a good job. All these people, from what I know, fought for the little guy and asked the right questions and the result is that they are targeted for defeat by big money.