Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
Last week Black Agenda Report’s Glen Ford , posted Why Barack Obama is the More Effective Evil, originally a March 17 presentation he made at the Left Forum, Pace University, NYC, as a part of a discussion entitled, “The 2012 Elections: Lesser Evil or Left Alternative?”
A few days later, Rob Kall, at OpEdNews, wrote Smoke and mirrors, Sausage Factory, Lesser Evils and YOU Making a Difference, “phrases used to describe politics.”
The arguments made by Ford and Kall aren’t popular with many who identify as progressive and/or Democratic. But this is one of those “make no mistake” kind of things, too: what Kall and Ford write accurately expresses the thoughts and positions of large numbers. Occupy and related movements are but one indication that people are not only questioning, but challenging, the “lesser of two evils” rationalizations. The challenges, of course, are far bigger than any one WH resident.
From Ford:
Let me say from the very beginning that we at Black Agenda Report do not think that Barack Obama is the Lesser Evil.
He is the more Effective Evil.
… He has put both Wall Street and U.S. imperial power on new and more aggressive tracks … .
(Wall Street) … vetted Obama … before he even set foot in the U.S. Senate in 2004.
He protected their interests … , helping shield corporations from class action suits, and voting against caps on credit card Interest. …
… (In the WH) There was no Evil Devil forcing him to put Entitlements on the chopping block. It was HIM. He was the Evil One – and it was not a Lesser Evil. It was a very Effective Evil, because the current Age of Austerity began on that day, in January, 2009. …
Ford has a list of “Obama’s Most Effective Evils,” but adds that making such lists
… doesn’t seem to do any good if the prevailing conversation isn’t really about facts – but about intentions.
The prevailing assumption on the Left is that Obama has good intentions. He intends to (do) the Right Thing – or, at least, he intends to do better than the Republicans intend to do. … There is absolutely no factual basis to believe he intends to do anything other than the same thing he has already done … .
I have no doubt that … Republicans in general have worse intentions for the future of my people – of Black people – than Michelle Obama’s husband does. But, that doesn’t matter. Black people are not going to roll over for whatever nightmarish Apocalypse the sick mind of Newt Gingrich would like to bring about. But, they have already rolled over for Obama’s economic Apocalypse in Black America. …
Whatever you think of Ford’s arguments about Obama, when “lesser evil” is the standard of accountability, the system has little incentive to change, and citizens have little leverage in challenging it. Accountability demands are also made by BAR’s Bruce Dixon in Barack Obama, Democratic Expectations, and the Magic Wand, in which he writes:
We hear it all the time…. ‘Give the man a chance!’ ‘He’s only been president 38 months!….’ Or ‘He can’t do nothin’ cuz Republicans are blockin’ everything…,’ and most tellingly ‘He’s the president – he doesn’t have a magic wand…’
Making demands that don’t fit within the approved method will get you labeled as “politically naive,” and if you don’t stop then, as something worse, including that ultimate of badness, “un-American.” You’ll hear things like: “Silly woman; silly union organizer, hippie, civil rights protester, queer, occupier – you don’t get it. The president doesn’t have a magic wand! You only have two choices, and smart people like me don’t waste our votes because we know the lesser of two evils when we see it.” Or as Dixon puts it, related specifically to Obama:
Democrats are simply better than Republicans. … After all, they’re not ignorant white supremacists, are they?
… Whenever anybody … repeats that ‘magic wand’ line, what they mean is that people have no right to demand peace or jobs or justice. They mean that people expecting, demanding or fighting for these things are fools, losers, and if their demands make the president and his party look bad, race traitors when they’re black or white racists if they’re anything else. … Only the immature and politically unsophisticated expect any sort of political involvement to change things. …
Rob Kall’s post I mentioned at the top is about accountability, too, also with a focus on those who are suppose to be providing the “holding feet to the fire” actions.
I’m finally coming to face the reality that voting only feeds into the illusion the system creates that different candidates really make a difference. The truth is, voting for the lesser of two evils only moves us towards the next election with two worse evils.
I don’t have any concrete answers, except that I’m certain that depending on election day to set things right is far from enough. We must become activists, fighting for a just, fair future where human rights are put before corporate rights.
He doesn’t necessarily say “don’t vote” – though that’s an option. He says voting within the existing system isn’t enough.
The eighty twenty law teaches us that if we wake up just a small percentage to become activists, that will be enough. Even one or two percent, if they get out in the streets, can make a big difference.
Kall provides further thoughts and ideas:
It takes more than signing petitions or forwarding emails.
Go to one of the emerging spring Occupy meetings or actions.
Give to activist organizations and the media that support them.
Make it a regular practice, like exercise or meditation.
There is hope, but it will not come from the usual and customary political sources.
(Obama Makes Right Turns via BAR
American Extremist via Vast Left)
Thank you Joyce. Wonderful post.
Indeed. Thank you for this.
Best post I’ve ever seen here, maybe best post I’ve seen anywhere. I’m going to copy it and keep it in my wallet for the next argument with a “hey he’s better than the alternative” low-expectations dope I run into.
Thanks very much.
Uh-oh, jin and jj, thanks.
Great POST!
During the several weeks that the Democrats had sixty senators in their caucus (remember those days?), they didn’t clear the decks and pass whatever legislation they could. They wasted all that time yakking about a health care reform bill that wasn’t going to reform health care. They probably could have passed a dozen pieces of legislation in that time, had they wanted. Instead, they did nothing.
Magic wand, my furry ass.
Cujo;
You are delusional and Joyce is naive to think the Democrats in the Senate ever had a filibuster proof majority of 60 to pass anything they wanted. By anything they wanted you mean an extremist Progessive checklist litmus test of Progressive legislation.
The Democrats never had a filibuster proof super majority of Senate Democrats to include a public option in the Senate. Four Senators Bayh, Leibermann, Lincoln and Ben Nelson all had close ties to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry and told Obama the day he took office that any public option in the Senate health care bill would be fiibustered to death and Health care would die just as it had in the Clinton adminstration.
The Democrats never had a super majority in the Senate to eliminate tax payer subsidies for the gas and coal industry. The Republicans were joined by Senate Democrats from gas and coal states in filibustering to death this cherished Progressive litmus test. One of the most liberal Senate Democrats joined the Republicans in blocking this legisltion. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) from the coal state of West Virginia led the fight along with Sen. Mary Landrieux (D-LA) in blocking the legislation.
Allowing consumers to purchase Canadian pharamaceuticals which would have reduced the cost of prescription drugs for seniors? The legislation was championed by Sen, John McCAin (R-AZ). Who led the floor fight to defeat that legislaltion, not some right wing Republicans. The floor fight that defeated the McCain bill was led by two of the most liberal Democratic Senators Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Why? The largest industry who employs the most people in New Jersey are the pharmaceutical giants most of whom are headquarted in New Jersey.
You are delusional in thinking the Senate ever had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate to pass the entire Progressive litmus test.
Never get tired of the “this is why the Republicans can pass what they want when they have a 50-50 tie in the Senate but the Democrats need 99 votes to get anything done” argument which includes the use of the word “filibuster” roughly 20 times.
Since the Dems won’t have 60 votes in the Senate again for another generation, most likely, I’m sure not looking forward to another decade of “oh if only” whining from the corpo-Dems and their apologists (I’m looking at you, RAJensen.)
“Ok here’s why the Democrats didn’t fight this time, you see, they couldn’t have won anyway because…” very inspiring.
Indeed. Enough with the excuses!
Like jjamele, I’m over the excuses about why Democrats can’t accomplish things, while Republicans can, but this bit of foolishness in particular stands out:
You have a quote somewhere, from them? I doubt it. Even if you do, it doesn’t matter, but this is another one of the little accusations the Obama Administration leaked back then to try to deflect pressure from themselves. The fact is, the President has enormous powers of persuasion, including access to levels of campaign funding most congressmen can only dream of. As the leader of the party, he also has power. He used that power to persuade the party’s progressives to support the Republican health plan.
Party discipline still means something. So does having a majority in the Senate. It allows the party that has it to schedule legislation. With sixty votes, and party discipline, they could have accomplished at least some of what they wanted. It seems pretty clear that they did.
I also remember quite clearly being told that if the Democrats had sixty votes in the Senate, they could get things done. I assume that passing a Republican health care “reform” plan, and trying to cut back Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, in order to preserve the Bush tax cuts wasn’t what they meant, but if it was, then that’s all that they accomplished. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that, but that’s what we were told. Call me “delusional”, but when professionals tell me they can do something if I give them something, then I give them that something and they don’t, I think it’s time to get new professionals.
And screw the excuses. A “dozen pieces of legislation” wouldn’t have covered half the progressive agenda, given what they had in the queue. If you were actually a progressive, you’d know that. Quite frankly, it’s pathetic that anyone who isn’t a party professional (or secretly a Republican operative who wants Democrats to remain ineffective at what they were supposedly there to do) is still making excuses for these guys.
This was in response to RAJensen 27 March 2012 at 5:47 am.