The Columbus Institute of Contemporary Journalism (CICJ) has operated Freepress.org since 2000 and ColumbusFreepress.com was started initially as a separate project to highlight the print newspaper and local content.
ColumbusFreepress.com has been operating as a project of the CICJ for many years and so the sites are now being merged so all content on ColumbusFreepress.com now lives on Freepress.org
The Columbus Freepress is a non-profit funded by donations we need your support to help keep local journalism that isn't afraid to speak truth to power alive.
By now, across the progressive spectrum, some familiar storylines tell us
the meaning of the Obama campaign. In a groove, each narrative digs its
truths. But whether those particular truths are the most important at this
historical moment is another story.
We can set aside the plotline that touts Obama as a visionary pragmatist who
has earned the complete trust of progressives. The belief has diminished in
recent months -- in the wake of numerous Obama pronouncements on foreign
policy, his FISA vote to damage the Fourth Amendment and the like -- but
such belief was never really grounded in his record as a politician or his
policy positions.
A more substantial narrative concedes that Obama has "compromised" on
numerous fronts but assumes he has done so in order to get elected
president, after which time his real self will emerge. This kind of dubious
projection is as old as the political hills, and inevitably becomes a kind
of murky exercise in armchair psychology. All in all, projection is not
useful for assessing where political leaders are and where they’re headed.
In contrast, quite a few on the left -- some from the outset of his
presidential race, others beginning more recently -- express appreciable
disdain for the Obama campaign. The critiques of Obama’s positions on issues
are often on the mark. Overall, the fact that Obama brings civility and
intelligence to public discourse that would be a welcome change in the White
House does not alter the corporate centrist core of his espoused policies.
No matter how much we might like to think that people’s reasoning and logic
are the essence of political judgments, actual experience tells us
different: The political stances of many people, including on the left, are
contoured around their own internal emotional terrain. And there may not be
a lot of sorting through contradictions or analysis of the current
historical circumstances.
Yet we’re in great need of willingness to acknowledge contradictory truths,
to sort through them as a means of finding the best progressive strategies
for the here and now. While some attacks on Obama from the left are
overheated, overly ideological and mechanistic, there’s scant basis for
denying the reality that his campaign and his positions are way too cozy
with corporate power. Meanwhile, his embrace of escalating the war in
Afghanistan reflects acceptance rather than rejection of what Martin Luther
King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."
To some, who evidently see voting as an act of moral witness rather than
pragmatic choice (even in a general election), forces such as corporate
power or militarism are binary -- like a toggle switch -- either totally on
or totally off. This outlook says: either we reject entirely or we’re
complicit.
Such analysis tends to see Obama as just a little bit slower on the march to
the same disasters that John McCain would lead us to. That analysis takes a
long view -- but fails to see the profound importance of the crossroads
right in front of us, where either Obama or McCain will be propelled into
the White House.
Any progressive who watched the "faith" forum that Obama and McCain
participated in on Aug. 16 would have good reasons to be negative when
assessing some of Obama’s answers. But McCain’s responses were vastly more
jingoistic, militaristic, fanatical and pro-corporate, while also making
clear his enthusiasm for the worst of the current Supreme Court justices.
In an odd and ironic way, progressives who are unequivocal Obama boosters
and unequivocal Obama bashers embrace similar concepts of limited
alternatives in electoral work. They seem to rule out candidly critical
support of a candidate -- viewing such an option as either a betrayal of the
candidate or a betrayal of principles.
But supporting one candidate -- clearly preferable to the Republican --
should not require a lack of candor about the preferred candidate’s defects.
And progressive interests are not advanced by claiming, against the
evidence, that it doesn’t really matter which candidate wins.
We suffer from way too much political argumentation that seems to be on
automatic pilot, either puffing up Obama as a paragon of progressive virtues
or denying the real differences between him and McCain. The pretending that
follows from faith or dogma is no way to mobilize a progressive movement.
__________________________________________
Norman Solomon is an elected Obama delegate to the Democratic National
Convention. His book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death" has been adapted into a documentary film of the same
name. He is a national co-chair of the Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.