(10 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
I seem to recall that someone, late last month, posted an entry arguing that it is immoral for Democrats not to run a primary challenge against Barry Obama in 2012, in light of the things he’s done to institutionalize Bush-Cheney crimes. (Glenn Greenwald chronicled the latest violation of the Constitution by Obama on his own blog, which you can read here). This argument is proven truer every day as more crimes are committed against the Constitution and as the concept of the rule of law is increasingly marginalized.
At what point will party loyalists realize that their political organization will not survive if they continue to support this right-wing dictator who has proven to be even worse than his right-wing predecessor?
For that matter, at what point do we as a movement acknowledge that politics and morality are inextricably bound?
Last week I encountered a former political co-worker, who I worked under when volunteering on a mayoral campaign. The discussion we had led to the realization that although we may agree on certain things, fundamentally she is by no means a liberal. She is a DLCer to the core. This was borne out by her defense of torture against Bradley Manning and her conviction of him in her own mind without even considering that the charges against him are more than likely bullshit. She trusts the military more than she believes in the Constitution, and her statements made it obvious that she thinks there are circumstances in which it should not apply.
And this goes to the heart of the problem facing the left. Our movement is compromised by people who see shades of gray where only right and wrong exist, and those people are the ones in charge. Yes, a problem can be complex – more so than many care to admit. But that does not absolve the left of the responsibility to take a firm moral stand. In fact, my former colleague told me flat out that she doesn’t think the Democrats stand for anything. Meanwhile, the Republicans do stand for things – horrible, evil things, but they do stand for them. We have to make a decision as to what is right and what is wrong, and take a stand for what we know to be right. When we compromise our principles, people see that and they reject us for lacking a moral foundation. Torture is wrong and it is a crime, and regardless of your own opinion, the law requires that those who committed it and those who ordered it be punished. That is not up for debate. It’s codified by national and international law. How can we claim to be better than, say, the rulers of Libya, when we refuse to live up to our own stated principles?
Some people are perfectly comfortable with being so hypocritical. They’re called right-wingers. They identify themselves by their words and actions. And we must oppose them at every turn. But how can we do that if we on the left refuse to allow for morality? Right-wingers are amoral, their words and actions immoral, the casualties who suffer and die as a result of their amoral policies all too real. This being the case, why is it considered an affront to sensibility to suggest that refusing to challenge Obama and the Democrats politically is itself immoral? If we stand for something, we have an obligation to make a moral case for why our beliefs and policy positions are right and those of the other side are wrong. Furthermore, having a firm sense of morality allows us to identify those who choose to be amoral. People who argue that the ends justify the means exist in a moral vacuum into which they want to suck us all. When we lose our sense of morality, our political enemies will most assuredly rush to define us to their advantage, which is a major reason why they are able to win over voters.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it isn’t a bad thing to adopt a moral code, to stick by it no matter what, and to act upon it. If the left does not challenge Obama next year with truly left-wing candidates, then the left in America is truly dead, and we who are the real Americans will have no other recourse than to escape while we still can.
Cross-posted from CorrenteWire.
11 comments
Skip to comment form
I am not an Obama supporter, I never was and I didn’t vote for him. I find the idea of voter for the lesser of two evils as bad as sitting home and not voting at all. So instead I gave my local polling place a lesson in democracy since not one of the poll workers had ever had to deal with a voter requesting a write in ballot. It took almost two hours and multiple phone calls to resolves. Since then it is much easier in NYS to write in a candidate.
All of out decisions are based on moral judgments no matter how much some would like to deny their human nature. We aren’t Vulcans.
in that I couldn’t understand the Nader voters of FL in 2000. I thought jeez, how could those voters not see how bad Bush II would be and not vote Gore?
I was wrong.
Nader himself explained it when he said in effect, his supporters likely wouldn’t have voted at all if he hadn’t been on the ballot.
What Dems need to learn from a decade ago is why they didn’t attract the Nader voters, not why they didn’t attract more of the confused apathetic non-voting and indifferent “mythical middle”.
As Bill Clinton said Strong and Wrong always beats Weak and Right. Both Gore and Kerry were not strong enough candidates.
Obama got lucky in that he was from a different party from what had been described as the embarrassing president…well… ever (Bush II). Mcain looked weak in comparison when he had to defend Bush.
How are Obama/Democrats going to look defending the So-Called-Change-We-Can-Believe-In in 2012? How can he not look like the weak immoral cowardly sellout he is?
It’s not just a Moral case here. It’s strategic. The best chance the Dems have is if they dump Obama in a primary. Either that or convince him not to run. Failing that, I think anybody but Palin with an R after their name will beat Obama with ease.
Voting for the lesser of two evils IS still voting for evil. Evil still wins. I’m past doing that. I think more and more people are too.
I’m sure it’s not an original idea, but I haven’t seen it discussed much in my limited travels through the tubes.
Like I said in another thread, i think it’s important Obama/Democrat’s hypocrisy and immoral actions are confronted by left thinkers, not excused.
Being that the MSM won’t do their job and 2012 is just a few months away. Perhaps we could do some open threads where we can bounce around some “town hall” questions for the candidates. Hard questions that the so called professional reporters don’t have the courage to ask.
The questions would need to be crafted to fit in a sound bite AND be designed to make the candidates maximumly uncomfortable.
I would never delude myself to think that I would ever be aloud in to one of those staged events to ask any of these questions face to face on tv… but if the questions are good enough, maybe with a little on line buzz, someone might steal the question and it might actually get asked.
feedback?
Are the best ideas stolen? Are the best questions stolen?
… the argument.
How is running candidates in presidential primaries the only conceivable action that people trying to turn “the left” from a convenient abstraction into a bona fide movement could possibly take?
Because if the only alternative is “do nothing”, then for “a Quixotic, largely futile challenge against Barry” vs “do nothing”, the case for the futile primary challenge is clear.
Suppose, however, there were opportunities to do other things that offer some slender reed of a chance to bear fruit? In that case, would putting our efforts into a purely symbolic action to reassure ourselves that “at least we tried” be the only ethical action, versus putting our efforts into actions which have even a very faint chance of actually doing some good?
I have already decided how I am going to vote in the 2012 presidential election if Obama (most likely candidate) is the candidate. I intend to cast my vote as a write in for Bernie Sanders. I wish other left leaning people who do not plan to vote for Obama would do the same. There is no way the Democratic Party could legitimately spin that Obama lost those votes because he was not conservative enough.