Now: The Debate Over Obama
Posted by Mike E on May 15, 2008
Kasama received the following essay from Keith Joseph. A debate is needed over how to stand, speak and act in regard to Obama’s campaign for president. Add your commentary and debate here. We hope to post substantive essays with other views on Obama as we receive them.
OBAMA 2008: BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY: An Appeal for Revolutionary Unity:
By Keith Joseph
I know Jeremiah Wright… Well, I never met him, but I know his ideas, he is a part of the American political left. Nothing he said outraged me, or even upset me. I agreed with a lot of it, and disagreed with some of it. If we were to meet in person I imagine we would get along just fine, and we probably could do some good work together. Obama had to distance himself from his pastor in order to remain a viable candidate — a smart move. Gary Wills, writing in the May 2008 NY Review of Books, pointed out that Abe Lincoln, who Obama invoked when announcing his own candidacy, was associated with John Brown and the “radical” abolitionists. Like Obama, Abe had to distance himself in pubic from the “extremists.” But the abolitionists remained the left wing of Lincoln ’s coalition, and although he publicly disavowed them (gently) he was secretly and indirectly connected to them.
About 100 hundred years later, in 1968, Robert Kennedy’s candidacy for president represented a similar coalition. His brother, John Kennedy’s election marked the achievement of full citizenship for Catholic (Irish and Italian) workers (that’s why Kennedy’s picture hangs in all those Irish bars). Bobby Kennedy continued to lead those “white” workers and he was bringing them into an alliance with the Civil Rights Movement (Kennedy was meeting and marching with two of its most prominent leaders, Dr. King and Caesar Chavez). In other words, Kennedy’s campaign was a next phase in the Civil Rights struggle. But the assassination of Malcolm X in 1965 and the FBI repression of the left made it difficult for a left wing to get into that coalition and soon King and Kennedy would also be murdered.
These assassinations sent most left wing forces in the United States into a disorientating tailspin that we have yet to recover from. If it were 1968, Hilary would be Hubert Humphrey, McCain would be Nixon, and Obama would be Bobby Kennedy. Some of our friends on the left have asked us to “Recreate ’68.” Yes, but let’s not repeat the blind rage, instead let’s do it over and send Humphrey and Nixon packing. So, we must build a John Brown, Malcolm X, Jeremiah Wright bloc— a left bloc allied to but independent from Obama’s campaign.
As Malcolm and the movement developed, he emphasized uniting with other left forces. He and King drew closer together, but after Malcolm’s assassination left wing forces pushed liberals and center-left forces away and into the hands of the right. Obama’s campaign is the potential rebirth of the Kennedy-King Coalition. And it is time for the radical left to do what Malcolm would have done—get into the coalition as an independent force, consolidate a left wing and build a liberal and left coalition to stomp the war loving right wing in this country while building our own independent left movement.
We have a couple of immediate basic tasks: Obama must be the Democratic Party candidate—By Any Means Necessary. We should plan to camp right outside of Denver during the Democratic Party’s Convention and hold anti-war demonstrations and our own left convention. If right wing Democrats try to force Hilary-Herbert Humphrey-Clinton on us we march on the convention and make sure Obama gets the nomination–By Any Means Necessary. In November, we must make sure Obama defeats the war criminal John McCain. And finally, after the election, we must be prepared to convene anywhere in the country ( Florida , Ohio etc.) to make sure that the Supreme Court does not decide the contest.
Some of our fellow leftists have been very critical of Obama. The problem with their criticism is that they want Obama to be a leftist. He is not a leftist, he is a representative of the progressive, democratic wing of the capitalist class and he is making an appeal to workers of all nationalities to support him. Obama is a liberal. He is a center-left candidate. He is a part of the mainstream of the Democratic Party. We are the left! It is time we got back in the game.
May 15, 2008 at 7:57 am
Obama is indeed representing the capitalist class, stumping on behalf of one of the main imperialist political parties. (what makes that ‘progressive’ ??)
Why would any ‘leftist’ want to be part of a ‘game’ that is hell on earth for the vast majority of the people on this planet?
What IS worth engaging are the political and ideological contradictions semi-exposed by these elections and his candidacy - such as national oppression, racism, the hypocritical ‘I feel your pain’ sops to the middle strata, the sleights regarding imperialist aggression around the world, etc., which are the programs of the bourgeoisie’s political parties.
May 15, 2008 at 8:04 am
What’s at stake in these elections?
today’s Washington Post:
COLUMBUS,Ohio, MAY 15–Sen. John McCain will pledge this morning that the Iraq war can be won and most American troops can come home by 2013 if he is elected president, a position that closely resembles those of his potential Democratic rivals.
According to speech exerpts released in advance, McCain will say that only a small contingent of troops in non-combat roles would remain in Iraq five years from now. He predicts the drawdown will be possible because al Qaeda in Iraq will be defeated and a democratic government will be operating in the war-torn country.
(…)
Asked to make a similar pledge during a debate last September, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama declined, saying that “it’s hard to project four years from now and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there.”
But more recently, Obama has said he will remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president and will leave “some troops” in Iraq to protect U.S. embassy personnel there and carry out targeted strikes on terrorists.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said during the same debate last year that it was her “goal” to have all of the U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013, though more recently she has said she would begin a phased withdrawal immediately.
—–
a snare and deception for the masses of people, internationally, and ‘four more years’ of imperial aggression.
May 15, 2008 at 8:31 am
I look forward to seeing this dissected… since (let me confess at the start) I think almost every piece of this gets it wrong.
It ends with the sentence “It is time we got back in the game.” And if anything the whole Kasama effort is ABOUT getting “into the game” of real politics. But I am convinced not THIS game…not THIS way…
Many of the arguments here should be looked at closely…. and their assumptions and implications drawn out more fully.
Let me start by some commentary on history (since this is where Keith starts:
“Gary Wills, writing in the May 2008 NY Review of Books, pointed out that Abe Lincoln, who Obama invoked when announcing his own candidacy, was associated with John Brown and the “radical” abolitionists. Like Obama, Abe had to distance himself in pubic from the ‘extremists.’ But the abolitionists remained the left wing of Lincoln ’s coalition, and although he publicly disavowed them (gently) he was secretly and indirectly connected to them.”
This is a profoundly a-historical (and therefore misleading) take on history. The most important difference is that in 1860, the northern industrial owning class was (objectively and subjectively) playing a revolutionary role (vis a vis slavery) — and was about to lead a social revolution by war (in ways anticipated and advocated by the “extremists.”) I.e. there was an objective basis for an alliance between the consistent anti-slavery revolutionaries and the Republican forces around Lincoln. That alliance would continue into Reconstruction, with the Radical Republicans operating (at all levels of government) as a wing of the ruling coalition.
By contrast, there is no section of the ruling class today that is anything BUT tied to empire and the suppression of aspirations for radical change. There was an objective CHANGE that happened around the turn of the 20th century — where the anti-imperialist wing of the mainstream (represented by Mark Twain and others) was removed from the official framework — and could only oppose from without (from without the ruling coalitions, from without the government, and increasingly fundamental opposition to the very nature of society).
To compare Obama to Lincoln is to ignore these most basic and defining differences in the historical situation. And it is to (literally) invent “the progressive, democratic wing of the capitalist class” — that is supposedly comparable to a Lincoln — and then revolve the larger argument around that.
More on that “invention”:
Keith writes: “About 100 hundred years later, in 1968, Robert Kennedy’s candidacy for president represented a similar coalition…. Bobby Kennedy continued to lead those “white” workers and he was bringing them into an alliance with the Civil Rights Movement (Kennedy was meeting and marching with two of its most prominent leaders, Dr. King and Caesar Chavez). In other words, Kennedy’s campaign was a next phase in the Civil Rights struggle. But the assassination of Malcolm X in 1965 and the FBI repression of the left made it difficult for a left wing to get into that coalition and soon King and Kennedy would also be murdered.”
This is (I must say) an amazing rewrite of history. Let’s be clear on who Bobby Kennedy was: he started his career as assistant counsel to the notorious reactionary Senator Joe McCarthy on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations — and played an important historic role in those witchhunts that defined the political air of the 1950s (as a co-worker with Roy Cohn). He spoke of having “a fondness for McCarthy.” He came into power as his brother became president (after campaigning against the Eisenhower administration for being lax against the Soviet Union and allowing a “missile gap.”) There (as JFK’s key adviser) he helped preside over the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, and the Cuban Missile Crisis (which threatened Cuba and others with nuclear destruction).
The story told above about his relationship with the Civil Rights Movement completely whitewashes the fact that Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the U.S. (i.e. in charge of federal prosecutions and the FBI) at a time when the Cointelpro operations were unleashed against the Movement: it was a time when FBI informants worked within the Klan to attack activists, when (at Kennedy’s approval) leaders like King were wiretapped, pursued and threatened with blackmail.
Stepping back: the Kennedy’s operated well within the framework of the New Deal Democratic coalition — which was deeply rooted in the Dixicrats of the South, and in a fundamental reliance on the representatives of Jim Crow.
And if you want to know more about that…. go listen to Malcolm X on the Kennedys (i.e. Keith’s suggestion that Robert Kennedy and Malcolm were somehow on the same side is an amazing distortion — and is even carried out by adopting malcolms “by any means necessary” as the title of this piece! When Malcolm said that he was injecting revolutionary thought into the movement — when Keith appropriates that he is arguing for revolutionaries to adopt a strategic alliance with the sections of the dominant oppressors as a method… rather remarkable difference and reversal!)
So what did Kennedy represent in 1968 — it was a major maneuver to swing “the Movement” and the explosive discontent back into the framework of this system (and its politics) — to defang, defuse, coopt, divert, subsume, dominate, disperse, confuse, integrate the resistance into the system of oppression.
Was the assassination of Kennedy the same thing as the assassination of Malcolm or King? This is often asserted as if it is fact. Let’s put it like this: Malcolm was killed by forces within the conservative, anti-activist wing of the NOI, operating with (at least) the complicity of the police. King was killed by a white racists — almost certainly operating as part of a much larger conspiracy with powerful wealthy backers.
Robert Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian who was outraged by the Kennedy support for Israel in the 1967 war. And there has not been (to my knowledge) any evidence or analysis connecting that killing to a larger conspiracy.
How and why would anyone equate these things? Or equate the very different class and political nature of Kennedy (on one hand) and those representing various forces fighting for the liberation of black people?
Again, there is an invention here of this “progressive and democratic wing” of the dominant establishment.
And what stands out to me is that Keith does (and perhaps can’t) try to make an argument for Obama’s nature as “progressive and democratic.” What does the absense of this mean: what does it assume, what does it suggest?
Mainly this is an argument that Obama should be supported DESPITE what he is — despite his distancing from Wright, despite his views on so many things, despite…. And it even seems to take pride in acknowledging that he is a representative of this system and this empire (”a centrist” not a “leftist”) — and arguing for support despite that.
Why don’t we dig into what he claims he will do (like take combat troops from Iraq and move them to readiness “over the horizon” or into Afghanistan/Pakistan)…. and then analyzes (beyond the fetish of the word) what he is likely to actually do (given his political nature and the nature of the office he aspires to).
Isn’t it: Yes we uphold empire firmly, but may give you cheaper medical care.
Does this country need a “unifier”? Does it need “post-60s” verdicts that “overcome” those divisions by reversing the best verdicts of those times? Is the Red State-Blue State divide really best resolved by “transcending” (read: triangulating) the core differences?
What would embracing such a politics actually MEAN for the people (and for our attempts to build a movement that stands for something clear and important)?
Keith argues that we “get into the game” by taking sides in the dominant politics. And yes, that would get us into a particular game on a particular basis.
But I am not particularly interested in getting into that game. That option was open a long time ago, always open. It was open when RFK ran in 1968 (and when many of us correctly shook our heads at those taken in by him).
Let’s really, carefully and thoughtfully, break down what this candidacy amounts to and represents. How it will channel and affect the people, their aspirations and illusions. And then analyze whether it serves our goals to become part of that.
And to repeat: being left starts with creative opposition to THAT game, that kind of cooptation into empire based on promises of crumbs.
May 15, 2008 at 9:03 am
I’m sure that this post will set off a lively discussion. I don’t agree entirely with Keith’s formulations, in particular his reading of the RFK campaign. I do however think its important to recognize how the Obama campaign is different from that of many that have gone before it. This is not so much becuase of any particular positions Obama has taken (which have in my view been entirely consonant with the framework of saving US imperialism from its own crisis) as it does with the social forces it has set in motion and the possible openings that this MIGHT create for a more radical or even revolutionary left to gain a footing in the US.
I think the John Brown-Abraham Lincoln comparison is a useful one. Historically, the main function of the Democratic Party has been to channel popular discontent among the oppressed into largely ineffectual form of electoral and pressure politics. What the Obama campaign represents is something that at first may seem only trivially different: an effort to actively MOBILIZE (albeit within an electoral framework) heretofore demoralized and demobilized masses of the oppressed in a fight within the ruling class over the direction of the empire.
What needs to be understood is how risky a proposition this is from a ruling class perspective and what that tells us about the thinking of this fraction of the ruling class about the present moment. What it says to me is that they think the situation is considerably more dire than most people realize, that the empire is in for a very rough ride ahead and that this requires both relegitimizing it in the eyes of huge sections of the masses but also dislodging from power another fraction (the neo-cons) that they think has driven it into a ditch.
What the Obama campaign represents then, is an attempt at “repolarization” from within a pro-imperialist perspective. Much of Obama’s appeal come from his vague but high-sounding talk of broad national unity and many on the left have been made uneasy by his direct appeals to Republicans. What this rhetoric obscure, I think, is a very hard-headed attempt to wrest power from the neo-cons by stealing away a section of their mass base and reconstituting a liberal-led Democratic majority that intends to rule. Despite Obama’s talk of unity his campaign is clearly determined to ice out certain forces that most radicals and revolutionaries would also like to see iced out.
For some forty years liberalism has lived in the wilderness longing to restore its previous hegemony. What Obama represents is the first serious effort to do this that obtains its mass energy mainly from NEW forces, in particular the so called progressive “netroots” and under-30 voters who have come of political age since 9-11.
There is an ideological thrust to this campaign as well. It involves a challenge to the historical prerogatives of white supremacy. I’m not saying here that electing Obama will represent an end to white supremacy in the US, but rather that it will represent a major reconfiguartion or even demotion of its place in the ideological armory of American capitalism. The ruling class fraction that supports Obama is making a historic bet on two things:
First, that there has already occurred a significant enough shift in the consciousness of people around race that this particular Black man can actually win in spite of white supremacy’s continued grip on the thinking of much of the population.
Second, that the redemptive potential for US imperialism in an Obama presideny is more valuable to the system than the maintenance of those feature of old-style white supremacy that an Obama presidency would knock down.
It should be admitted here that this sort of reading of ruling class tea leaves is an expression of the weakness of the radical and revolutionary left. We are not in John Brown’s position and more than whatever we do vis a vis Obama our task must be to overcome that weakness.
May 15, 2008 at 9:33 am
Am I hearing the night time howls and yippings of coyotes at a wounded stag?
Keith expresses the real fear of the many young supporters who enjoy Obama’s message of “change” — a quite reasonable fear that Obama will be assassinated.
This is a simple election, yes, an election of bourgeois democrats against fascist theocrats - both representing the quickly crumbling American imperialist empire.
If you have the time and inclination to go among Obama’s supporters and wave a red flag and convince them that a communist government would be better, then like the old RCP slogan sez - GO FOR IT!
There is no revolutionary proletarian party of communists, political, idealogical or god knows (pun intended) military in the US. Take the 9 Letters at face value - if even 25% is correct - THERE IS NO PARTY!
I have spoken at length to young Obama supporters, they know the world shaking stakes involved - and they have convinced themselves that this is their last and for some their first attempt at political involvement and citizenship in the country.
What are you going to do - yell them long winded platitudes of dogma - while in the midst of their fight for their future.
The objective situation is becoming desperate; climate change, peak oil, energy shortages, world hunger, over population, it goes on and on - people know it’s going to get bad in imperialist America.
Got anything better to offer them? Right here? Right now?
Of course we do … energy and food autonomy - long after the polls close and Obama is surrounded, overwhelmed by the catastrophic events ahead. Permacultural cooperatives, collectives (whatever the term) autonomous from these charades and shadow plays of the oppressor class - better that while the people are yet again led down this sick path.
I have empathy for his followers, share in their view of the objective situation, but I am not going to condemn them or Obama for wanting change.
“reconsider, regroup” for REVOLUTION.
A vote, it takes a second and if it changed anything - they will make it illegal.
Hell I tell his supporters around here, Bush may bomb Iran and close the elections. What will you do then?
Keith’s desperate and who can blame him with what Hillary is throwing at Obama - now those Clintons are some sick sick puppies.
May 15, 2008 at 9:55 am
TellnoLies,
You need to pick an avatar after hitting the nail on the head a couple times with:
“What needs to be understood is how risky a proposition this is from a ruling class perspective and what that tells us about the thinking of this fraction of the ruling class about the present moment. What it says to me is that they think the situation is considerably more dire than most people realize, that the empire is in for a very rough ride ahead and that this requires both relegitimizing it in the eyes of huge sections of the masses but also dislodging from power another fraction (the neo-cons) that they think has driven it into a ditch.”
The empire is thankfully going into the ditch.
Nothing can be done, short of nuclear war (and that’s possible) will stop it. Nuclear war won’t even stop it.
It’s over … can’t generate enough electricity even if they nationalized the Big 3 autos and cranked out electric cars. Daytime grid would go down everywhere with rolling blackouts.
Can’t or won’t shut down 800 military bases in foreign lands, none of them talk about that - eh?
Can’t or won’t shut down or cut back the prisons holding more people than “communist” China. 2.2 million is a lot of folks.
Can’t or won’t arm the people with the simple solutions of grassroots electrical energy generation - to feed to the national grid.
Can’t or won’t subsidize huge infrastructural mass transit systems, like railroads.
Can’t or won’t promote victory gardens at every damn vacant lot in every burnt out shell of a city.
Like those psychopathic US soldiers playing heavy metal tunes in their tanks invading Baghdad Iraq.
“We don’t need no firefighters …
Let the M….F….r burn, burn, m….f….r, burn.”
May 15, 2008 at 1:39 pm
actually the “heavy metal” band your referring to are a bunch of college kids with advanced degrees that are kinda poking fun of heavy metal, ya know, those stupid working class kids. The song was picked up and used in the soundtrack of Michael Moore 911 flick.
*****************************
Like those psychopathic US soldiers playing heav