Five Before Chaos

Now, now that Obama’s the frontrunner, the “black question” seems to pop up a bit more. Just today a friend asked me if I thought he could overcome the inherent racism that still permeates America in its covert and overt forms. Well, the overt racists aren’t going to be voting for a Democrat regardless; their natural home is in the GOP, so we can discount them. But as far as the less subtle racism (more along the lines of “discomfort”) that many still have, here’s what I told my friend:

“But the factory worker who lost his job due to NAFTA who might be a little uncomfortable with a black President (who, in actuality, is half-white biologically), might decide that his life situation owes more to failed economic policies than anything a black person might have to do with it.”

I point out that “half-white’ thing mostly because I’m always at a loss as to how he’s touted as “black” instead of multiracial, at least in the mainstream narrative, so you hypersensitive ultra-PC types, don’t go looking for some hidden message that’s not there, thanks.

Am I being naive? Who knows, and this will only hold true if that particular factory worker is actually paying attention. Plus, one needs to consider that the huge youth support Obama has tends to be much more tolerant, so that works in his favor, as well. Clinton (once again, aside from policy issues) brings so much baggage to the table that we’d end up having another really close election. I’m tired of that. Obama would be much harder to run against, for several reasons. First, not as many skeletons in his closet, and the lack of a long time in Washington also gives less of a record to pick through. Plus, with the overt Clinton hatred so prevalent on the right, they have an angle they can go about loud and clear. With Obama, they’d have to exercise much more caution, simply due to the fact that with all the hateful dialogue that comes from the right, it’s really easy (whether correctly or incorrectly) to cast that light in racial overtones, since that kind of rhetoric plays so well with the GOP base, but it wouldn’t fare so well in the general election. The base seems intent on finding whoever can be the biggest, unabashed prick, and for better or worse, that’s Rambo McCain. Think of the stark contrast here: an eloquent young guy looking towards a potential positive future vs. some cranky old fart pushing fear and a bunch of stale ideas that have run the country into the toilet? C’mon.

Now, once again, this ain’t an endorsement of Obama, or even of the system itself, which is terribly broken. I feel that capitalism itself needs a serious curbing of power There’s plenty wrong to be found with the guy, his home state friendliness to the coal industry, for example, as well as the whole unity thing. The unity thing may indeed be a great electoral strategy. I just hope he has a knife in his pocket, because he’s going to need it. The worst thing that could happen is a huge political policy battle early in his term that he loses or botches (like Hil’s healthcare back in the day) that sets the tone and resentment for the rest of the term, possibly seting up a conservative resurgence. If, however, the initiative is introduced with unity in mind, the Repubs pounce, and he turns around and kicks their teeth in while still maintaining a sense of dignity, he might actually work out. I really don’t know.

Time for me to wrap this up. None of the Dems are ever going to be ‘liberal’ enough for me. But I say that with a full acknowledgment that the majority of the country isn’t either. So what do I do as a voter? How does it tie in with the first part of this post? Well, I look at it this way. In voting I have basically three choices. Stay home. Vote for Obama. Vote for Nader or some other single-digit guy. Considering the MOST important thing to me right now is to send the death knell to GOP power, staying home or voting for someone that will make zero impact in the power structure are not realistic options for my stated aim. Even with all the problems the Dems give us, the single biggest obstacle to progress in this country is movement conservatism. It needs to be ruthlessly, mercilessly destroyed, marginalized and ridiculed so it can never do the kind of damage it has done to this country again. It has to be complete, so historical revisionists can’t look back on it as the ‘good ol’ days’, like they do with Reagan. Those days weren’t good. Neither are these. If Hillary somehow manages to get the nod, it’s even more difficult, because I think she’ll give the movement conservatives a shot in the arm, and possibly prolong it. So then I have some more thinking to do. If my goal is to stop the movement, I think having Hillary in there might well have the opposite effect.

Now, that’s not letting Dems off the hook, they are most certainly a huge part of the problem for abandoning many of the party principles that made the party noteworthy in the first place. So spare me the lines, I’ve heard ‘em before. I don’t necessarily disagree, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. There’ll be more time to deal with them later, and with the mouthbreathers not commandeering the dialogue every minute, it will be easier to weed out the bad apples. That’s why that Donna Edwards victory was so important – Wynn was a very bad apple.

Now, here’s the part where I get accused of selling out/shilling/party hacking/corporatizing and capitalismizing. I just tend to think I’m being realistic. I’m not blinded by theories and ideologies, because there are no absolutes, and I’m trying to work with what is, not just what should be.What I presented about Obama is simply the best course of action right now for turning back movement conservatism, my personal ‘biggest objective’ supplanting all others. He’s slick, he doesn’t really excite me (nor does any politician for that matter), and I have no idea what good he will accomplish, or how far he will go to aid our cauese. It really is a gamble. I just know it’s better than the viable (key word) alternatives. So when you start the accusing, please keep that in mind. I’ve thought this over, many hours. It boils down to the fact that there are two choices, independent of whether you choose to participate or acknowledge that. As Bush has proven, it most certainly does matter who’s in the Oval Office. So one of these choices will directly affect the course of the nation. If you don’t believe that, I really don’t have much to say to you.

Fire away.

UPDATE: Now that I’ve had a night to reflect on the above epic, I want to add a thought: this is not an attack on radical political theory, especially wdh3′s series on anarchism, which I think he’s laid out eloquently and extensively, and it is also quite informative. I pointed it out, merely because it and the private conversations he and I have had recently have prompted a lot of thinking (from both of us, I would venture to guess). My broader criticism probably lies in addressing the immediacy of the situation in that I get frustrated by how ideological purity can keep us collectively from turning back the tide of movement conservatism, which as I repeatedly state, should be our most urgent goal. I respect those on our side who don’t hold that as the immediate goal, but I just don’ t agree with it, and it bothers me that we aren’t able to tap into their energy when they sit things out.