lindorff that is. yesterday, the man wrote a piece on why he will vote for obama. i would like to dialogue with and/or rebut some of his points.
he starts his piece by criticizing obama and praising nader, an unusual tactic for a man writing on why he will vote for obama. he tells us that he lives in pennsylvania, a state that obama seemingly has in the bag. this was the reason why he was going to vote for nader, but now "he feels it is a cop out" to vote for nader in pennsylvania when he would have voted for obama in ohio or indiana, where it is up for grabs. how would this be a "cop out?" if obama has pennsylvania wrapped up, what is the point of voting for him there, especially if you admittedly prefer nader? it's like being up 30 points in a basketball game with 2 minutes to go. what's the point of winning by 35? a win is a win, particularly with the electoral college. now, if it was a popular vote, that would perhaps be another discussion, but with our system, lindorff's vote means nothing, since pennsylvania is already obama's. furthermore, logic tells us that you act differently depending on the situation you are in. if a man is having a heart attack, he will try to get to the hospital, but if he cuts himself shaving, he will not. voting in pennsylvania and voting in ohio are not the same thing. of course, if someone who lives in ohio thinks nader is the best candidate, than he too has every right to vote for nader. if anything, it is a "cop out" to support a candidate you don't really like. in a sense, when a guy does a job he doesn't really like because he has to pay the bills, this man has "copped out," just as someone in ohio may vote for a candidate they don't really like to avoid what they perceive to be a bleaker alternative. this is not to say whether this is right or wrong, but only to argue that it is much closer to a "cop out" than supporting your favorite candidate.
he then states that all the racism and hate speech that has lately been directed against obama makes him want to see obama resoundingly defeat mccain. well, didn't he want obama to defeat mccain anyway? it took some guy to yell "kill him" during a palin speech to convince him that obama is the better of the two mainstream candidates? surely, he didn't think his voting for nader was going to swing the election in ralph's favor. of course any progressive, anti-racist is angered by the crass racism that has been displayed against obama, but what does that have to do with voting for obama in a state that has already been decided in his favor? can't one stand against racism and support the candidate who best represents their interests and concerns? how are these mutually exclusive?
he then mentions obama's upbringing, stating that he could have named his price on wall street, but elected to work as a community organizer, and that he lived in kenya and indonesia. hence, he supposedly possesses an empathy for the third world and a more wordly and tolerant outlook than the typical politician. well, what does your country of origin or where you have lived have to do with anything? suharto also lived in indonesia, but that didn't make him any more tolerant. living in africa didn't seem to teach mobutu anything about "toleration." if it is wrong for racists to criticize someone because of where they are from, than it is also wrong for anti-racists to turn the accidents of birth and nationality into a positive. this information tells us nothing about the kind of leader obama will be.
he then diverts himself by mocking the left, even calling the left "a joke." well, isn't he on the left? what could be more funny than supporting candidates that you dislike? he tells us the left is fragmented, but why is that? who fragmented it?
he tells us important things "could" happen if obama is elected president. well, anything "could" happen. he says obama could elect liberal supreme court justices. i suppose he could, but how do we know what he will do? has he mentioned the supreme court at all during the election? lindorff also claims that he could help to strengthen unions by passing certain legislation. well yes, anyone can do anything at antime, but that doesn't tell us what they are likely to actually do.
finally, he tells us that he "doesn't take obama's warmongering seriously." i quote "given the man's background, i am confident that he is not a militarist by nature." what does "the man's background" have to do with anything? we have already learned that simply living in indonesia didn't make suharto a pacifist. by background does he mean that obama went to harvard? well, the men who created napalm also went to harvard. one does not need to be a military man to have an imperial foreign policy. the fact that clinton avoided vietnam didn't stop him from bombing yugoslavia. lindorff tells us that it is merely politically oppotunistic for obama to claim to be militaristic about afghanistan. somehow, we are supposed to believe that he doesn't really mean what he is saying. but, what else besides his words do we have to go on? does he really have to say the things he does just to get elected? is threatening pakistan a way to get elected? who among the american people is in favor of bombing pakistan? does he have to say that a nuclear iran is unacceptable? what are we to believe? and why should we give him the benefit of the doubt, but not mccain? surely, mccain also needs to say certain things to get elected. certainly, lindorff takes mccain's warmongering seriously, so why not take obama's seriously? perhaps it would be wise for lindorff to remember that the two world wars, the korean war, and the vietnam war were fought either completely or in part by democratic presidents.
he claims that obama is a "smart guy" and will therefore want the wars "off his plate as soon as possible." what does intelligence have to do with anything? smart men built the atomic bomb. smart men fight wars all the time. it is not your intelligence, but your decency, and more importantly, it is not the strength of your brain, but the interests you serve, that will determine your foreign policy. lindorff tells us that because the economy is bad, obama will likely try to end these wars as soon as possible. no, lindorff would try to do this, but obama won't. there is certainly no evidence to say that he will. and yes, the economy may be bad, but it's not bad for the war contractors. how can we assume that obama will look to end the wars because of the economy? he is on record as saying we need more troops and a bigger military budget. he would likely not be as militaristic as mccain, but that doesn't mean he will in any way be an anti-militarist.
he tells us obama will be the "right man" to combat global warming, but he doesn't tell us why this is the case. why is obama the right man for this. is he better on the environment than nader? and by the way, what happened to nader in this article? certainly, nader's positions on the war, on the military budget, on global warming, and on the economy, are superior to obama's. lindorff himself admitted as much earlier in the piece. and with nader, we don't need to try to figure out what he means or what he really stands for.
finally, he tells us that the prospect of a palin presidency scares the hell out of him. yes, this indeed would be scary, and would be a decent point if lindorff lived in a "battleground" state, but he doesn't. lindorff has already told us that his vote will have no meaning, because the state he lives in is in obama's pocket. therefore, it doesn't matter if barry manilow was mccain's vp.
so, there you have it. a leftist who is much closer in his views to nader and who lives in a state that is already decided in obama's favor, will still vote for obama because to not do so would be a "cop out." besides, obama lived in indonesia for a few years, and went to harvard, so therefore, there is no reason to take his warmongering seriously.
sounds good to me. let's all vote for the better liar in 08.
even if the better liar is already assured to win the state we live in.
No comments:
Post a Comment