and now, much to my regret, i must do battle with howard zinn on the issue of that great barack star, obama. (for zinn's article, check the progressive mag's web page)
zinn tells us that there is a difference between the candidates, but not a big enough difference for him to have confidence in an obama presidency. well, shouldn't one have "confidence" in who they are voting for? otherwise, why are you voting for them? would you eat or drink something you didn't have any confidence in? zinn tells us this difference is "just enough" to make him want to vote for obama. my question is, at what point would the difference have not been "just enough?" what would obama had to have done to lose zinn's vote? zinn doesn't tell us. by the way, zinn also supported kerry in 04, so obviously there was also "just enough" of a difference in that election as well.
in any case, it seems clear that zinn is not in love with obama, and yet he is voting for him. let me remind you that zinn is a resident of mass, a state that obama will dominate. in fact, in 1972, ma was the only state that went democrat. so, why does zinn, a man with socialist and anarchist sympathies, feel the need to vote for obama in such a safe state? certainly, zinn is aware of the electoral college. he surely knows that his vote for obama will mean nothing here. why doesn't zinn suggest to voters to watch the polls in their state to determine whether they should vote their conscience or their fears? is this the same man who spoke at a nader rally in boston in 2000?
zinn then mentions nader. he says "i have no doubt that by far the wisest, the most reliable, with the most integrity, of the recent presidential candidates, is ralph nader." my, this is a pretty strong endorsement of someone you are not going to vote for! i would think you would want to vote for the wisest, most reliable candidate, especially if that candidate also had the most integrity, and if you lived in a state that obama was sure to carry. the question is, if someone on the far left is not going to vote for a third party candidate in ma, what are the chances that the electoral arena will ever be expanded? i suppose the democrat will always be a "little better" than the republican, but what of it if you are a leftist who lives in ma or alabama?
now that i think of it, this is a stunning remark by zinn. he comes right out and tells us that nader is the best candidate! well, shouldn't this matter? if we know this to be true, shouldn't we act on it? otherwise, what is the point of knowing it? zinn later says he "thinks it is a waste of nader's political strength, a puny act, to expend it in the electoral arena, where the result can only show weakness." how is running for president a "puny act?" it would seem to me not nearly as "puny" as teaching rich, white students at boston university, even if one of these students did write a good line in a journal once, comparing war to cyanide. if anything, it has taken great courage and will on nader's part to stand up to the attacks that have come his way since his run in 2000, a run, mr zinn, that you once supported. in fact, i have no memory of you calling nader's run in 2000 a "puny act." there is nothing puny about fighting the odds in order to speak the truth. you of all people should know that. and why is it that in the electoral arena, nader's "results can only show weakness?" could it be because many people who find him to be "the wisest and most reliable" candidate are not voting for him? wouldn't his showing be stronger if the people who felt that way did vote for him? and what does nader's electorally "weak" showings say about our media, the power of money in the political process, and the sidelining of progressive viewpoints? surely you know these factors to contribute to his lack of support, but you make no mention of them here.
furthermore, does zinn feel it was a "puny" act for debs to run for president, even though he knew he couldn't win? if so, why does zinn quote debs so often in his books? surely, there were differences between the democrats and the republicans when debs ran too. would zinn have not voted for debs? and how about henry wallace in 1948? was his effort also "puny?" in 2000, nader did about as well as wallace did in 48. does this discount what wallace attempted to do? i am sure there were differences between truman and dewey as well. it was truman who argued for national health insurance, and who integrated the armed forces. would these reforms have constituted a difference "just enough" for zinn to vote for truman? in fact, zinn was 26 years old in 1948, so this is not a rhetorical question. who did you vote for in 1948, howard? remember, it is a zinn to tell a lie. if you voted for wallace, along with a couple of million other brave souls, do you now believe that to have been a "puny" act?
zinn tells us "so yes, i will vote for obama, but only because the corrupt political system offers me no choice, but only for the moment i pull down the lever in the voting booth." but you just told us that there is a choice in nader and that he is the wisest and most reliable of the candidates. furthermore, if the political system "offers you no choice," why are you then making a choice? of course you have a choice! you are choosing to vote for a candidate you don't like in a state he already has won! perhaps a strange choice, but a choice it is.
finally, zinn says that he thinks obama is more likely to listen to social movements than mccain. as he says, "whoever is president, the crucial factor for change will be how much agitation there is in the country on behalf of change." fair enough, but who is going to protest an obama presidency? the left? most on the left are supporting him! is it possible to support someone one second, and then immediately start pressuring him the next? won't these people say "he needs time," or "give him a chance." where was this protest movement when clinton cut welfare, signed nafta, and bombed serbia and iraq? there was no movement, because many on the left did not want to question the democratic leader. i suspect something similar will happen with obama.
now, of course, if you are a progressive, and you live in the handful of states that could decide the election, and you find obama to be the better candidate, than voting for him makes sense. but for a howard zinn, or anyone who thinks like zinn, to vote for obama in a "safe" state when they know nader to be the superior candidate, seems to me to be a crime of grave hypocrisy.
in the end, it is nothing more than a "puny act."
1 comment:
Chomsky, Zinn, and Obama
October 24, 2008
by Mickey Z.
"You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches, and then pull it out six inches, and say you're making progress." -- Malcolm X
Another Election Day approaches and I’m reminded of something the late Pakistani dissident, Eqbal Ahmad said about Noam Chomsky in the book, Confronting Empire (2000): “He (Chomsky) has never wavered. He has never fallen into the trap of saying, ‘Clinton will do better.’ Or ‘Nixon was bad but Carter at least had a human rights presidency.’ There is a consistency of substance, of posture, of outlook in his work.”
But along came 2004…when Chomsky said stuff like this: “Anyone who says ‘I don’t care if Bush gets elected’ is basically telling poor and working people in the country, ‘I don’t care if your lives are destroyed’.” And like this: "Despite the limited differences [between Bush and Kerry] both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
Standing alongside Chomsky was Howard Zinn, saying stuff like this: "Kerry, if he will stop being cautious, can create an excitement that will carry him into the White House and, more important, change the course of the nation."
Fast forward to 2008 and Chomsky sez: “I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions.” And once again, Howard Zinn is in agreement: “Even though Obama does not represent any fundamental change, he creates an opening for a possibility of change.” (Two word rejoinder: Bill Clinton)
This strategy of choosing an alleged “lesser evil” because he/she might be influenced by some mythical “popular movement” would be naïve if put forth by a high school student. Professors Chomsky and Zinn know better. If it’s incremental change they want, why not encourage their many readers to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney? The classic (read: absurd) reply to that question is: “Because Nader or McKinney can’t win.”
Of course they can’t win if everyone who claims to agree with them inexplicably votes for Obama instead. Paging Alice: You’re wanted down the goddamned rabbit hole.
Another possible answer as to why folks like Chomsky and Zinn don’t aggressively and tirelessly stump for Nader or McKinney is this: 2004 proved that the high profile Left is essentially impotent and borderline irrelevant. Chomsky and Zinn were joined in the vocal, visible, and vile Anybody-But-Bush ranks by “stars” like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Medea Benjamin, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Manning Marable, Naomi Klien, Phil Donahue, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martin Sheen, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Vedder, Cornel West, etc. etc. and John Kerry still lost.
News flash: The “poor and working people in the country” that Chomsky mentions above are paying ZERO attention to him or anyone like him...and that’s a much bigger issue than which millionaire war criminal gets to play figurehead for the empire over the next four years.
Zinn talks about Obama and the “possibility of change.” It seems odd to be asking this of an octogenarian but: Exactly how much time do you think we have?
Every twenty-four hours, thirteen million tons toxic chemicals are released across the globe; 200,000 acres of rainforest are destroyed; more than one hundred plant or animal species go extinct; and 45,000 humans (mostly children) starve to death. Each day, 29,158 children under the age of five die from mostly preventable causes.
As Gandhi once asked: “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”
I promise you this: The human beings (and all living things) that come after us won’t care whether we voted for Obama or McCain in 2008…if they have no clean air to breathe, no clean water to use, and are stuck on a toxic, uninhabitable planet. They’d probably just want to ask us this: Why did you stand by and let everything be consumed or poisoned or destroyed?
Conclusion: A vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama is—at best—an act of criminal negligence.
Post a Comment