Since Barack Obama’s ascent to the presidency, I’ve heard countless progressives and members of the American Left talk about how we got “tricked”.

These progressives fall in three broad camps.

1. Progressives without a systemic analysis who genuinely are disappointed with the pace of “change” in our society and who thought Obama would fundamentally change our country;

2. Progressives who didn’t think Obama would change anything, and are working hard to push people further to the Left; and,

3. Progressives who didn’t think Obama would change anything and are revelling in the opportunity to say “I Told You So.”

The third group is where the biggest problems lie.

The bottom line is that Obama has changed some things, the most significant among them being the shift away from the openly homophobic, nativist, misogynistic, and nationalistic rhetoric of the past 8 years. That by itself should be welcomed and labelled significant.

But beyond that, the Left should know better. Our problems don’t stem from individuals (Obama, Bush) but rather systems: both institutional- (”representative”[sic] government, market economics, the nuclear family) and thought-systems (neoliberalism, fascism, white supremacy, patriarchy, neoconservatism, Liberalism).

Obama is a Liberal: he believes that the market can solve many of our problems, but that the government needs to step in and correct where the market has failed; he believes that a strong national security state is necessary for “America’s interests”, he believes that some social programs are necessary, etc…

But Obama isn’t going to change things, even if he wanted to (which he might genuinely like to do on some issues). Only an organized progressive bloc, and a growing Left offering alternatives, all taking action to raise the social costs of elite policies which negatively affect ordinary people, can force Obama - or any other force we’re pushing - to give us what we want, can do that.

What the new adminstration represents most is an opportunity. An opportunity to educate on why our problems will be solved by organized groups forcing elites to give us what we want, and that our problems come from systems and not individuals.

In particular, genuine progressives should call those who are being self-righteous (and who know better) out on their shit. If you understand the problem is systems, stop reenforcing individualism by saying “I told you so”. Being self-righteous doesn’t make you “radical”. Being compassionate and meeting people where they are at - and pushing them further - does.

The Left should know better.

“Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private—if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality healthcare, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.”

Obama knows what he’s talking about. He clearly understands what he’s talking about. Which is why the Left should push the public debate even further.

He understands the flaw in the central right-wing narrative about government programs and markets. The right-wing narrative goes something like this:

The market (read: big business) comes up with the best solutions to all of our needs; government-run anything (besides government-run bombings and surveillance programs) is doomed to fail, since the bureaucracy of what they call “big government” creates contradictions and inefficiencies (correct, of course); finally, government programs, in addition to creating havoc in their own programs, negatively affects the free market as well.

Obama rightly points out that if an industry really offered a good product or if the product offered by a government program was really that bad, and if the market is really such a competitive place, then people would purchase the better product (in the Right’s view, non-government products) and shy away from the inferior product (the government produced one).

Obama sees the flaw in the market fundamentalism of the Right, while putting forth his own liberal market mythology that the failures of the market can be corrected by big government. To be able to do this, he clearly has a grasp of how markets work - and don’t work. The Left should put forth a third paradigm: that “representative” government and market-based economics are both incapable of delievering maximum efficiency and good products.

Here’s what we should propose:

1. We should stand by Obama’s claim that if the healthcare coverage market is so competitive, then a government run healthcare program shouldn’t be a threat to insurance companies. If, on the other hand, it is like we all suspect, and that the health insurance industry is fundamentally broken and that vast ineffiencies and fraud exist, then a well-run government healthcare program should be more desirable option for millions of Americans.

2. We should take the conservative (actually a libertarian left) critique to heart. On all issues - from defence and security, to healthcare and housing, to education and food, centralized government is a problem. Therefore, we should turn the conservative critique on its head and demand more government programs, with an added demand of localized control of those programs. We should demand localized, democratic control of a national healthcare plan. Take healthcare out of the hands of both corporations and government bureaucrats and coordinators. The people, their healthcare providers, and medical scientists know what’s best for our health and welfare. Corporate interests and government inefficiencies get in the way. Self-management and public (not state) ownership is the answer to our problems.

We should follow a similar strategy for all programs (stimulus packages, social programs, etc). Displace market and government inefficiencies with programs run and controlled directly by the people: government of, for, and by the people in practice.

Note from Brian: The following is an article by X from New Brunswick. Its a very interesting analysis of the multi-class alliance that elected Obama and the potential for that alliance to aim more progressive aims on a path to revolution. I’d like to see a discussion of the class analysis in this article, so comment if you have ideas. Beyond that, I’ll note that I do not agree that the development of the “new SDS” is a positive development. From my experiences as an organizer and founder of the group, I think it has taken a very backwards turn. Any strides it has made are stuck in the culture, politics, and “strategies” of the 20th (or 19th!) century. But beyond that, this article is superb i think. Here it is:

————————

The Obama movement is a spontaneous upsurge of the most advanced workers in the country. It is an emerging class alliance of the progressive social forces of the new economy.[2] Whereas Clinton and McCain supporters desperately cling to the old economy of the 20th century (each in their own way), the diverse constituencies uniting around the Obama campaign are natural economic, political and cultural allies in the 21st century. The millions of students, Afro-Americans, Latinos[3], grassroots and netroots activists, unions in expanding industries, technicians, artists, engineers, and other professionals that support Obama’s candidacy all share an unyielding commitment to democracy, creativity, productivity, diversity, collaboration and progress.[4] They also share uncanny abilities at self-organization, mobilization and networking (each in their own way). They represent the potential for a revolutionary democratic coalition that could challenge the unfettered rule of capitalism in the US if we, as progressive and revolutionary organizers, recognize the opportunity before us and do all that we must to empower this movement to come into its own, strike independently and realize its aspirations of freedom for all.

Waiting for Lefty

We cannot succeed in this critical task unless we shake off the ideological hangover of the traditional US Left that remains mired in 20th century worldviews rooted in the disappearing old economy. Among the “established” groups contending today for the title of “leadership” on the grassroots activist Left, proposals for activity in this landmark election year range from timidity to wishful thinking to nihilism.

Some recommend that we support Obama unconditionally so as to not jeopardize his chances to defeat the Republicans (and we know how well this worked out in 2004 with the Kerry campaign). Others propose that we give Obama only “conditional” support while criticizing him from the “left” (as if the Obama campaign cared about the support of hopelessly fragmented and isolated activists). Others yet remain on the sidelines as armchair critics of the two-party system (stating an obvious problem and offering no viable solution). Worst of all, the most recklessly self-important propose to “recreate 68” and glorify pointless disruptions with dangerous consequences at the hands of police well trained in “crowd control.” This last and most reprehensible proposal willfully ignores that 1968 saw the assassinations of the most progressive mainstream political leaders (Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy), ushered in the collapse of the revolutionary Left (from Students for a Democratic Society to the Black Panther Party) and gave us the Nixon White House that served as the training ground for the maniacal Neo-Cons currently misruling the country (Cheney anyone?).

The common thread in the traditional US Left narrative is the failure to comprehend – or even to attempt to comprehend– the profound political, economic, cultural and social changes that have taken place in the capitalist system in the past decades. This revolution in the production process transformed the US economy from an industrial “old economy” mostly based on physical labor to an information-based “new economy” mostly based on mental labor. Each of these economies is powered by very different classes of workers and capitalists. For the past several decades, these various class forces all contended over who will control the future. The forces of the “new economy” steadily grew along with relentless technological development while the forces of the “old economy” desperately clung to power in one incarnation or another.[5] And whereas this complex struggle mostly took place between different sections of capitalists financing the political campaigns of Democrats and Republicans, the sudden rise of the Obama movement represents not only the final ascendency of the big capitalists of the new economy in the US but also the first mass mobilization of the workers of the new economy whose newfound means and ability to produce and reproduce our society has emboldened them to stake their own claim to the future (if still so tentative).

Whether they call themselves anarchists, socialists, communists, radicals or situationists; whether they are committed to identity politics or to organizing “industrial workers”, the “poor”, the “oppressed” or the “alienated”, most leftist activists cannot account for –and much less take an active role in – the rising 21st century progressive class alliance because they rely on outdated understandings of what makes people revolutionary. They do not grasp that all of the diverse constituencies coalescing in the Obama movement play key roles in the new economy. They do not grasp that all of these constituencies are natural allies because together they possess the means and the ability to empower the great majority to take control of society, rescuing it from the capitalist system that can never deliver on the promise of democracy. Predictably, traditional leftist activists do not offer any plan to engage the Obama movement in any concrete activity (beyond tailing the Obama campaign and encouraging voter registration or protesting it to no avail), vainly hoping to draw a few stragglers to the musty old leftist political programs of yesteryear.

Revolutionaries actually interested in building a new society based on the principles of democracy, equality and progress need to do more than talk or posture about challenging the absolute rule of capital (or imperialism or the “system”). The Obama movement gives us a first glimpse of the extraordinary potential of the rising 21st century progressive class alliance coming together at breakneck speed before our eyes (and hinting at the potential speed of radical changes to come in the near future). Our primary concern should not be Obama the candidate, and much less the Obama campaign. We must focus on the role we must play in the Obama movement. And in a much broader sense, we must focus on the role we must play in the 21st century progressive class alliance that began before, currently energizes, and will outlast the Obama movement far into the future.

It is incumbent upon those of us committed to revolutionary democracy to:

• understand what 21st century progressive class forces are coalescing in the Obama movement, how they came to be, why they are revolutionary and what they could accomplish should they consolidate into a revolutionary democratic coalition independent of the Obama campaign;
• understand what we as revolutionary organizers must do to facilitate this consolidation and empower the Obama movement to become fully conscious of its own revolutionary potential;
• develop and put forth our own proposals, analyses, plans for action and strategy for revolutionary democracy and engage the Obama movement in concrete activity to build and seize revolutionary democratic political, economic, cultural and social power wherever they are.

Obama’s candidacy has revealed and greatly accelerated the unification process of the 21st progressive class alliance. It is up to us to organize and empower this alliance to become conscious of itself as a revolutionary democratic movement that can lead us into the future.

[Read more →]

Inside the Obama campaign, almost without anyone noticing, an insurgent generation of organizers has built the Progressive movement a brand new and potentially durable people’s organization, in a dozen states, rooted at the neighborhood level.

The “New Organizers” have succeeded in building what many netroots-oriented campaigners have been dreaming about for a decade. Other recent attempts have failed because they were either so “top-down” and/or poorly-managed that they choked volunteer leadership and enthusiasm; or because they were so dogmatically fixated on pure peer-to-peer or “bottom-up” organizing that they rejected basic management, accountability and planning. The architects and builders of the Obama field campaign, on the other hand, have undogmatically mixed timeless traditions and discipline of good organizing with new technologies of decentralization and self-organization.

Win or lose, “The New Organizers” have already transformed thousands of communities—and revolutionized the way organizing itself will be understood and practiced for at least the next generation. Obama must continue to feed and lead the organization they have built—either as president or in opposition. If he doesn’t, then the broader progressive movement needs to figure out how to pick this up, keep it going and spread it to all 50 states. For any of that to happen, the incredible organizing that has taken place this year inside Obama’s campaign—and also here and there in Clinton’s—needs to be thoroughly understood and celebrated. Toward that end, here are glimpses from several days of observations and interviews in Central and Southwest Ohio. This article focuses on the field program’s innovative “neighborhood team” structure and the philosophy of volunteer management underlying it that is best summarized by the field campaign’s ubiquitous motto: “Respect. Empower. Include.” [Read more →]

November 12, 2008

Maybe it’s my fault. I think I write pretty clearly, but perhaps I don’t. In the last few days, ever since I counseled both excitement at the post-election possibilities for progressive activism, and caution at the risk of over-exuberance, it seems as though some on the left with a heavy investment in their self-righteous sense of radicalism have allowed their personal hatred of all things Democrat and all-things-mainstream-politics to get in the way of deciphering words on a page.

So although I made it very clear that Obama’s election by itself would change very little, and that it was up to us to steer Obama’s supporters into progressive activism, to hear some tell it, I am a starry-eyed bourgeois liberal who refuses to see the inherent evil of Barack Obama. Whatever. I haven’t the time or inclination to play a game of who’s the bigger radical with some of these folks: people who have told me that rather than voting, voluntary dumpster-diving is a revolutionary act (or who miss how whites who do it are abusing their privilege, since folks of color who do that shit are prosecuted for trespassing), or who still use words like bourgeois, and yet can’t understand why regular folks can’t figure out what the hell they’re talking about.

Anyway, I never suggested that Obama was likely to usher in much in the way of progressive reforms or changes. I do believe he will be nominally liberal, and far preferable to McCain/Palin. But ultimately, I am of the opinion that he (as with any president) will only move left if forced to do so. That work is ours to do, but instead of reaching out and speaking to Obama supporters in a way that recognizes their exuberance, honors it, and tries to move them into more productive activity than mere electoral campaigning, these folks would prefer to mock them, suggest their stupidity, and call them names, such as “listless hipsters” (my favorite), “cultists,” “Obamaniacs,” “Limousine LIberals,” or “shills” for the system. Good move: insult millions of people who–like it or not–have been inspired by Obama, and expect them to join your movement for real social transformation. Good luck with that. Just because we on the left haven’t been able to inspire much lately is no reason to hate on those who have, just because they aren’t sufficiently down with our view of the world.

Sometimes those who have harshly condemned my position on this matter prove themselves to be rank hypocrites as well. So, for instance, consider writer and activist Paul Street, who has said my criticism of those who see no difference between McCain and Obama is evidence of my being “increasingly unglued.” This, coming from a guy who four years ago penned a piece in which he warned the left about making arguments of equivalence between Bush and Kerry. In other words, in 2004, Paul Street thought the left should recognize the real differences between the two parties, even though he (and I) both know those differences are not large enough, but apparently that recognition is no longer valuable. Street even suggested back then that the reason the left should be careful about equivalizing the two candidates in 2004 was because doing so would royally piss off black folks, who were quite clear that there was a difference. Oh, but acting like there is no difference between McCain and the black guy should play well with them Paul. Thanks for that clarification. Moving on.

In my previous pieces I made the point that just as JFK was center-right in orientation, and yet, young people inspired by him moved much further to the left over the next fifteen years and made a huge difference in this nation, so too could that happen now. No one who has criticized my previous pieces has seen fit to respond to that. Because they can’t. It is historically inarguable and so they must ignore it. Rather, they point out that when Bill Clinton was president the left didn’t sufficiently pressure him to do very much (and even caved on some things). While this is true, they ignore both the possibility that we may have learned something from that sorry capitulation, and that Obama is far more like JFK in his effect on the public than he is like Clinton. Clinton never inspired this much enthusiasm, which is likely why he seemed so bitter on the campaign trail, even on those few occasions when he managed to say nice things about Barack Obama. He knows the difference quite well, apparently, and that’s why he’s angry.

More to the point, I find this line of argument–that the liberals and progressives will just fold up like a cheap tent in the face of Obama because he promises “change”–to be not only condescending but problematic in terms of where it leads us. If that position is followed to its logical conclusion, one would then have to support only the most right-wing, even fascist forces for president, just on the hope that the obvious clarity of their pernicious plans would “wake up” the masses, as opposed to how they will be lulled to sleep by a well-spoken liberal. In other words, this thinking leads to the classically stupid and venal position that things have to get worse before they get better, and that any reformism is bad because it only props up the system. Not only has this position not been vindicated even once in history–not even once–but it is flatly contradicted by it. When things get worse, they just get worse. People don’t become revolutionaries when things are really bad. They are too busy trying to stay alive at that point. Of course, the kinds of people who make up the more-radical-than-thou part of the left tend to be well-educated, and if poor, only so as a lifestyle choice, rather than as a result of systemic oppression. So they won’t be the ones impacted most by the kinds of leaders they seem to think will be best, if only because they will highlight for all to see the horrors of the system. It will be someone else who suffers for the fulfillment of their dialectic. How convenient.

And what’s especially funny about this “Oh now the libs will all go to sleep and movements will be weaker than ever” routine is that those performing it seem to be suggesting that activism is much bolder and more effective when the enemy is clear. But is that so? Have I missed the ass-kicking that the left has given to Bush these past eight years? Exactly what have we accomplished against this very obvious enemy of the Constitution, and economic justice, and a just foreign policy, which couldn’t have been accomplished against, say, Al Gore or John Kerry? Nothing, absolutely nothing. There is virtually nothing on which he has not gotten his way, and none of our epic and redundant (and predictable) antiwar protests have done a thing to change the course of these wars we’re in. That Obama may not be pressured any more effectively than W has been (though that remains to be seen) isn’t the point. The point is, we haven’t built a mass movement in the repressive and reactionary environment that has existed since 2000, so how could it get much worse?

If these barbiturate leftists would take even a momentary glance at history they would notice that the most effective organizing in this country’s past occurred in the ’30s when a relatively liberal administration was in power, and in the early-to-mid-’60s, when the same thing was true. And why? Because of an uptick in hope, which allowed people to believe that pressure might pay off for once. It’s called rising expectations theory: when expectations begin to rise, people become more active, not less so, and even if those expectations are somewhat dashed, this can often lead to positive outcomes, as frustration mounts, the gap between aspiration and ultimate achievement becomes obvious, and folks decide to ratchet up the protest even more than before. This is why the left was stronger in the moderately liberal ’60s than the relatively repressive ’50s, for instance.

What is most fascinating to me is that the leftists who rail on Obama seem to be making two oddly inconsistent arguments: on the one hand, that Obama is a shill because he doesn’t embrace a left agenda, but on the other, that real change comes not from presidents but from the people. The last of these is correct, but to the extent it is, there is no point in making a big deal of Obama’s inadequacies. If it’s not about him in the first place, then all that remains is for us to get busy, and meet liberal Democrats where they are. Or, we can preen as moral superiors because we’ve read Bakunin, and Zerzan, and Chomsky, or because we once called a cop a pig to his face in Seattle or some such thing.

Here’s something for the Obama-bashers on the left to ponder: old-line civil rights activists (who have put their life on the line for justice far more often than the critics have in most cases) believe Obama’s win is meaningful. Many black nationalists and Afrocentric scholars believe it to be meaningful. Radical scholars in the black community think it’s significant. Community organizers in oppressed communities, even though they know that the real work is yet to be done, are overwhelmingly saying it matters, all over the country. Perhaps they’re all suckers. Perhaps they, and the millions of folks of color in particular who are excited about this moment, are just stupid. Perhaps the Greens are just smarter, perhaps the white radical anarchist or other left collective down the road has figured it all out in ways the silly folks of color just can’t manage to accomplish, or perhaps the Revolutionary Communist Party is every bit as brilliant as they believe themselves to be. But I doubt it.

I just wish that I knew what the barbiturate left’s strategy was for building the movement. Hell, at this point, I’d be glad just to know what the hell they even think the movement is fighting for. It doesn’t appear to me that even this little detail has been figured out yet. And we wonder why the right has been getting the better of us for years?

Some things just aren’t that difficult to understand.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton today invited Russia to join the United States in its deployment of a “Missile Defense Shield”, a continuation of the program the Bush Administration started during his terms in office.

The term “missile defense shield” is a deadly misnomer. Missiles are extremely difficult to shoot down. Defending against a missile attack is, likewise, extremely difficult. Some (or many) of your interceptors will miss. Your enemy may deploy an unknown number of decoy missiles. You may not have enough time to launch your interceptors once an attack is launched. For all these reasons and more, “missile defense shields” are hardly useful, and hardly ever really intended for defense.

More often, and quite logically considering who is constructing them, they are a first strike weapon. That is, you build a defense shield to protect yourself from any remaining missiles that are launched after your first strike attack lands upon your target (in the case of nuclear missiles, killing millions or billions).

The United States has also declared who this (first strike) missile system is aimed at: Iran and countries like it (a.k.a. countries that threaten U.S. hegemony in any way, shape, or form). Progressives in the U.S. and elsewhere should defend against the construction of such offensive weapons. During the intertwined crises of recession and climate chaos, what we need is billions of dollars invested in repowering our future and economy with clean renewable energy and millions of good green jobs.

A few articles of interest…

Van Jones, “Why They Win & Why We Lose” (Summer 1999)
The title is self-explanatory. The Right doesn’t keep winning because they have more guns and media than we do, though that’s part of it. They largely keep winning because the Left doesn’t have a winning strategy or attitude. Van touches on just some basic ways of thinking that plagues the Left and which we must overcome in order to win.

Zack Exley, “The New Organizers, Part 1: What’s Really Behind Obama’s Ground Game” (Oct. 8, 2008)
Obama’s campaign is a fricken machine! And the Left should be learning from it. If we are interested in building a new popular organizations, some of which include an electoral arm, the Obama campaign is a model we can learn from for being innovative and reaching out to new audiences.

George Lakoff, “Don’t Think of a Maverick! Could the Obama Campaign Be Improved?” (Sept. 11, 2008)
We need to be message warriors! Learn from George Lakoff as he points out where Obama, as a case study, is succeeding in winning hearts and minds - and also where he is failing (and why).

Matt Stoller, “Obama’s Consolidation of the Party” (May 7, 2008)
Unless something major happens that propels McCain to a comeback victory, Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. What does that mean for the Left? Matt Stoller outlines how Obama has consolidated power within the Democratic Party, effectively creating a new tendency with him in charge. He’ll have the power to make policy, a fundraising base that will force Democratic candidates for House and Senate to come to him if they want to win, and all branches of Government behind him. Where will this help progressive forces in the U.S.? Where will it set us back?

Barack Obama is the first Democrat that’s figured out that a winning Democratic Party strategy needs to make use of the solid progressive majority that exists in almost every state in the Union. This includes the South.

Since the Reagan electoral victories of the 1980’s, Democratic candidates have used one of two strategies in their attempt to regain control of political power in the United States. Candidates like Bill Clinton successfully won the White House by moving to the right on issues such trade policies, dismantling social programs, and the economy. Candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry attempted to take the White House by winning in “blue states”, trying to flip “swing states”, and largely ignoring most of the rest of the country. Bill Clinton had to move to the right on economic and foreign policy issues. And in the most blunt and straightforward indictment of the Gore/Kerry electoral strategy, one analyst rightly said: “Democrats just don’t seem to be able to count.”

Even though the majority of the South identify as Democrats, their own party refuses to court their vote. In fact, has Bob Moser routinely points out, in order to win Southern Democrats, the Democratic Party would have to move left on economic issues, not right as many coastal Democrats often assume. In the Southland in particular, but also across the entire country, lies the opportunity for tremendous growth of the political Left.

The ideology of the Democratic Party has consistently prevented it from moving to the left on a wide range of issues. The Party is a center-right to moderate grouping with some slightly liberal leaders (though mostly on only a few issues each). It is thoroughly pro-capitalist and is organized is such a way so as to prevent any challengers from coming to power within the party.

The ideological commitments of the Party prevent it from building power in the central way a progressive political party can: by moving politically to the left and actually relating to people on the issues that matter to them.

The Left can gain tremendous ground by capitalizing on this fundamental weakness of the Democratic Party. In the coming decades, if Democratic strategists learn anything from the Obama campaign and the shifting demographics of the American Southland (especially the Southwest), they will begin to attempt to compete in so called “red states”. If a progressive political party actually started building power in the South, it could force the Democrats to move to the left on certain economic and military issues or risk being permanently irrelevant. Like all dilemma situations, this could lead to two positive outcomes for the Left: the Democrats could actually improve their positions (a win) OR a new progressive party or political bloc could gain ground and adherents in a new geographic location (which could happen either way, and also a win).

As revolutionaries serious about winning the struggle for political power in this country, we can learn a lot about what the Left would need to do in order to compete in the South by reading Bob Moser’s new book Blue Dixie: Awaking the South’s Democratic Majority. Much of the same advice Moser tells Democrats can be applied by progressive organizers interested in organizing a left alternative.

The stagnation of the American Left can be ended if we actually begin to map out our nation, region by region, state by state, community by community, figuring out where we can gain ground, on what issues, and how. When we start to think how we can strategically build a new world, we’ll actually start to get there. It seems simple enough, but its worth repeating often.

Pakistan is pronouced “Pahk-ee-stahn”, or so my Pakistani friends have consistently told me. Tonight during the debate, Barack Obama correctly pronouced the country’s name.

In case you aren’t familiar with the process, after every presidential debates, one of the types of experts that give their analysis are “body language experts”. They tell you how each candidates’ body and verbal language might be received by voters.

After today’s debate, one such “expert”, Lillian Glass, a (white) body language analyst from Beverly Hills, gave her opinion on the Senator’s language. The LA Times reported that:

“She also thought his inflection might be a turn-off to some voters. “He’d say, ‘Pahk-ee-stahn,’ or ‘Tolly-bahn.’ You need to say Pakistan and Taliban like everyone else [sic].”"

Of course she’s probably right. Obama’s inflection might be a “turn-off” to some voters. The major issue is that the implications of Glass’s comment - namely issues of race and racism - weren’t brought up, as has been reguarly the case in this election. There was no question of who would be “turn[ed]-off”, and more importantly, who would be turned-off if he purposefully mispronouced “Pakistan” in his public appearances.

Jason Linkins of the Huffinton Post made a similar comment, throwing homophobia into the mix (because, I mean, why not?), comparing Obama’s inflection to marching in a Leather Pride Parade. (Really now?):

“10:10 - Jason Linkins: Obama hasn’t gotten the memo from every right-wing blog in the universe that pronouncing the word “Pakistan” PAHK-ee-STAHN is the dialectical equivalent of spreading arugula on your body and marching in the Folsom Street Fair.”

Will Obama change his inflection? We can only wait and see. He hasn’t thus far. But we can’t predict the future. We can prepare to call him out on his obvious BS if he does purposefully shift his inflection. And more importantly, we can call out the types of people who bring up such non-issues.

Obama is widening his lead over McCain. Every move McCain has been making is costing him more votes. Obama is playing a near-perfect game. States like New Hampshire are going from the “toss up” category, to “lean Obama”. States like North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri are going from “lean Mccain”, to “toss up”. Most of the swing states are leaning towards Obama - states like Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and Virginia. Even states like Montana, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and West Virginia are no longer “safe” for McCain. They only lean his way.

Unless something drastic happens, Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. The political context of Glass’s and Linkins’s comments makes them even more disturbing. They aren’t suggesting that Obama needs to use racist language in order to win the White House (not that that would make it any less repulsive). They’re just saying it just because that’s what traditional electoral strategy “wisdom” says, despite the fact that if the election were held today, Obama would win in a landslide of over 364 electoral votes (you need 270). But (white) voters get turned off by non-English words. Best to appease them and be safe the pundits say.

We can do better I think. We’ll see what happens at Hofstra.

From: The Pirate Caucus, the Blog of Revolutionary Democracy

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.

Malcolm X drew center-left forces like King closer to himself and led them, 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.