|
Most of this was a reply in another thread but I decided to make it a new post since I write about the topic often enough.
There's a common tactic on the far left (a term which I consider a compliment) that goes something like this:
Step 1: Show why real change through the normal voting process and/or the Democratic Party won't get the kind of major, revolutionary results people want.
Step 2: Get people to take action through an alternative method such as a third party, or direct action tactics outside the regular electoral process, etc.
I'm all for direct action tactics that go beyond just voting and volunteering on campaigns. The problem with the strategy above is that Step 1 rarely leads to Step 2.
Once you convince people that it's a waste of time to fight for change through the normal electoral process and/or in support of a Democratic President the common response for most normal people is to give up hope and do nothing. That doesn't engage new people and it doesn't help the movement grow. Ralph Nader has been using this approach for over a decade and his support has steadily shrunk the entire time.
Cynicism and hopelessness are central reasons why at least 40% of the public still doesn't vote. Instead of motivating people to pressure Obama to move left or take additional action outside of the Democratic Party, which is often the intent, it leads to people doing nothing at all.
There's a reason why right wing talk radio hosts constantly push cynical attitudes about politics and point out that "both parties do it" whenever there's a scandal. They know that most people who are cynical about politics become disengaged. I understand why conservatives want an immobile public but it doesn't make sense for the left.
There's a fine line between healthy skepticism and unhealthy cynicism. I'd rather see a skeptical yet constructive essay about how we can prevent a repeat of Bill Clinton's move the the right instead of a fatalistic prediction that it's sure to happen again under Obama.
Howard Zinn is on of my favorite writers and he often points out the limitations of taking action within the Democratic Party and the electoral process. But if you notice, whenever Zinn writes about the limitations of the electoral system, he also gives examples of how people are able to succeed at accomplishing something in other ways. I wish more people who post negative, defeatist posts at DU would pay attention to Zinn's example.
So please go ahead and criticize Obama when he's wrong. Be skeptical. We need that. I'll do it too. But inaccurate exaggerations, over-the-top fatalistic predictions about our impending betrayal, and hopelessly negative cynicism doesn't help anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh. That's what I'll keep arguing against at DU even if it means people make sarcastic comments about my Che avatar.
It's OK to think that Obama might be a real progressive. It's OK to think he might do some very good things in office. It's OK to push him left without making him out to be the bad guy. It's OK to let go of the disappointments from the last 28 years since we've had a remotely liberal President. It might turn out better this time and believing that doesn't make you any less liberal.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
