Go… Obama… (retch)
Published by Quin August 23rd, 2008 in McCainery, ObamaramaAn evolution in my opinions.
Previously I had written here that, looking at the long-term picture, I didn’t know who would be worse for the world at large, McCain or Obama. My argument began in a familiar place: the Republican and Democratic parties, in their modern forms, are really just two wings of one party. They just have different approaches to the same goal: more power for the powerful.
Now, whereas rabid feral old coot McCain would kill loads of people in a short time, he could also inadvertently kill off American military hegemony in the process through military overexpansion. This part, in my mind, is a big plus.
On the other hand, Obama would be a talented imperial manager, cleaning up the excesses of the previous Republican administration. On the home front, there would certainly be meaningful changes for many people. Though he may be tempted into foreign misadventures more regularly than previous Democratic administrations due to the ever more pressing energy crisis, I do believe he could keep the War Machine running smoothly for as long as anyone could. And, even if the foreign body count ends up being lower than it would have been under McCain, Obama will relegitimize the Imperial Agenda for those Americans who were having doubts under Bush, perfectly setting the stage for the next crazed Republican president who came along to lower the dams and gorge on an even thicker river of foreign peasant blood (c.f. Carter into Reagan and Clinton into Bush/Cheney).
Thus, I reasoned, I could support neither Obama nor McCain, because I really couldn’t see who would be worse, in the long-term.
Well, I still don’t. But after some thought, I’ve realized that, if I really believe my own argument, it’s senseless not to take sides. I do recognize that, at least domestically, and probably internationally as well, that in the short term Obama will clearly be less harmful to more people than McCain. And since I can’t see into the future well enough to judge which long-term result is worse for more people, it’s only logical that I should support the candidate who seems more promising in the short-term.
So, if you say you support Obama, I’m not going to fight you too hard over it any more. However, I will still try to convince you that he’s nothing to get too excited about, either.
It’s not anything personal about Obama. Nobody who makes it to the position he’s in possibly could be. The patriarchial overlords do vet their candidates carefully. He’s passed the test. He’s the latest standard-bearer for the bipartisan Keep the Billionaires Happy Party.
And the billionaires DO love them some Obama. Judging from campaign contributions, far more than McCain. Pam Marten’s two-part analysis for Counterpunch of their respective campaign contributions, though a few months old now, is still completely on-target (as of the latest available figures, updated July 28):
Yer alive!
For the moment, at least…
I hear you, but - and perhaps this makes me narrowminded - I would never have dreamed of supporting McCain, because he’s so intent on trampling my rights.
Nor would I. In my case, because I see so much innocent death in that immediate future. Even if for some reason it was crystal clear to me that Obama as president would lead to even more innocent deaths later, I don’t think I could stomach actually supporting that old war mongrel. I’m still, in fact, wavering as to whether to cast a ballot for Obama. In case you can’t tell, I’m not somebody who subscribes to the view that “no vote at all is a vote for the Republicans”. (A vote for a Dem is a vote for a Dem, a vote for a Repub is a vote for a Repub, and a vote for neither is a vote for neither. Simple.)
By the way, re:McCain wanting to trample your rights, I’m presuming you’re talking women’s body rights here. As for other rights, such as good old Habeus Corpus (currently flatlined and possibly DOA), Obama appears not to be any better. Evidently, just as much as our current despotic overlords, he values the nascent presidential ability to imprison any person without charge anywhere in the world.
Yeah, I’m not a fan of “worse before better” as a strategy, because worse can take the form of a Dark Age or a Holocaust.
Women’s rights and queer rights, yes.
Too true. There’s so many ways that a machiavellian plan like that can backfire in unpleasant ways.
By the way, it’s already a Holocaust. Not sure what else to call 1.25 million Iraqis dead (and counting) from US invasion. Though maybe you mean a Holocaust which we Americans, too, can experience from the comfort of our own homes.
I agree that no body who can get themselves elected is going to be really impressive. I do think Obama is the best option we’ve had in quite a while, but obviously you disagree and I see no need to argue about that.
As for the billionaires support, they’re not stupid. Many give money to both sides to be safe, and give more (often a lot more) to the side they think will win. This year that means Obama. Its just politics as usual, this is why you’re right that no one who can be elected is going to be great.
Whenever I bring this stuff up with unabashed Obama supporters I know (well, that’s only two around here, but come on, I’m in Japan), they say, “well, that’s just how politics works.” But if it’s just politics as usual, then why is everybody getting so amped up about Hope and Change?
As somebody quite correctly pointed out to me recently when I pulled the same manuever on another blog recently: showing up somewhere and saying “I think you’re wrong but I don’t see the need to argue about it” is passive-aggressive. Come on, stand your ground, man!