Many of Barack Obama’s most fundamentalist followers are so unintentionally ironic, it makes you wonder whether you should laugh or cry. These individuals, who claim to be ushering in a "new day" in politics, have the same victim mentality, paranoia, and hysteria as the most conservative Republicans.
I have seen arguments ranging from "Hillary is trying to sabotage the Democrats so she can win in 2012", to "Hillary is destroying Barack Obama and the Democratic Party", to "Diebold may be why Clinton does so much better in primaries than caucuses", to "Rush Limbaugh is the reason why Hillary won Texas, he told Republicans to vote for her", to "Obama represents a revolution", to "Barack can win 47 states in the general election". The list is endless. Yet many of our world's most pressing problems get little mention.
Contradictory facts, like with all fundamentalists, do not stop the arguments. What about the fact Obama won amongst Republicans in Texas? Well, that can be conveniently explained. You see, Republicans who vote for Obama do so because they like him, but Republicans who vote for Clinton do so because she is easier to beat. How about that in the last two presidential election cycles the Democrats won only 39 states—combined? Oh, you see, history doesn’t matter, because Barack Obama transcends ideology. How can a mainstream Democrat, with tons of institutional support, who is working within the system and has no radical policy proposals be "revolutionary"? Simple, he is bringing new people into the process. Okay.
Now, many of these same people who say Barack is so special because he is putting the power back with the people and running a "grassroots campaign", are calling on Al Gore and/or John Edwards to step into the race and put an end to it all. In other words, they are calling on two political elites, major parts of the party institution, to stop the race before millions of more voters have their say. Hmm. You see, they argue, Hillary is dividing the party. She is ruining Obama’s chances of winning the general. This is a very convenient statement, for if Barack loses it can all be Clinton’s fault. But more to the point, if Senator Obama cannot take the fairly light hits of Senator Clinton’s campaign, he should not be running, because he will almost certainly lose to John McCain and the Republicans in the fall. The good news is, he probably can take it.
Senator Clinton, it is claimed, cannot possibly win the nomination. The math just isn’t there. But the math might be there, because there are still a whole lot of states that need to vote, including the large ones of Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan. Furthermore, there are superdelegates, who can commit, or recommit, at any time. But the highest irony of this call for Gore to step in and tell Hillary to cool it, is that Gore himself was criticized for ruining the chances of Michael Dukakis in the 1988 primary by being too tough on him. But history, once again, is history. We, the Obama fundamentalists say, are for a new day.
These calls for Senator Clinton to drop out are politics as usual. And what is "politics as usual"? It is making arguments that you would almost certainly argue against if the shoe was on the other foot. In other words, let us imagine that Barack Obama was trailing by only 100 delegates with 12 states yet to vote. That he had won the primaries of the three largest states, and had also carried perhaps the most important state in the upcoming election, Ohio. More than that, the 4th (Florida) and 5th (Pennsylvania) largest states in the country had yet to vote. Let us also say that he probably won more votes, overall, than Senator Clinton. Would these same people call for their man to drop out? Of course not. And they shouldn’t. Senator Clinton has tens of thousands of people who have given their time, money, and heart for her effort. She has won a lot of states and the support of a lot of voters. Frankly, it would be disrespectful to all of those millions of supporters of hers if she did quit the race.
Obama fundamentalists say that they want to usher in a time when politics is not personal, is kinder, more respectful. Yet if Daily Kos is any indicator, these are some of the meanest, angriest, divisive people you could ever meet. The problem is that Barack Obama and these types of followers do not understand the real problem with politics in America. It is not that we don’t have enough hope, or get too negative and nasty, it is that most of our political dialogue is on a 4th grade reading level and that many are incapable of understanding that you can both criticize a candidate and still support them as the best alternative out there.
Two individuals who I believe we can learn a lot from are Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. These are two leftist intellectuals who have been activists for decades. Do they think we should vote Democratic in the next election? Of course. But they say that we should do this because the Democratic Party is the best alternative right now, the lesser of two evils. Instead, they argue (I believe correctly), that we should not align ourselves too much with any politician or institution, and that we should instead focus on organizing ourselves to pressure the government, no matter who is in there, to enact progressive policies. Noam Chomsky only half jokingly calls Richard Nixon "the last liberal president". How could this be, he was a Republican? It’s because social forces, and the pressure they put on the government, were much different in the late 1960s and early 1970s than today. Different social dynamics resulted in two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who in many ways were to the right of this conservative bogey man. Howard Zinn wrote in a recent editorial that we should spend only about two minutes worrying about the presidential candidates, that time we spend in the voting booth. The rest of our lives should be focused on pressuring whoever is there to do what we, the people, want and need.
I can’t tell you how many people have said they support Barack Obama because they "trust him" and he has "integrity". There is no doubt that these should be qualities that we seek, to the largest degree possible, in our leaders. But one should never, ever put so much faith in a politician. JFK, the typical Democratic icon and the one who so many compare Barack Obama with, cheated on his wife repeatedly, invaded a country (Cuba) that could do America little harm, began the bombing of Vietnam, and did many other grotesque, and perhaps even criminal, things. All of our presidents, from Lincoln to FDR, engaged in behaviors that should be unacceptable to a civilized people. Political hacks, partisans who will rationalize and justify anything their favorite politicians and/or institutions do, have always existed. That is the old politics. The new politics should not be about a politician, it should be about changing the way we look at politicians. They should be our followers, not our leaders. We should dictate to them, not the other way around.
Every election cycle is full of young people who have just come into the process, who only know that they don’t like the way things are and therefore want change. This is good, they bring an energy and idealism to the process. But there is a negative side too. They look for a leader who will inspire and lead them to the promised land. This will never be the antidote to our ills. There are others who are older and see the same movie replayed every election cycle, yet never seem to catch on that they are being played for a fool. A new politics would acknowledge this rerun, not perpetuate it.
Barack Obama is a first term senator. He has inspired people mostly through great speeches, his charismatic personality, and his interesting biography, for there is really nothing that special about his rhetoric or policies (if you don’t believe me, take a look at his website). Despite the fact that there is very little policy difference between him and Hillary Clinton, he has motivated people to demonize the New York Senator and everything she stands for. He has been painted as almost a saint. It appears that many of his followers would follow him to the gates of hell. His campaign has fostered this because they can (what politician does not want to be adored and draw large crowds?). But a new politics would mean a leader who would not need to give great speeches. We the people would make demands that he or she would have to meet, or else be replaced.
I have left out criticism of Senator Clinton's campaign not because I can find nothing to condemn, but because her support his so little at this site, and the hatred for her so intense, that it would be nothing more than preaching to the choir. I have no intention of defending or justifying her campaign's tactics or political maneuvering.
I criticize Senator Obama and his campaign a good amount at this site, but I always admit in these very same diaries that I voted for him. Obama fundamentalists find this very hard to believe. They cannot comprehend how one can vote for a candidate, but still criticize them. I am therefore labeled a "troll" and called all sorts of names. But this is the same "with us or against us" mentality that is in the old politics, and probably will never be completely washed away (and perhaps never should be). I really do hope for a new, more mature politics. And I am sorry that Senator Obama and many of his most loyal supporters are not bringing such an era in.