... and then vote for him.
The following is a slightly modified version of an email I recently sent to some friends of mine who are Kucinich supporters (and who have been trying to convince me not to vote for Obama).
There is much that Barack Obama stands for, has done, or might do if elected president that I find objectionable. Below the fold, I've included a partial list:
- He has voted on numerous occasions to continue funding the US occupation of Iraq.
- He voted for the 2005 energy bill, which, among other provisions—some positive—provided more than $80 billion in tax breaks and authorized spending to the gas, oil, coal and nuclear industries.
- He has voted to renew the Patriot Act (though he fought to reform it, and co-sponsored an alternative bill).
- He suggested that he would have voted for the 2007 US-Peru Free Trade Agreement.
- He voted to confirm John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence (despite Negroponte’s involvement in the Iran-Contra affair).
- He voted for a bill that limited citizens’ right to file class action lawsuits against corporations.
- If elected president, he likely will promote (or at least enable) the construction of new nuclear power plants.
- He voted in favor of constructing a fence along the US-Mexican border.
- He invited Donnie McClurkin—a gospel singer who frequently talks about how he was "cured of his homosexuality"—to perform at a campaign event in South Carolina. McClurkin took the public forum provided by Obama to, once again, speak about homosexuality as if it were a disease. After this occurred, Obama offered a limited apology for having invited McClurkin to perform (and speak) at his rally.
- His campaign released a report about Hillary Clinton’s ties to South Asian entrepreneurs that included the following phrase: Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab). In a belated apology, Obama claimed that he hadn’t authorized the document’s release.
Additionally, there are a number of things that Barack Obama stands for, has done, or has said that, while not objectionable in my eyes, are nevertheless disappointing. Here is a partial list:
- He does not advocate a universal, single-payer health care plan.
- He frequently utilizes negative (and conservative) stereotypes in his characterizations of people on the Left, speaking, for instance, about how "we don’t take faith seriously."
- Prior to his presidential run, he accepted financial contributions from a range of corporate Political Action Committees.
- He has said certain things that I find questionable, at best. For instance, he described Paul Wellstone as a "gadfly," and he recently said the following about Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980: "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."
- He didn’t campaign for Ned Lamont, who ran for Senate (as the Democratic nominee) against Joe Lieberman in 2006.
This is only a partial list. As I indicated above, there is much that Barack Obama stands for or has said that I find objectionable or disappointing. My choice to vote for him in the Democratic primary is not based on my belief that he and I see eye-to-eye on all issues or that he will truly "speak for me" in Washington. Instead, my choice to vote for him is based on the following two factors: 1) I think he is the least bad option among those candidates who have a chance of winning the Democratic primary, and 2) I think that the election of Barack Obama has the potential to shake up the American political culture in a way that is, ultimately, beneficial for the Left.
With respect to the first point, I could compose a list of objectionable votes and statements that Hillary Clinton has made that would be longer than the list of Obama’s votes and statements that I provided above. I could do the same for John Edwards; though, to be fair, Edwards and Clinton were both in the Senate for a longer period of time than Obama has been. The following votes made by Senator Clinton and former Senator Edwards would, without doubt, be near the top of these lists: the 2002 vote to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq, and the 2001 bankruptcy bill, which made it harder for working-class and middle-class people to file for bankruptcy. For Clinton, I would also include her vote in 2007 to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization—a vote that would have given Bush a certain degree of legitimacy had he decided to initiate a military attack on Iran. Obama missed this vote, but has said that he would have voted against it.
If, when Pennsylvania’s primary rolls around, John Edwards appears to have a shot at the Democratic nomination, I will consider voting for him. He is, in my opinion, better than Obama on a number of issues (including labor issues and some environmental issues). Additionally, I like that he has refused to accept financial contributions from lobbyists and Political Action Committees. If he were elected president, I think he would be the most accountable and responsive to the progressive grassroots of the three major candidates. At this point though, barring an incredible comeback in the primary race, he doesn’t appear to have a chance to win the Democratic nomination. And even if he were to stage a surprising comeback, I’m not sure if I would vote for him. He has demonstrated bad judgment on a range of issues in the past (most notably in voting to authorize the Iraq war), and—and as far as I can tell—is not as progressive (or not as vocal) as Obama on a number of issues, including criminal justice issues, government transparency issues, some foreign policy issues, and technology access issues.
With respect to Clinton, on the other hand, I am very certain that I will not be voting for her in the Democratic primary. Aside from the votes discussed above, here are some of my reasons for opposing the nomination of Hillary Clinton:
- She has criticized Barack Obama for his opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing laws—laws that disproportionately affect people of color and that are partially responsible for the massive rates of incarceration in this country (currently, more than 5 million people are imprisoned in the United States). Clinton has suggested that she supports these laws, and has also spoken out against retroactively reducing the penalties for crack cocaine offenders.(Again, crack cocaine offenders are disproportionately people of color, and until recently, there was a massive disparity in penalties for crack versus powder cocaine. There is still a disparity, but it is not quite as large as it was prior to this year).
- Two of her top campaign advisors—Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe—are conservative Democrats. They both have strong ties to business interests and have worked for nearly twenty years to push the Democratic Party to the Right on a number of issues. These men supported former President Clinton’s "triangulation" on issues such as NAFTA, welfare reform, the deregulation of the Telecommunications Industry, and a host of other conservative initiatives.
- She voted against a recent resolution that would have banned the US from giving cluster bombs to other countries. Large numbers of cluster bombs were dropped by Israel at the end of the 2006 Lebanon War—these bombs have caused (and continue to cause) massive civilian casualties in Southern Lebanon. Obama voted for this resolution.
- Richard Holbrooke, the former UN ambassador, said this about Senator Clinton: "She is probably more assertive and willing to use force [abroad] than her husband."
Finally, while I have generally tried to keep this presentation as substantive and issue-focused as possible, I have to say that there are two non-issue-related reasons why I am deeply upset with Clinton’s campaign. First, she, her supporters, and members of her campaign have repeatedly made what I consider to be race-baiting comments about Barack Obama. These comments have ranged from intimations that he may have sold crack cocaine while in high school, to comments about his "Muslim heritage," to the use of the phrase "shuck and jive." Second, supporters of her campaign filed a lawsuit in Nevada to try and make it more difficult for people who work on the Las Vegas strip to vote in last Saturday’s Nevada caucus. Bill Clinton has publicly defended this lawsuit. I find this type of voter suppression hard to swallow, especially after the 2000 debacle in Florida.
Having outlined why I think that Barack Obama is the least bad option of the viable Democratic primary candidates, I want to talk a little bit about why I think that an Obama presidency could shake up the US political culture in a way that is favorable to the Left.
In short, I think that Obama—alone among the Democratic candidates—disarms conservatives, is appealing to independents, and motivates previously apathetic left-leaning citizens to such an extent that he may be able to usher in a significant—generational—Leftward political realignment, beginning with the 2008 election. In 1980, Ronald Reagan helped usher in a Rightward political realignment that we are (I hope) finally nearing the end of. I think that Obama could help carry out a reverse-Reagan revolution. Republicans are dispirited and many of them are upset with Bush. Democrats are seriously motivated to vote in 2008 (just as they were motivated in 2006). And Independents seem to be leaning more and more toward the Democratic Party. With an inspirational and non-establishment nominee like Obama, I think that the Democrats could win a significant victory in 2008, potentially picking up 60 senate seats (which would make for a filibuster-proof majority). This would not just make for better policy on a range of issues, this would also—I would argue—open up a bit of breathing room for Left social movements to press their agendas forward. As I said above, I do not think that Barack Obama would be a thoroughly progressive president. I have a lot of reservations about Obama. But I think that his election could make the job of progressive activists a little bit easier. And for that reason, and because I think he is the least bad option amongst the viable candidates, I plan to vote for him in the Democratic primary.
A final comment:
As someone who campaigned for Ralph Nader in 2000, I understand the appeal of voting with your conscience. It doesn’t feel as nasty as voting in a cynical manner for the lesser of two evils. That said, I am planning, for the rest of my life, in every election that I can vote in, to cast my vote for the least reactionary viable candidate on the ballot. It is the only way of approaching voting that, upon serious reflection, I can justify to myself.