In the asylum that is American politics, beware a candidate like Barack Obama when he is lauded for moving to “the center” — because usually that means he is drifting away from it. Over the last month, the Democratic presidential nominee has backed a measure to permit warrantless wiretapping and protect telecom companies when they violate customers’ privacy; sent conflicting signals… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (7)Page 1 of 1 pagesMost politicians…are geographically, financially and socially isolated from the blood-and-guts consequences of today’s two wars — the one in Iraq and the one on the middle class.
YES!...smiling anchormen, correspondents and congressmen follow the Big Lie theory of indoctrination
YES!These voices of the status quo do not want the status quo challenged.
YES!...these are the methods of modern propaganda ...one with an underlying goal: keeping the real lunatics running the asylum.
and — YES!I think we’ve also been numbed by the election marathon.
To the old adage —If you can’t Dazzle them with Data, Baffle them with B*ll Sh*t
another has been added — Buffalo them with Boredom.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM Sirota’s article reiterates an admirable effort to make us rethink uncritical notions of “centrism.” His logic and evidence, however, should not be uncritically accepted.
Sirota rightly criticizes mainstream media coverage placing recent Obama policy statements as efforts “‘to appeal to the center of the electorate.’”
Responding to such media coverage, Sirota writes that “empirical data proves ‘the center of the electorate’ is exactly the opposite.” To support this claim, he cites poll results on three important issues.
Instead of writing “empirical data proves,” it would have been more honest to write, “statistical data suggests.” Yet Sirota goes on to claim that “the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is.”
This raises three serious questions: (1) Why should any serious progressive accept Sirota’s evidence as “undebatable”?
(2) Why should any serious progressive assume that there is any such thing as “the center of public opinion” in the first place? (3) To prove his case, isn’t Sirota borrowing “empirical data” from sources that Sirota himself labels disreputable?As a serious progressive, I would appreciate answers to these questions.
Posted by francis frank on Jul 19, 2008 at 3:46 AM Sitora makes good points, even if he uses sensationalist language to prove them. If we’re going to be nit-picky about our definitions, perhaps we could define what it means to be a “serious progressive.”
Either way, Sitora’s point is that as Obama moves further and further away from his original platforms, he’s disenfranchising the same electorate that pushed him past Clinton in the primaries. Clinton’s “centerist” politics had obvious undertones of placating to corporate interests in US politics. Originally, Obama’s appeal was founded in his politics which seemed to lie beyond the narrow scope of American business. As we can see now, however, Obama is the same as all the other politicians in this country, who prizes winning over principles. His shift is neither away from the left, or toward the center, or whatever… but rather a move toward campaign money.
Personally, I’m strongly considering the Green Party, an organization that seems to actually embrace politics that mirror my own. I know they won’t win, but I’d be able to sleep at night knowing I voted actively for someone I can support, than blindly for someone who seemed “less awful” than the other guy. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and frankly I’m sick of evil-ness in our politics.
Posted by diciteco on Jul 21, 2008 at 1:48 PM Diciteco: Fair enough about my use of the term “serious progressive”; upon reflection, that could mean a variety of things. I need to think about it.
That said, some topics I would like to discuss:
(1) Clearly Obama is a politician, and a skillful one. Clearly Obama has alienated a variety of erstwhile allies over the course of his political career. (The New Yorker article gives an interesting bio on his Chicago roots.) I am not saying it’s right to “prize winning [or money] over principles,” but should it be surprising?
(2) Which electorate is Obama disenfranchising, exactly?
(3) The Green Party is worthy of serious consideration and support.
(4) “The lesser of two evils is still evil”? My friend, you pose the problem of a quantitative versus a qualitative distinction. Are you suggesting that there would be no sigificant differences between the goals of a McCain vs. an Obama Presidency? If so, you see McC and O’B as six of one, half a dozen of the other. I happen to differ…
(5) Sirota supports morally sound positions. The way he makes his points, however—and yes, I am “nit-picky”—is not particularly good. He preaches to the choir and hopes that the unconverted will suddenly join his church.
Posted by francis frank on Jul 22, 2008 at 1:52 AM Diciteco and Francis Frank,
I voted for John B. Anderson in 1980 ($0.50/gal gas tax for alt. energy) and Perot (against NAFTA) and instead of a lousy T-shirt, I got lousy government business (favoritism) -as-usual.
I am sick and tired of our entire elective system and tired voting against the one I see as the worse choice.
My decision this time will be made on the earliest impressions of the two finalists — everything now is simply spin to gather votes from various interest groups.
For a definition of “Centrist” I would look to the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Neither candidate’s proposals need to be any more specific than what was offered there, since in reality they can only do what congress proposes and passes on for a signature.
It would be refreshing to vote for someone who has the general welfare in mind instead of one pandering to all the “special interests” —piecemeal.
What the Heck
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 23, 2008 at 1:10 PM What The Heck:
Thank you for giving me some research to do.
I say this honestly, as the electoral commitments—and disillusions—that you describe fall both within and without my frame of reference.
Personally, I suspect that most modern presidential candidates have found ways to successfully project a mass image of “general welfare” at the same time that they have been quite beholden to those “special interests” that made them nominatable in the first place.
For what it’s worth, here are three books that come to mind:
Mike Royko’s “Boss”
WEB DuBois’s “Black Reconstruction”
Marx’s “The 18th Brumaire”Such readings have informed my awareness of how American politics work.
May I ask for any recommended reading?
Posted by francis frank on Jul 24, 2008 at 2:47 AM Francis Frank,
Of the three books you listed, “Boss,” is the only one I’ve read and so long ago I remember very little, but Royco was a favorite for me — ideas wrapped in incisive humor.
I read a lot — mostly biographies, history and lately, economics. Since NAFTA was pending (and my business was evaporating) I have read a good deal of globalization theory and opinion, both pro and con.
A list…
Recent Bios: John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Gen. George Marshall, IKE—An American Hero, and currently reading the Memoirs of U. S. Grant
History: “1776,” David McCullough, “1812, “Walter Borneman; : “Pentagon,” Steve Vogel
Political: “A Time to Fight,” Senator James Webb, VA(D); “Eyewitness to Power,” David Gergen
The war in Iraq: “Masters of Chaos,” Linda Robinson; “The Crisis of Islam,” Bernard Lewis; “Operation Homecoming,” Andrew Carroll; “The West’s Last Chance,” Tony Blankley; “Cobra 2,” Michael Gordon & Bernard Trainor
Economy: “A Journey Through Economic Time,” John Kenneth Galgraith, “Hot Commodities,” Jimmy Rogers; “The Black Swan,” Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Globalization: “Global Squeeze,” Richard C. Longworth; “The Lexus and the Olive Tree,” and “The World is Flat,” Thomas L. Friedman; “Independently Wealthy,” Robert Goodman; “A Future Perfect,” by Micklethwait and Woolridge; “Maestro,” Bob Woodward; “Who will tell the people?” William Greider; “Perfectly Legal,” David Cay Johnston; “Running on Empty,” Peter Peterson; “Selling Ben Cheaver,” Benjamin Cheaver, (Son of John Cheaver, novelist); — I highly recommend this one — “Nickel and Dimed,” Barbara Ehrenreich; What is it like for a middle-aged woman trying to get by on low end employment. 200 pages showing a world of anxiety, embarrassment and futility. A personal account of American citizens trapped in a world of globalization.
A lot to pick from, but there will be no test.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 25, 2008 at 5:53 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Sirota
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
