To Sum Up:
If A and B, then C. That is how a philosophical argument works. Premise A is that Obama's policies are as bad as Bush's. Premise B is that Bush's policies were so immoral that he must be opposed at all costs. The conclusion, or C, is that Obama must be opposed at all costs.
Many progressives disagree with premise A, while conservatives disagree with premise B. However, what I'm arguing against is people that agree with both premises, and then create the conclusion that they must support Obama, by adding that premise A isn't quite true, Obama is a tiny bit better than Bush and the Republicans.
If you'd like to see what I wrote in response to a article that seemed to fit this "Obama is as bad as Bush, but, argument, read on. Otherwise, skip to the comments.
This post that will apply to some audiences more than others. Some (and some who read this) still actually believe in Obama's policies. They think that Obama's policies have been progressive thus far. I will discuss Obama's actual policies in other posts.
However, there are others, some who are liberal Democrats, and some to the left of liberal Democrats, who are dissillusioned with Obama. They see regressive policies instead of the progressive policies they thought that they were voting for.
One of the people who fall into the second group is David Michael Green. In past articles, he has mostly talked about how evil the Republicans are, and that the Democrats are the lesser of the evils. In his latest article on Common Dreams, he lists a series of Obama's policies that sound like they should have come from the Bush administration. However, several of the commenters, including me, felt that he was trying to rationalize voting for Obama in 2008, and doing it again in 2012. Here is a link to the article: Hey, Did You Hear That Democrats Won The Election? | CommonDreams.org
Many of the commenters, who supported a third party candidate, basically said "I told you so." I've certainly done that before. But I wrote something slightly different in response to this article. Here it is:
"I would like a liberal to just once, admit that it was a mistake voting for Obama. But they can't, because at the very least, they want to "vote against" a Republican in 2012.
People are afraid to leave, afraid to abandon positions they've held for so long. But I did. Back in 2004, I was a loyal Democrat supporting John Kerry. But then I started reading good websites instead of the lying New York Times, and I started to think about what it all really meant. By 2006, I was one of these disillusioned Democrats, still willing to vote for them. It was (and is) the last time. I have since realized that we have to criticize the entire economic and political system. I have realized that their aren't these rogue lunatics out there promoting fascism, but that the Republicans were working within the rules of the establishment.
It's not just my voting habits, but my political views themselves that have changed radically. I was a liberal, I am now a radical, a socialist.
And I am sorry, indeed ashamed, both of the positions I've held in the past, and the fact that I supported John Kerry and when I became old enough, voted for Democrats.
There, was that so hard?"
I can type and think pretty fast, and therefore, I wrote a large response in a few minutes. But you do not have to do that in the comments, some comments are a phrase or a sentence. So feel free to comment on my posts!
See, now that was directed at me. And I take offense! lol. But in all seriousness, as bad as Obama is turning out to be, the real question is what do we do? I'll admit I thought Obama was better than he's turning out to be, but looking back, did we really have a choice? We're caught in a pretty terrible place, a place where we're forced to choose the lesser of two evils. But not voting for Obama isn't going to do anything, it might just make things worse. What we need is what Obama was supposed to be, a leader that has the charisma to climb to the top, to rally people, and then actually change stuff. But I guess that doesn't exist. You're calling for revolution, but how? In a country in which half of us are blinded religious right wing lunatics, how are we supposed to change things? What circumstance has to happen? Or do we make due with what we have, and hope that maybe this country slowly starts to move left like europe has.
ReplyDeleteSorry its taken me so long to respond. And thanks for the comments!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think Obama simply isn't the lesser of the evils at this point. Even I'm a little surprised at how reactionary he's really been. He's continued almost all of Bush's policies (torture, detaining people without trial) and his health care plan may be worse than anything Republicans could offer, because this plan will force people to buy a product (health insurance) instead of giving them the right to health care.
I think we're in the worst place now with a Democrat though, because no one is raising a fuss. Obama may be able to cut social services, like medicare, and social security that the people would never let Bush touch.
As for these right wing lunatics, I know people keeping throwing out stats about how half the country doesn't believe in evolution. But I think what I have found even through the limited number of people I've talked to, is that most people simply oppose both parties, know that politics is corrupt, and vote for the lesser of the evils (which in some people's minds is the Republicans).
Now I'm responding to Glenn's post, he said: "In a country in which half of us are blinded religious right wing lunatics," actually Glenn that isn't close to being true. The right wing lunatic fringe are just that at this point, a fringe. They are dying off (thank goodness)to be replaced hopefully by more open-minded young people (especially on social issues) and an eventual majority by people of color, also a plus in my book! So maybe the Democratic party will be to the right and a Progressive Party will be to the left and the Republicans will go by the way of the Whigs, etc.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I don't agree with either comment. Why? Well, on the one hand, it is undoubtably true that 1. Voting Republican doesn't mean being part of the "religious right," and 2. When we realize how many non voters there are, those who vote Republican are a minority (as are those who vote Democratic).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would say that while racism may be challenged by demographics, people tend to otherwise be to the left regardless of race. Even the right wingers are to the left in certain ways, on certain issues. The division itself is artificial, Pat Robertson is supposed to matter more than AIG.
And of course, I would never recommend a "progressive" party. This is an illusion. Such a party would be like a European leftist parties that support big business, and continues to move to the right. It would be like starting with the Democratic Party all over again. How many times should history repeat before we realize we need a revolution?