‘Progressives for Obama' Fool Themselves
by BAR executive editor
Glen Ford
"Leftists attempted to
impose themselves on an electoral campaign where they were not wanted."
The "Progressives
for Obama" project was always doomed, largely because the candidate was
determined to pull the rug from under it at his earliest opportunity. That time
has arrived, in such dramatic fashion that even the corporate media recognize
that Obama's sharp Right turns are irreversible and much more clearly reflect
his essential political nature.
Obama chuckled last
week at the very thought of having been "tagged as being on the Left" - and
then unceremoniously jettisoned those Leftists that had taken it upon
themselves to claim him as one of their own. In case "the Left" didn't get the
message, Obama wrapped the insulting rejection in a Zanesville, Ohio speech
announcing his "faith-based" appeal to Reagan Democrats and Bush Republicans.
But the most important reason that "Progressives for Obama"
should have never existed is its utter lack of content. Leftists attempted to
impose themselves on an electoral campaign where they were not wanted,
and yet persisted in identifying with an organization over which they had no
control, no ability to provide content. It was a game of make-believe, that has
run its illogical course. Frankly, the project can also be seen as an act of
opportunism, an attempt to graft the Left onto a corporate campaign that at
some point must eject it like a foreign body.
If it were just that lonely Lefties, tired of fighting in a
thoroughly corporate-saturated political culture, simply wanted to hitch a ride
with the younger Obamite crowd, they might be forgiven. But these veteran
progressives deployed their reputations to spread falsehoods that they knew
to be untrue. They provided a veneer of progressive credibility to a candidate
who was nothing of the kind.
We were subjected to ideological nonsense such as: the
Obama campaign is inherently progressive because it has excited millions of new
potential voters. Therefore, progressives must publicly identify with Obama,
take care to be seen as allies, and never do or say anything that might harm
his candidacy. We were even told that the excitement surrounding Obama
constituted a "movement." But of course, there was never a social movement that
was devoid of content, and excitement is a politically neutral quality that can
be generated by the Left or the Right - or in wholly apolitical circumstances.
"They provided a veneer of progressive credibility to a
candidate who was nothing of the kind."
If popularity and excitement are hallmarks of progressivism,
then "American Idol" is a valuable progressive institution. (In reality, it is
a great diversion, and to that extent, harmful.)
This illusionary progressivism - as vapid as the candidate,
himself - posits a movement without regard to content, objective direction, or
a even simple analysis of who profits and who pays the campaign's bills and
determines its ultimate goals and priorities.
Remember that Hip Hop was also called a "movement" - and
some continue to insist that it still is. It is true that Hip Hop contained a
great deal of progressive political content during the heyday of the late
Eighties-early Nineties, before the major labels bought out the independents.
Today, commercial Hip Hop is saturated with anti-social lyrics and themes; its
content is overwhelmingly non-progressive, although the musical form remains
much the same as during the genre's progressive era. Content is everything.
What "Progressives for Obama" have collectively done, is to
allow Obama to "pass" for what he is not: a progressive. It was a foolish project
from the start, since it required the candidate's ongoing collaboration. How
could the organizers have imagined that a politician like Obama, who takes such
great care to speak the language of ambiguity (a form of lying), would feel an
obligation to protect progressives from ultimate embarrassment of their own
making?
Bill Fletcher, the former TransAfrica president and current
executive editor of BlackCommentator.com, was a founder of "Progressives for
Obama." Although Fletcher declared that he was not an Obama supporter on January
17 of this year, by March 24 he and
others were hallucinating a "movement."
"Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt
that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself
ever imagined."
If the candidate isn't aware if the nature of the
"movement" he is leading, then who is? If the "movement" that Obama is
supposedly at the head of is essentially "progressive," does that mean Obama is
a closet progressive - so closeted it is a secret to himself? Or are there
progressive Rasputins furtively whispering progressive thoughts in the ears of
the candidate and his key people?
"Not only are Hayden's and Fletcher's peculiar
‘movements' without political content - they emerge like magic."
Apparently, all that is necessary to have a movement, is to
declare one.
Tom Hayden, another "Progressives for Obama" founder, also imagines a kind of donut
movement, a progressive circle with a non-progressive middle, where the
candidate stands:
"I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the
movement supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. The excitement
among African-Americans and young people, the audacity of their hope, still
holds the promise of a new era of social activism. The force of their rising
expectations, I believe, could pressure a President Obama in a progressive
direction and also energize a new wave of social movements."
Nothing of that nature will occur, because Hayden and
other progressives are not organizing to make it occur. They are too concerned
with remaining "for" Obama. Not only are Hayden's and Fletcher's peculiar
"movements" without political content - they emerge like magic, requiring none
of the hard work of organizing.
And just how were those popular "rising expectations" that
Hayden speaks of supposed to express themselves? Progressives waited until it
was far too late to bring these "expectations" - to whatever extent they exist
- to bear on the candidate. Obama coasted through the primaries with virtually
no dissent from his loyal progressives, and now sees his way clear to publicly
dismiss them, so as to never again be "tagged as being on the Left."
"Obama's slickness is
purposeful - he means to fool people!"
Obama now challenges his critics on the Left to go back
and read his previous policy pronouncements. He is on firm ground, here. The
folks who were misreading his Iraq, NAFTA and other positions were largely
progressives who were pretending that Obama was one of them. Writers such as
Paul Street, Kevin Alexander Gray and our own BAR crew have understood Obama
all along: that he is an imperialist, a corporatist, and opposes measures
designed to redress specific Black grievances in the U.S. society. It is the
"Progressives for Obama" who have tended to distort his record.
Is Obama a liar? Of course he is. As a gifted orator, a
superb word-smith, Obama's slickness is purposeful - he means to fool people!
However, so did many of the progressives that supported Obama, knowing
perfectly well that his carefully chosen words were designed to hide more than
they revealed. Such progressives lent their reputations to discourage criticism
of Obama from other Leftists, or from the "expectant" rank and file. Therefore,
they are guilty of offenses against truth.
For straight language and unambiguously progressive
politics, support Cynthia McKinney, who is expected to win the Green Party
presidential nomination, this week in Chicago.
There is little chance that the courageous former congresswoman from Georgia
will win the White House, but she won't lie to you, and from her truly
progressive campaign a real "movement" may grow.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.
This week’s featured author is Biko Mandela Gray. Gray is Assistant Professor of Religion at Syracuse University. His book is Black Life Matter: Blackness, Religion, and the Subject.
China laid out 12 principles which could be a means of ending the conflict in Ukraine. The principles are based in international law and the belief in peaceful co-existence among nations,…
The people of Peru continue to protest the coup which ousted President Pedro Castillo Terrones. Clau O'Brien Moscoso reports from Peru.
The U.S. and Canada are using Caribbean and Latin nations to act as fronts, willing dupes, in their plans for the next occupation of Haiti. Travis Ross explains in the second of a three-part report.
The attack by Israeli settlers on the town of Hawwara was no aberration. It was just one example of the violence inherent in an apartheid state.
