>
> Jerry Monaco writes:
> >
> > The United States has a long standing and bipartisan policy of ignoring
> > international law and of committing terrorism and supporting terrorist
> > governments and torture regimes. The policy of open terrorism goes back
> > at
> > least to the period of World War II. It doesn't matter who is in power.
> > It
> > is a policy that is unquestioned by both Democrats and Republicans.
> > Obama,
> > Clinton and McCain all support certain aspects of this policy.
> ============================
>
>
> I think the potential to restrain US imperialist policy would be enhanced
> by
> tens of millions of expectant Democrats emboldened by victory and would be
> diminished by the advent of another inaccessible Republican administration
> over which they feel they have no influence. The attributes and
> declarations
> of the candidates viewed through the prism of an election campaign is more
> incidental to the future conduct of US foreign policy.
I don't disagree in principle with what you say though in the context it is mostly confused. For instance you said earlier that "But it's clear few if any Obama supporters would knowingly, like yourself, support someone they knew was a "war criminal in the making" destined to perpetuate "atrocities, starvation and repression" - all the while pretending he was somehow, inexplicably, a lesser evil than the "worst gang of authoritarian terrorists the world has known"." But if most of Obama's supporters could understand the institutional role of the U.S. president, and that Obama is running for War-Criminal-in-Chief, then quite possibly we could supersede the ruling class parties in the first place. There might be a possibility of organizing a democratic and radical alternative to capitalist and imperialist politics outside of the ruling class parties. It is only because so many people who might otherwise be allied with radical politics are so deluded by Obama in the first place, who think somehow Obama is anti-war or anti-poverty, that it is necessary to prevent the kind of disorganization that these kind of delusions cause. So when I insist on identifying people like Obama with people like Kennedy as committed terrorists and war criminals, I am hoping to wean people from ruling class politics. I am hoping to divorce them from their delusions with charismatic leaders and the man on the white horse or the woman carrying the torch.
Let me say, I would argue just as vehemently if Edwards had caught on and he was being looked at as the anti-poverty candidate. But I do look at Obama as more dangerous than either Edwards or Clinton precisely because of his charisma. Charisma in politics is always a dangerous thing. It made both Kennedy and Reagan more dangerous and for the same reason. Charisma in politics is always disorganizing and is always frightening.
The kind of politics you are advocating is in fact the opposite of the kind of organizing we need to develop a radical mass movement. Electoral politics is usually demobilizing and aids disorganization and not the opposite. This has been the usual effect of electoral politics. There are exceptions. You speak of the enhancement of anti-imperialist politics "by tens of millions of expectant Democrats emboldened by victory". Well it is always possible but usually this kind of disillusionment leads to bitterness. Unless there are already workers and other grass-roots organizations ready to guide the disillusionment the disillusionment is as likely (I think more likely) to lead to right-wing reaction as a left-wing upsurge. There is no guarantee either way and it is a gamble.
But look at what you are doing. What you are doing is advocating disillusionment and I find this much more cynical. You are saying that the people who support Obama don't need to know what little truth we do know about how the U.S. state and corporations treat those who have little power in the world. They don't need to know that they should oppose the Afghan war and that it matters that Obama supports the Afghan war. They don't need to know that the U.S. backs murderous policies by Israel and our corporations in Latin America and that Obama is in full supports of those policies. Why? Because somehow the people who are enthusiastic about Obama will be transformed and by the election, will be "emboldened by victory", and will come to anti-imperialistic politics sometime in the future when Obama doesn't fulfill their hopes. So why won't they get sick of politics altogether and say "let the devil take the hind-most I will get what is mine" when they are betrayed by ruling class politics? This happens more often than your scenario.
And why is Obama winning "a victory." I look at an Obama victory as a defeat for oppressed people but all elections between ruling class candidates are some variety of defeat. The fact that we are unable to organize an independent non-ruling class movement makes this kind of electoral politics always and everywhere self-defeating for those of us opposed to the ruling class.
Jerry