> I would disagree: I think that there's no political motion without
> political independence.
Or so the sectarians would have us believe...
Look, you can make your own personal decisions, can't you? So, why don't you start with yourself, since you're obviously so independent-minded, politically speaking. So, go ahead, move. Politically. And keep us posted. I don't mean to put you down. As I said, I'm all for trying different approaches and seeing what sticks.
> If the left is going to support Obama, its going to have to tone-down
> or drop any demands that Obama opposes, since simply bringing up
> those issues would expose the gap between Obama and mass sentiment.
> If there were a high-profile rally for single-payer health care in
> the last week of October (as an arbitrary example) that would be a
> real embarrassment to Obama, so no one is calling for one. Concretely,
> political motion is dampened so as to not inconvenience the democrats.
If the left (or a portion thereof) is to support Obama, it's because it has decided that the alternatives are worse. In other words, it's because (1) dropping out of electoral politics or (2) nominating their own leftist candidate or (3) consciously and overtly supporting McCain are options with a higher political opportunity cost for the left. So, whatever the left chooses to do, there's a tradeoff.
Supporting Obama means helping the guy get elected. Period. That's all there is to it. For now. Yes, it has a cost. But it is, hopefully, a well pondered cost. Which doesn't mean it's a safe bet. Politics is a trade in power. If you bring little power to a political transaction (implied or explicit), you cannot expect to wind up with all the power. It's a bet based on expectations, which depend on probabilities. Nobody can say in advance what's going to happen in the future. Nobody knows for sure what the ultimate consequences of one's actions or omissions will be. We are always gambling. Such is life.
> The experience of the anti-war movement in 2004 really confirms this.
> How could the anti-war movement have both endorsed Kerry and continued
> to oppose the war? Verbally it managed to, but concretely, in terms
> of its actual actions, it totally dissolved itself for the convenience
> of the Kerry campaign.
What you seem to call the antiwar movement, the marches in Washington, etc., was a means to an end. It was the tactical arsenal chosen for a given period. The means of people strongly opposed to the war to try and stop the war at the time. But the war didn't stop. People found out that stopping the war required, you know, that the president, under sufficient pressure from citizens, other branches of the government, etc., or motu proprio decide to order the troops to return home, etc. So, we found that we need to exercise sufficient pressure.
We need more power. Or give up.
But people didn't give up. The opposition to the war didn't dissolve.
For good or ill, it changed its tactical arsenal. In 2004, it voted for Kerry. The election was lost. People have *continued* taking action against the war outside of electoral politics. And, in 2006 again in electoral politics. They helped get a bunch of Democrats in Congress. That, in and by itself, hasn't yet achieved the intended goal either. Have people given up? I doubt it. What are people choosing to do now? Not one or two cats, but crowds who are against the war. The bulk are supporting Obama! Are they paying a price by choosing this electoral vehicle and not others? You bet. No free lunch in politics.
> There is certainly room for flexibility in approach. Arguing that the
> anti-war movement stay "independent" is a lot more productive than
> arguing that it endorse some 3rd party and denounce Obama, which would
> only isolate the movement and split it internally. Arguing against
> voting for Obama may or may not get you anywhere, depending on your
> audience, but arguing that building the movements is more productive
> than building the Obama campaign is certainly a useful argument, and
> its one thats likely to convince people. These tactical choices are
> what will determine if "you['re just] waging the finger from the
> sidelines" or doing something useful.
But people can continue the protests, the organizing, actions against the war. People in St. Paul did just that during the RNC. Explain to me why participating in protests, organizing all sorts of actions against the war, etc. and voting for politicians who may be more likely to stop the war are mutually exclusive?
> The real "paralysis," IMO, comes from supporting someone who has
> interests hostile to your own.
Well, there are different degrees of hostility. To paraphrase Trotsky, if one guy is trying to kill you with a loaded gun against your head and another guy is trying to poison you little by little with some toxic substance mixed in your food, disarm the one with the gun first.