Solomon’s article calls on us to “dispense with illusions” and understand that the “changes worth believing in are the ones that social movements can make possible.”
The Nation magazine letter seems to be just that---a letter born out of illusions.
No one understands the need to dispense with illusions more than Sunsara Taylor and she points out in her response article to the magazine’s letter, “The signatories to this letter are an impressive list of writers and intellectuals, a number of whom are respected tremendously as voices of conscience. But, this letter, and its whole logic and method, is very bad. Whatever their intent, those who put their names on it are wielding their influence to get people to join them in a deadly exercise in self-delusion.”
Furthermore, Sunsara Taylor challenges the idea that Obama has put forth a vision of a better future proclaiming that his vision is “a vision of massive escalation—to the tune of 10,000 more troops!—of the war in Afghanistan, a willingness to unilaterally use military force in Pakistan, and a refusal to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran.”
She goes on to show a proper amount of outrage at the idea that Obama has been “cautious and centrist":
What exactly is “cautious and centrist” about voting for Bush’s FISA law sanctioning massive domestic wire-tapping and retroactively protecting those who violated the rights of millions to privacy? What is “cautious and centrist” about giving a bloodthirsty speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) that essentially writes Israel a blank check and threatens Iran with war? What is “cautious and centrist” about blaming Black fathers, in his infamous Father’s Day speech, for the way this system has written off a whole generation of youth, unable and unwilling to provide jobs or decent education or any kind of future at all, and instead funneling 1 in 9 Black men into jail?! What is “cautious and centrist” about getting to the right of George Bush’s Supreme Court and arguing for even wider use of the death penalty? What is “cautious and centrist” about promising to expand Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative?!
If all this is “cautious and centrist,” I’d really hate to see “cynical and fascist”!
Taylor’s writing is a warning shot fired across the bow of a ship progressives are sailing into rocky waters that potentially could have dire consequences for progressives supporting Obama if these progressive leaders fail to confront reality.
Taylor's article rightfully illuminates why Obama never will read this letter with the intent of considering the content of it. Therefore, we must dispense with illusions.
And so, over the course of this election, MoveOn has stifled the progressive movement, Obama has found 25,000 supporters to be not important enough to respond to meaningfully and respectfully, and progressive leaders with the help of The Nation have written a letter assuming it might prevent Obama from further shifting to the center or right in this election.
Progressive attempts to rein in Obama have faltered and unfortunately, in the past month Obama has spearheaded a move to insert offshore drilling in a bill that will supposedly confront our energy crisis.
Why has this happened? Because Obama has said he would support it if supporting offshore drilling would prevent deadlock on energy policy.
To all those who say he is just saying things to get elected and we should let it go, this is proof that we should not. It also shows that Obama, as a leader, has the potential to respond to Republican Party tantrums like the one put on in the House Chamber demanding a vote on offshore drilling as Congress adjourned for vacation favorably in the future.
In the next article, I will propose what to do to leverage Obama so that he does not take our energy and power for granted.
For now, I ask:
Is it possible for progressives to come together and leverage Obama? Do progressives possess the fortitude to take such an action?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
