Reality In The To Criticize Or Not To Criticize Debate

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 15:46


I'm not going write anymore about the "to criticize" or "not to criticize" debate that, in certain quarters of the blogosphere, still seems to have some legs. While it is an interesting abstraction, it also ignores two key realities:

  1. Many progressives will continue to criticize Barack Obama in public between now and Election Day.
  2. Barack Obama will receive more grassroots, progressive activist support than any other Democratic candidate in history.

No matter what we say, both the activism and the criticism will flow. Both are unavoidable, necessary and healthy We would be a pretty lame grassroots movement if we managed to quiet criticism, forge consensus or sit on their hands en masse. I would simply suggest that if you are interested in generating activism for Obama, that you should encourage activist rather than criticizing criticism. Because, in the end, telling someone to SYFPH really isn't a very effective call to action.

And really, there isn't much left to say about this debate than that.  
Chris Bowers :: Reality In The To Criticize Or Not To Criticize Debate

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Reality In The To Criticize Or Not To Criticize Debate | 27 comments
WWOD? (0.00 / 0)
If progressive activists don't care for Obama's positions, then they should take the Obama option: vote "present."

I don't really understand #2.  Who have progressive, grassroots activists been voting for in the past?  Other then Nader in 2000, I get the idea that the Democratic candidate has taken close to 100% of their vote.  I imagine that the percentage will be similar this year as in prior years.  If you want to change that, then don't vote for Obama.  It isn't that hard.

Now, perhaps there is "more" grassroots, activist support for Obama because apparently anyone who has donated $10 online or shown up at a caucus is suddenly an "activist." In that case, #2 is an accident of redefinition of the terms.  

It's not about voting for him or not voting for him (4.00 / 3)
it's about tryng to encourage him to not stay stupid shit that we hate.
[ Parent ]
Words lead to action (0.00 / 0)
If Obama says "stupid shit we hate" then he will eventually back himself into a corner where he will have to do "stupid shit we hate."

The question is whether you're going to do anything about it, or not.

You can withhold money.  You can withhold your vote.  You can complain.  You can give him your money, your vote, and keep your mouth shut, and hope that he will be comfortable lying to get elected, as long as the lies benefit you.

If you aren't willing to withhold your vote, and you don't have the ability to impact Obama financially, then you have nothing but complaining, which won't be very effective.

[ Parent ]
This is dodging the issue. (0.00 / 0)
Either it is good or it isn't to publicly criticize Obama from the left between now and November 4th, and with reasoned debate it is possible to change peoples' opinions and actions on this point.  So saying "it's gonna happen anyway" is just dodging the issue.  If you think it is useful to criticize Obama, then make the case.  If not, then make the reverse case.  If you don't care, then just say you don't care.  But saying that there isn't much reason to talk about the issue is just dodging the issue, not putting it to rest.  
The issue is insoluable (4.00 / 2)
The debate can't be settled. It just can't be. Call that dodging the issue, but you will never, ever reach consensus in this debate. It will go on, forever.

Call it dodging, but it is reality.  

[ Parent ]
Sure, we won't reach consensus... (0.00 / 0)
but when do we ever reach consensus on matters of strategy of this magnitude?  

What I am trying to say is that, if you have an opinion on this matter, you should voice it, since your perspective is valued in the progressive blogosphere.  You might actually change people's minds, and thus change people's actions.  

As David says below, come September, the proggressive blogosphere probably won't say much of anything bad about Obama.  If you think it would be useful for us to keep the heat on, you could make the case for us doing so now, when it might make a difference.    

[ Parent ]
Not to mention that it's really really patronizing (4.00 / 1)
To tell someone, 'yeah, I understand what you're saying, but I know what's really important, and you should just sut up, because you're messing with my priorities."

Or even worse, "You just don't get it, buddy, this is all part of a bigger plan that you don't really understand, but will become apparent."

It's the same crap people have used for years and years to try and shut up the feminists and the civil rights advocates.  "I know what's best for both me and you far better than you do, so just trust me and shut the hell up."

Don't see the analogy (0.00 / 0)
I reall don't see the analogy. Pointing out that Obama will receive more grassroots support than any other Demcorat in history is true. It is also true that people will continue to criticize Obama.

I don't see the anlogy you are making.  

[ Parent ]
I agree with you there--it's true, he will get his support (0.00 / 0)
I just find this "don't criticize Obama from the left" argument to be really patronizing, especially since it will likely have minimal effect on his grasroots support.
[ Parent ]
Basically, I was agreeing with the OP and giving another reason why the (0.00 / 0)
argument about 'criticize or no?' is counterproductive.
[ Parent ]
I half-disagree (4.00 / 2)
on the first point. I mean, it's of course true, progressives (loosely defined) will continue to criticize him, especially at the leftier outlets--Black Agenda Report, Naderite enclaves, a few intrepid people in the netroots--and I, for one will be happy to blast him when he does stupid shit, but from the convention on, you won't see explosions of anger like this in the netroots.

This was a result of Obama's unnecessarily doing a complete reversal on an issue of to many interest here, and doing so, moreover, by using right-wing talking points. It was also the release of pent up frustration which had been held in check while he beat Hillary. Perhaps some buyer's remorse as well. I suspect people are getting it our their system before climbing into the tank in August.

In the fall it'll be All McCain-is-an-ass all the time.

Unless, of course, Obama is worse than we have reason to believe at this point, and does something like support an attack on Iran.


All I would say to people is... (0.00 / 0)
...criticize all you want but please, please work to elect Barack Obama. It is just too damn important to do anything else.
Nonsense! (4.00 / 2)
Obama isn't hurting for support.  If his antics turn your stomach, join a campaign for someone like Darcy Burner.  There are lots of options out there.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Oh come on... (4.00 / 1)
...don't you know that by posting that you've just helped elect John McCain?  I have as well, I guess.
[ Parent ]
That's a sort of blackmail. (4.00 / 1)
If he wants the center, and not the fringes, we'd only hurt him if we'd actually tried to help him now, would it?

Sure the court and other set pieces that depend on this election will always trump most other concerns but if that becomes a sort of blackmail make sure one crap policy after another is swallowed by the progressive base his political support will end the day after the election. Good luck to him then.

Of course the importance of the election is only proportional to the relative distance between the candidates. If Obama takes a hard right, the election will become less and less important.

[ Parent ]
That's what I don't get. (4.00 / 1)
Somehow we are expected to believe that

a) everyone hates dirty fucking hippies, therefore
b) Obama must run away from dirty fucking hippies if he wants to win, and
c) when the dirty fucking hippies call attention to the fact that Obama is running away from them, it hurts Obama's chances of winning

Those can't all three be true.

If everyone hates us as much as The Village says, then it helps Obama when we complain. Otherwise what was the point of triangulating against us?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
hogwash (4.00 / 1)
And as a clarification, I'm reasonably positive about Obama right now. I just detest calls to make sure that bad behavior doesn't result in consequences. It's giving away complete control. It's giving somebody a blank check to be as bad and damaging as they want as long as somebody else is worse.

It's facilitating a race to the bottom. People who do that sort of thing deserve the leaders they get.

[ Parent ]
Amen Brother! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
This is sort of tangential (4.00 / 2)
What I don't understand is how people can claim to know what Obama is really thinking.  I've lost track of how many times I've read something like "he knows this is wrong" or "he has a plan" or "he's made some kind of deal" or something like that.  It's like the guy is a blank slate upon which some people are writing their own wishful thinking of what a progressive candidate would really be doing.
This is avoiding the issue of how to influence Obama and the Dem leadership (0.00 / 0)
Conspiracy,

With respect, I think you are making a circular argument.   I think you are starting from the premise that its important to elect Obama from which you then conclude that it is therefore important to elect him.    Could you please clarify your assumptions and also why anyone should vote for Obama if he basically intends to continue GWB's putrid polices but give much, much better speeches?

Seriously, based on the last few weeks I really have to ask: what does Obama have to offer except great speechifying and the DLC's failed policies?  How can anyone begin a process of rational analysis about the best course of action until this is clarified?

As to the other point, that Obama will receive more progressive support than anybody in history (apparently witout actually supporting progressive policies): I don't really see the point.  By and large progressives and liberals have been voting solidly Democratic since FDR. I presume we would all vote for the party's nominee if it were Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson or Clinton.   I don't see Obama reaching out to liberals now that he's got the nomination and is practically running unopposed. And why should he since "we've nowhere else to go".  Are you saying that he's attracting new, liberals using DLC and Republication talking points?

Returning to the point we we all started a couple of day ago: If we can't influence him on something as important and basic as standing up for the Constitution and civil liberties, what the point of supporting him?  

Shut up and let us insult you? (0.00 / 0)
I actually don't have a problem with that.  Its the lies that I don't like.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
Where is this debate? (0.00 / 0)
The thrust of the comments here at least and at the one thread I read on FDL has been very negative. I was trying to catch up with the DOJ IG report so I have not been to Kos since Thursday.

I was really here to tell Paul that someone on the Obama campaign is aware of the issues in his post because Obama is coming to Independence, MO tomorrow.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

sy (0.00 / 0)
fph

he he.

Reality In The To Criticize Or Not To Criticize Debate | 27 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox