Revolution [View all]

[H2O Man]

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
-- John Lennon; Revolution; 1968


Rhetorical Question: “Why should I vote for Barack Obama on Tuesday?”

I have stated several times over the years that I have participated on this forum that I am a Malcolm X Democrat. This is not intended to imply that Minister Malcolm, even in the last year of his life on earth, when he became more involved in politics than the Nation of Islam had previously allowed for, was a registered member of the Democratic Party. He wasn’t. However, his political activity included supporting democratic politicians, such as Adam Clayton Powell; working with the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party leaders; and advocating voter registration.

I am a registered member of the Democratic Party. Being a registered Democrat does not prevent me from breaking bread with a wide range of people belonging to the Democratic Left. And the Democratic Left, while having some overlap with the Democratic Party, is distinct.

But what, some may be asking, does all this business about rhetorical questions, and the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Left, and the late “angriest black man in America” have to do with Tuesday’s election contest, which features perhaps the least angry man in the nation versus a pseudo-human corporate entity? Is this merely the nonsensical ramblings of an increasingly out-of-touch, semi-senile, forum fool? Let’s take a closer look.

In Malcolm’s day, his opposition frequently tried to marginalize his voiced opinions by claiming that he engaged in rhetoric. As if rhetoric, per say, is a bad thing. Malcolm would, of course, point out that the word “rhetoric” comes from a word that meant the finest form of teaching. Indeed, Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” necessary for the rational grasp of political issues. Indeed, rhetoric is -- in its most proper sense -- the method used to teach those who are less well-informed about a given issue, with the goal of motivating them to take the correct action needed.

The Democratic Party of current times includes a wide array of people; these include, from left to right: progressives, liberals, moderates, and conservatives. For the sake of this discussion, and because the intent of the Democratic Underground’s early membership was primarily composed of these two groups, we will consider the progressives and liberals. In using the correct definitions, “liberals” tend to view the imperfect political machinery as in need of fine-tuning, while progressives tend to advocate the major restructuring of that machine. Individuals can, of course, be a blend of these two definitions. A good example might be to consider that, while working specifically for Civil Rights, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was engaged in liberal activity: he was seeking to gain access to the American Dream for black citizens. When by 1967 King had openly tied the horrors of the war in Vietnam to the wide-spread poverty in America that degraded the lives of people of all colors, he was advocating a progressive program to restructure the nation.

When we examine the on-going debates and arguments on this forum, involving good people who fully support President Barack Obama’s re-election, and good people who do not share the same passionate feelings about the President, much of that conflict is rooted in the differences between liberal and progressive outlooks. Is Barack Obama a superior human being than Willard Romney? Yes, of course he is. But has President Obama served in a manner that deserves everyone’s unqualified support? The answer to that may well be different among good and decent individuals who participate on this forum.

I’m a progressive Democrat. Among the many things that I believe requires a deep and wide-spread structural change in this country is the current economic system of “vulture capitalism.” That does not mean that I am opposed to free enterprise. It does mean that I am opposed to the perverse form of corporate socialism, that provides comfort to the opulent rich, by crushing the middle and lower economic classes. Malcolm, by no coincidence, taught that the American economic elite were once a mighty eagle, capable of taking any and every resource it desired from around the globe -- but which had turned into a nasty vulture, that dined upon the poor of this nation.

I advocate the idea of people at the grass roots level transforming our nation into a Constitutional Democracy. This is not romantic yearning of a return to a yesterday that exists only in my imagination. Rather, it is an understanding that the basic concepts of the U.S. Constitution -- including the additions that have been made to it -- tend to be solid. All efforts to rebuild our society should rest upon that foundation.

For many, many years, as documented in Arthur Schlesinger’s important book, “The Imperial Presidency,” the majority of presidents have sought to claim more and more power for their office. They do so primarily by talking about external threats to our safety, and by engaging in warfare (declared or undeclared). Obviously, there has been cooperation lent by either sick or weak members of both parts of Congress, from Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “red scare,” to the recent spinelessness of the passing of the Patriot Act. Both, of course, intended to limit the rights of citizens in this country.

The current focus of the Republican Party, being led by Romney and Paul Ryan, is the further denial of Constitutional Rights to a wider and wider segment of our society. The best illustration I can think of is their intense interest on denying women the right to control their own bodies. It’s not only about abortion: it includes access to birth control and health care. And there are literally hundreds of other issues, all of which overlap. Thus, while I view Barack Obama as an individual who flirted with progressive views as a teenager, and who was employed as a liberal community organizer as a young man, and who now spans the liberal-moderate-conservative parts of the Democratic Party, I recognize that is represents a totally superior option than Mitt Romney. If nothing else, his nominees to the federal courts -- including but not limited to the U.S. Supreme Court -- will keep open the most essential door for providing us with a fighting chance of establishing social justice. A Romney presidency, on the other hand, would slam that door shut.

Peace,
H2O Man