Even Howard Zinn (sort of) endorses Obama

[DroppinScience]

If you know anything about Zinn, you'd know that he's hardly a fan of the two-party system occupied by the GOP and Democrats and espouses the views of those historically on the margins of society.

However, I've been watching his views closely for this election... and while he's hardly enamored with Obama, he does see him as even significantly different enough from McCain to make him matter.

Here's what I find most interesting: even though he's a fan of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, he finds when it comes to the voting booth, voting for a third party is futile, at least in this day and age.

Some of this is profiled in a recent radio interview:

http://uprisingradio.org/audio/2008_08_22_zinn.mp3

His view is that people like Nader and McKinney would be better served by leading citizens' movements to put pressure on someone like Obama to actually be a progressive politician outside of elections. This is similar to outside pressure from voices like Norman Thomas in the '30s who pushed FDR in the right direction for his New Deal programs.

These are things rarely (if at all) discussed in the mainstream media. I'd be interested in hearing your views, particularly those who are more inclined to back third party candidates than either of the major parties (I'm looking in your direction, sazi).

[yeahwho]

Those are the very things I've been talking about all along. I love Dennis Kucinich and his "Wake Up" six minute talk sums up many of the reasons I find him to be a vibrant exciting politician.

I love Ralph Nader too, but he'll never be able to pull off a presidential run in his lifetime, he's 74 years old, the world is a mess and ideals such as his are not going to be implemented as well with him actually running for president.

The way this plays out in my thinking is the folks who vote in this Country need to understand that even though Barack Obama is not a consumer crusader or constitutional adherer in the true sense of the word, he will be different than the past 16 years of governing. He will be much more progressive than either Bush or Clinton. I know for sure and Hillary Clinton supporters can take this to the bank, she will never have a cabinet level job in the McCain administration. But with Obama, things are looking very optimistic again.

If your voting for McCain, you just haven't been reading the papers since 2002. And that is sad.

[saz]

so, according to zinn, you should frown upon the two party corporate controlled system, yet at the same time shrug your shoulders and vote for the lesser evil? lame.

i wonder then if zinn believes it was futile for say, the anti-slavery, women's suffrage, farmer parties etc to run and field candidates when they did as well? were their platforms for true change futile? should the brave women of yesteryear who demanded their right to vote, not have organized women suffrage parties, and instead relied on and waited for change to come from old, crusty white guys, who never cared about them in the first place?

obama is completely opposed to a single-payer, universal heathcare program. he also voted to grant immunity to the telecoms. he wants to keep approximately 60,000 american troops in iraq. he is opposed to a carbon tax. he does not want to curb outrageous, wasteful defence spending. he takes big corporate money, and has big, corporate backers. i could go on but you get the point.

america needs more political parties, and the presidential debates desperately need to be opened up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmcIlEIQtcs), so real issues that average, normal people care about can be brought to the forefront. seriously, neither obama nor mccain will be talking about single-payer, universal healthcare.

it's only late august, and nader is polling at numbers i'm pretty sure he's never reached before: 8% in new mexico, 7% in pennsylvania and colorado, and 6% in nevada. no, he's not going to be elected president. but he, along with those before him, are fighting tooth and nail (they have to, considering how much obstruction and how difficult the dems and repubs make it for third party candidates to run, ie law suits, injunctions etc) to ensure that there is more for the voter than two corporate candidates who essentially are almost the same: abiding by and supporting the same policies, and serving the interests of corporations.

so sorry howard zinn, there are those who vote for what they believe in and vote for who they want to be president. they don't compromise their core beliefs, nor do they view voting as futile. if third, fourth and fifth parties can be a reality all around the world, than it can also be a reality in amerca.

[DroppinScience]

so, according to zinn, you should frown upon the two party corporate controlled system, yet at the same time shrug your shoulders and vote for the lesser evil? lame.

i wonder then if zinn believes it was futile for say, the anti-slavery, women's suffrage, farmer parties etc to run and field candidates when they did as well? were their platforms for true change futile? should the brave women of yesteryear who demanded their right to vote, not have organized women suffrage parties, and instead relied on and waited for change to come from old, crusty white guys, who never cared about them in the first place?

obama is completely opposed to a single-payer, universal heathcare program. he also voted to grant immunity to the telecoms. he wants to keep approximately 60,000 american troops in iraq. he is opposed to a carbon tax. he does not want to curb outrageous, wasteful defence spending. he takes big corporate money, and has big, corporate backers. i could go on but you get the point.

america needs more political parties, and the presidential debates desperately need to be opened up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmcIlEIQtcs), so real issues that average, normal people care about can be brought to the forefront. seriously, neither obama nor mccain will be talking about single-payer, universal healthcare.

it's only late august, and nader is polling at numbers i'm pretty sure he's never reached before: 8% in new mexico, 7% in pennsylvania and colorado, and 6% in nevada. no, he's not going to be elected president. but he, along with those before him, are fighting tooth and nail (they have to, considering how much obstruction and how difficult the dems and repubs make it for third party candidates to run, ie law suits, injunctions etc) to ensure that there is more for the voter than two corporate candidates who essentially are almost the same: abiding by and supporting the same policies, and serving the interests of corporations.

so sorry howard zinn, there are those who vote for what they believe in and vote for who they want to be president. they don't compromise their core beliefs, nor do they view voting as futile. if third, fourth and fifth parties can be a reality all around the world, than it can also be a reality in amerca.

Well, Zinn doesn't post on the BBMB as far as I'm aware, but going by his interview, it seems like he advocates that someone like Nader can be more effective in other areas than running for president as a third party. Remember the great stuff he did in the '60s and '70s for auto safety, food safety, environmental protection, etc.? He didn't get any of that done by running for President. He did it by being an activist.

I think that's where he's coming from. That there's other ways to go about this.

And I hardly doubt Zinn forgot about abolitionists or womens' suffrage. He's wrote on this stuff for 40+ years.

[saz]

the dems in the senate and house won't listen to nader anymore. he has been trying to testify in congress, but no one wants to hear him because they're all bitter and blame him for '00, which is ludicrious. ralph has addressed this problem many times, citing only henry waxman (a good dem) who supports further testimony from nader on an array of issues.

anyways, the bottom line is that people like zinn, and other dem/obama supporters don't want a third party candidacy, period. whether it's ralph, the greens, or whoever. they believe that the dems deserve a monopoly over the centre to left vote, and that no one else should have the audacity to run. sorry, but that isn't what democracy is about.

[DroppinScience]

anyways, the bottom line is that people like zinn, and other dem/obama supporters don't want a third party candidacy, period.

That's not even close to what Zinn is about. You've read his stuff, right? I know you're the sort of person to read up on this.

He was heavily critical of the 2000 Election for not letting Nader into the debates and has time and again hammered away at the Democrats and Republicans for not truly representing the will of the American people.

Perhaps it's his old age (he'll be 86 this year) that is softening him up? It's happening to other '60s radicals too. Remember in 2004 when Noam Chomsky, of all people, grudgingly endorsed John Kerry and said that while both parties have very few differences, in this case the differences between the two can be the difference between life and death? His colleague Zinn seems to feel the same way about Obama this year. I think he's encouraged by the genuine enthusiasm of young people that, if things go well, Obama would have no choice but to heed their calls for progressivism (he explains here in May '08: http://www.bigthink.com/policy-politics/2008-elections/10395 ). Maybe he's just really disgusted at the possibility of McCain being President more than anything?

Let's face it, these are two different tactics being advocated on the long road for social justice. Perhaps akin to the deep philosophical differences between MLK Jr. and Malcolm X (don't know if this is the best parallel, but the first that comes to mind) from two schools of thought that genuinely want the same things?

The debate goes on...

[yeahwho]

The debate goes on...

What really is needed is a compromise and an understanding. Softening is the wrong word to describe Zinn's current status. What he really has found is strength is in numbers.

I know this is a thread between sazi and yourself and I'm probably annoying the fuck out of both of you, but politically he is encompassing all winds and trying to make his bent the dominant wind, which will only happen by compromise. Like any good sailor knows.

I'm not disillusioned by the over-riding corporate structure of our current political system, understanding the mainstream mentality of America is a way to win. Sometimes shifts need to be very subtle. In 2008 this is especially true.

[saz]

i know what zinn is about, hence the disappointment in this most recent stance of his. he knows better. so does chomsky, and that was such a colossal disappointment.

regardless, just like matt taibbi has said, i just hope that all of these people and outlets, who are fervently championing obama, ie the daily kos, the huffington post, crooks & liars et al will be prepared to be disappointed in four years when a whole lot of change doesn't come about; that is if the dems don't yet again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[D_Raay]

If a Republican is again elected president, these same centres of power will continue to dominate Washington. However many wars they encouraged, however high the price of oil rose, however many tax dollars were redistributed in their favour, the neoconservatives and Pentagon contractors and religious fundamentalists and oil and Wall Street lobbies would conclude that there would be no political price to pay for failure. They would be justified in concluding that there is no longer any democratic check on their ambitions.

It is only by ejecting the Republicans from the White House that American voters can send the message that they are still in charge of their country and that gross government incompetence will not go unpunished. Accountability - not personality or rhetoric or colour or age or gender - should be the overriding issue in this election.

The centres need to shift if ever so slightly.