Presidential Election 2012

The bourgeois political spectacle commences. President Obama has the edge in electoral votes. Republicans have been pursuing various strategies to suppress votes in Democratic-leaning states, counties, and precincts. The dangers of a Romney or Obama victory are roughly the same. (Austerity will be implemented at an unprecedented scale, civil liberties will continue to be eroded, and the country's imperial ventures will continue along the path they've been on since the end of the Cold War.)

So, did any of you decide to vote in this election? If so, who did you choose to vote for and why?

Do you really think it is fair to paint Obama and Romney as roughly the same? I think that Obama has done fairly respectable progressive realpolitik though his civil liberties record is garbage. The Congressional Progressive Caucus continues to push for promising legislation; the CPC budget is miles better than the Ryan "Path to Prosperity" and the Republican Study Committee budget. Considering the magnitude of the difference between the CPC and the Ryan/RSC budgets, I think painting them with the same broad brush is wrong.

sytar wrote:Do you really think it is fair to paint Obama and Romney as roughly the same? I think that Obama has done fairly respectable progressive realpolitik though his civil liberties record is garbage. The Congressional Progressive Caucus continues to push for promising legislation; the CPC budget is miles better than the Ryan "Path to Prosperity" and the Republican Study Committee budget. Considering the magnitude of the difference between the CPC and the Ryan/RSC budgets, I think painting them with the same broad brush is wrong.

Do elaborate on President Obama's "respectable progressive realpolitik". I have observed nothing of the sort throughout his tenure. What I have observed has been a persistent tendency on the part of his administration to pursue an austerity compromise — specifically, a plan to cut over $2 of government spending (including cuts in entitlements) for every $1 of increased revenue — with the Republican-controlled congress; an insistence on staffing the cabinet with rapacious financiers and warmongers; a refusal to provide meaningful assistance to those being foreclosed upon; a financial reform that does nothing to address the critical areas of that particular industry; a refusal to push the Department of Justice to prosecute banks and major corporations for their fraudulent activities; a health care reform package that will not ensure universal coverage and greatly benefits the private, for-profit health insurance corporations; a refusal to pursue a jobs plan that will actually reduce unemployment in a meaningful capacity (e.g. a federal hiring program); a refusal to support an increase in the federal minimum wage; a massive investment in a drone program that has killed multitudes of innocent men, women, and children (many of whom reside in countries that we are not officially at war with), etc. I could go on at length about the numerous policies his administration has pursued that contradict your assertion.

Of course, one could make the case that a Romney/Ryan administration would likely exacerbate such problems. I do not find this to be an especially compelling claim, as I disagree with the notion that an Obama administration has the ability or inclination to do what is necessary to prevent this capitalist crisis from worsening.

As for the so-called progressive caucus in congress, it is nothing more than an irrelevant assortment of petite-bourgeois populists that exists for purpose of reelecting the cynical politicians that constitute it and making the Democratic Party appear to be more to left than it actually is. They have been around for decades, touting populist legislative proposals that neither the Democratic Party nor Democratic presidential administrations take seriously. They have absolutely no influence over the President nor a plurality of Democratic congresspeople.

Don't think that I disagree with you, but you can't honestly tell me any of these things are reasonable realpolitik. The Congressional Republicans were refusing to do deals with even 10 dollars in spending to 1 dollar in revenue increases. Asking him to stand up to the financial sector is not realpolitik; that's about as realistic as asking the President to stand up to Israel. Dodd-Frank, weak as it is, at least puts Glass-Steagal in place again. It establishes a "Big to fail means to big to exist" and allegedly empowers regulators to break up companies. It's not even close to what I would like. At least we got the Consumer Protection Agency, the Credit CARD Act, and the student loan reform which stopped funneling the banks billions just to be middlemen. It's hard to say what could be passed without Republican opposition. Realistically, I doubt we'd ever be able to fix the real problem which is the fact that we need unilateral debt write-offs. In the old days peasants would revolt, storm the banks, and erase the records.

I feel that for the most part progressives have unrealistic expectations for what can be passed in Congress. The ACA or "Obamacare" passed by razor thin margins; the Blue Dog Caucus would have never been okay with single payer/universal/nationalized healthcare. Reformism definitely has its limits. What politically realistic plan would you have rathered the president follow? I think Obama is carrying on the legacy of the presidents which brought us Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, Unemployment, etc. The Democrats from The New Deal to The Great Society to the ACA have brought us some incremental change that those of us foremost concerned with social justice do not take lightly. There are 36 million more Americans insured. People don't have to worry about getting dropped because of pre-existing conditions. The political capital to do more was simply not there because of the Blue Dogs, Ben Nelson, and trash like Lieberman.

The RSC/Ryan budgets would basically stick a knife in Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food stamps, Welfare, Unemployment, &co. Unless you have little regard for the above programs, then I don't see how you can honestly compare the CPC with Ryan/RSC (especially considering the CPC's track record of fairly high quality legislation). And even if you think they're totally useless, Obama's budget is definitely more favorable to the above than Ryan/RSC. Obama has totally sold us out in terms of foreign policy and civil liberties (which, it must be admitted, has won him quite a bit of political capital). He has done very reasonably in domestic policy considering his political capital and the obstructionism he's been facing. He's made crucial missteps, like assuming that the Republicans wouldn't take the country hostage and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. But from my view, in domestic policy he's made a good faith effort to do what can be done. The Overton Window right now is located somewhere between Neoliberalism and Modern Liberalism.

When you look at a Romney/Ryan administration, you're talking about people who want to eliminate the the income tax, corporate tax, estate tax, and capital gains tax, in addition to gutting the social safety net. Well, he hasn't proposed eliminating the income tax, but I bet he'd do it if he could. Under Romney/Ryan, the privatization of medicare and medicaid would pump untold amounts of money into the insurance industry. They would become incalculably stronger. By getting rid of all the capital gains, income, and corporate taxes, all the most powerful agents controlling the state would become stronger. How can you hope to smash the state machine if you don't first make sure that the pockets of those powering the state are made less full? Are we really not supposed to care about income taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, welfare, unions, social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, consumer protection laws, student loan debt reform, and food stamps?



On topic: I voted for Jill Stein. I think voting Green is the better option if you're not in a swing state. That way the Democrats know they can win your vote by moving left.

"Progressive realpolitik" strikes me as nothing more than a decorated term to refer to compromising reformism, another "third way" initiative, proven to be a historical failure.

Quite frankly, sytar, given the content of your posts, I believe you are more suited for this board than a revolutionary socialist forum like ours. Extolling the "virtues" of a party constituting one part of the bourgeois duopoly on a socialist and communist forum is rather absurd, do you not think? As though a "Blue Dog" coalition is not entirely predictable given the narrow range of bourgeois politics.

I would contend that the entire election was an irrelevant formality from the point of view of the working class. It is not as though either Romney or Obama would broach the line of acceptable bourgeois discourse, let alone translate this into progressive action, and even if Obama were determined to follow a more "progressive" policy, to what end would this serve? To perpetuate capitalism? To have it unraveled by the next reactionary coalition? Challenged at every opportunity by the bourgeois media? This is all trivial in any case, as Obama has failed to promote any progressive policies of note.

The sort of fundamental change I aspire to demands nothing short of a revolutionary base, and it is this activism that I find engaging, not such pitiful spectacles as capitalist elections.

Ugh. I absolutely hate the Democratic Underground. I feel much more at home at places like here and revleft. Just because I understand the concept of political capital and what policy initiatives actually have a chance of passing in Congress because I look at voting patterns on the level of caucuses and individual senators, doesn't mean anything about my own personal politics. Though I have a lot of respect for the historical and intellectual prowess of the members of this forum, it seems as though their is a lot of idealism about what is possible from reformists.

My main concern is social justice and I'm not dogmatic about how to get there (nor have I decided whether I'm more anarcho-syndicalist or social democrat). I think revolutionary socialism is one viable route to achieving that aim. If you look at the history of the United States, without the reformists of the twentieth century (FDR and LBJ esp.), things could have been a lot worse so I'm not sure how reformism can be interpreted as being a complete historical failure. Some credit should be given to them. I don't understand how revolutionaries cannot see the value in financially disarming the plutocrats behind the state machine. In service of that goal policy in regards to "income taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, welfare, unions, social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, consumer protection laws, student loan debt reform, and food stamps" are all important as they affect income inequality, worker education/empowerment, and social mobility. Brushing aside this list of incredibly important issues with "they both advocate privately owned means of production" is a gross oversimplification. Romney is endorsing some kind of ultra-austere neoliberal corporate fascism while Obama is offering no frills Modern Liberalism. To act like there's no difference between a neoliberal and a modern liberal is insanity and not in the best interest of social justice.

Part of the reason I came to this forum was to get convincing arguments in favor of nationalism and convincing arguments against social democracy since my opinion is in many ways still in its infancy. Democratic Underground is just a nauseating echo chamber filled with people I feel very little intellectual kinship with. In some ways though I must say this forum has given me doubts about the cause it champions because (like RevLeft) it seems to have a lot extremely intelligent people with a lot of latent hostility combined with an insular, alienating culture unwelcoming to potential new converts. If you're turning me away because I didn't come ideologically pure out of the box, then this movement is going nowhere.

sytar wrote:Though I have a lot of respect for the historical and intellectual prowess of the members of this forum, it seems as though their is a lot of idealism about what is possible from reformists.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. At no point has any member of this forum argued that the bourgeois political system is capable of enacting policies that would adequately address most of the outstanding problems working class Americans face. That is precisely why many of us reject the very notion of engaging in the current political process. The working class can and will only emancipate itself through revolutionary action.

My main concern is social justice.

Your notion of 'social justice' seems to be little more than a meaningless abstraction that you choose to evoke in order to justify your tacit support of the Democratic Party and other similarly constituted institutions.

I think revolutionary socialism is one viable route to achieving that aim.

It's the only route to achieving anything that could be rationally regarded as social justice.

If you look at the history of the United States, without the reformists of the twentieth century, things could have been a lot worse. Some credit should be given to them.

You misunderstand the dynamics that brought about the progressive changes society underwent throughout that history. Such reforms did not manifest themselves in a vacuum. Radical popular movements were what put the pressure on the political establishment necessary to realize said reforms. Without them, the political establishment had no incentive to implement policies that went against the status quo. Most of the popular policies associated with the New Deal, for example, would not have been pursued by the (initially conservative) Roosevelt administration had it not been for the fact that radical unionist and socialist movements were gaining considerable traction amongst a plurality of the working class at the time. It was the very threat of revolutionary action that forced the bourgeois political system to implement popular reforms.

I don't understand how revolutionaries cannot see the value in disarming the plutocrats behind the state machine.

Voting for politicians who function as the property of the bourgeoisie does nothing to 'disarm' plutocracy. Indeed, plutocracy will flourish into perpetuity unless or until a significant plurality of the working class becomes sufficiently radicalized and active in pursuing revolutionary change.

In service of that goal " income taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, welfare, unions, social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, consumer protection laws, student loan debt reform, and food stamps" are all important as they affect income inequality.

You might as well abandon the idea of increased revenues being utilized for redistributive measures aimed at reducing income inequality. No political appetite exists for such a policy. The entire notion of increasing revenues is hinged on the premise of decreasing the national deficit and debt. Beyond that resides the question of how much social spending will be reduced (not increased) for current and future generations. As noted previously, the Obama administration has been seeking a 'grand bargain' of austerity measures that will significantly decrease social investments. That is still very much on agenda and there is no outside pressure to compel the political establishment to reconsider it.

Obama is not a Social Democrat but the choice is not between Social Democrats and Modern Liberals. It's a choice between far-right neoliberals and right wing modern liberals. It's a big difference in my opinion. In Europe, because they are racially homogenous, they get the choice of Social Democracy and Modern Liberalism; that's not what the United States has due to multiculturalism. What if Romney/Ryan pass Right to Work legislation on the federal level? That would be a disaster for the working class.

Your notion of 'social justice' seems to be little more than a meaningless abstraction that you choose to evoke in order to justify your tacit support of the Democratic Party and other similarly constituted institutions.

Social Justice is about minimizing the number of people living below the poverty line, measured by wealth inequality, income inequality, education levels, median wage, and social mobility. I think these are concrete and meaningful measures, not just 'meaningless abstractions'. I'm sure there's more comprehensive conceptions of social justice out there, but this was just off the top of my head.

I reject the false dichotomy of revolution/reformism. Clearly both have their virtues. I doubt that all of the reforms in the Great Society were from radical unions and socialists. The ACA was a step forward for people with pre-existing conditions and I know that the ACA is a triumph of reformism. They're by no means mutually exclusive. I did not vote for Obama since I'm not in a swing state but I do not see what possible harm voting against the Republicans can bring since they are obviously incredibly dangerous if left in power.

Also, taxes just by virtue of existing influence the distribution of wealth. I'd reference Buchanan's "Wealth Happens" in the Harvard Business Review. There doesn't necessarily have to be obvious redistributive programs. The fact that Romney wants to get rid of all these taxes means he's going to massively affect the distribution of wealth in this country. I view a candidate who will engineer a massive redistribution of wealth as a threat to social justice and the interests of the working class. How my fellow leftists cannot, I do not know.

It is incorrect to attribute any idealist notions to our political philosophy. On the contrary, believing that reform can serve to "humanize" capitalism, ameliorate its fundamental ills, or act as a stepping stone toward a superior mode of production (socialism proper) is a classic case of idealist political thinking. It has never achieved any of the aforementioned to any lasting effect (the post-WWII "boon" of global capitalism was a historical fluke, having long given way to neoliberalism, stagnant wages, and the unraveling of the welfare state), and to pursue such objectives is to lose sight of the fundamental aim of superseding capitalism.

The question of revolution vs. reformism is not a theoretical quibble: it has existed as a major point of contention and division throughout the history of working class movements. It is a question of priorities and values. It involves scrutinizing whether one is dedicated to the class struggle or fanciful notions of compromise with the bourgeoisie. Thus far, the historical record has vindicated the revolutionary challenge to reform: all social democratic parties have become embourgeoised, embraced liberalism, and are now reactionary political forces, having abandoned socialism and contented themselves with becoming "center-left" apologists for capital.

Of course I support policies which benefit the working class, but reformist advances must be made within the context of class struggle, always maintaining a radical perspective, always understanding that these are no solutions but mere spoils on the road toward true social justice. Welfare liberal policies are instrumental to the bourgeoisie, allowing it to appease the greater part of discontented workers during times of capitalist crisis and shifting their allegiance away from working class parties. Your mention of Franklin D. Roosevelt is a quintessential example of the error of reform.

Having amassed a substantial working class following during the Great Depression, the alliance between socialist and communist parties on the one hand, and trade unions on the other, presented a threat to the bourgeois establishment. Roosevelt (who initially ran for office on a fairly conservative platform) acquiesced to their demands by adopting Keynesian demand side policies and erecting the framework for the first (albeit fairly modest) American social safety net, but this came at the expense of the working class movement as a whole. In the decade or so following World War II, "leftist" academics and politicians alike hailed the new welfare capitalism, but this was soon proven a farce, as the challenge to such an arrangement from reactionary forces (bolstered by the dismemberment of unions and the diminishing position of labor vis–à–vis capital as a result of an expanding supply and waning demand for labor) finally overcame the New Deal, overturning most of its achievements. Why did this occur? Because the capitalist class as a whole and in the long-run has no interest in raising wages, offering benefits, regulating the flow of capital, or obstructing capital accumulation.

I realize that you have referenced the anomalous cases of the seemingly persistent Scandinavian welfare states as examples of social democratic (reformist) success in another thread, and I believe this topic is more appropriately suited for that thread, which is why I will refrain from commenting further on the matter until I can offer my perspective there.

I voted Green Party. http://www.jillstein.org/ Great platform. Great lady.

Welfare liberal policies are instrumental to the bourgeoisie, allowing it to appease the greater part of discontented workers during times of capitalist crisis and shifting their allegiance away from working class parties

So then should we vote Republican and for all manner of neoliberal thug to minimize social welfare and thus spur on revolution sooner? Do you believe if not for the New Deal and the Great Society we would have had workers control over the means of production already?

There was talk of it on the radio here today and I had to turn it off within five seconds of hearing 'Obama'. I knew that all I was going to hear was the same dribble I got from my dad going on about how great he is because he cares about the working people and whatnot.

On Facebook I heard someone suggest that other countries should get a say in the elections as well because it doesn't just affect people within the US. What do we think of this?

DSN wrote:There was talk of it on the radio here today and I had to turn it off within five seconds of hearing 'Obama'. I knew that all I was going to hear was the same dribble I got from my dad going on about how great he is because he cares about the working people and whatnot.

On Facebook I heard someone suggest that other countries should get a say in the elections as well because it doesn't just affect people within the US. What do we think of this?

It's a silly suggestion. Far too much of our federal governance is directed towards domestic policy to warrant such external influences. A better solution would be to allow the international community — via institutions that have an equitable distribution of influence — to come together to collectively work out multilateral solutions to questions pertaining to foreign relations.