A Plea to My Leftist Friends: Obama is not Romney - The Vote Matters

There are some on the left of the political spectrum (the real left, not what our media and pundits call the "left") who see no important and meaningful difference betweeen Romney and Obama. Both, they argue, are corporate puppets who don't really represent the needs of poor, working, or even middle class voters. Both are stooges of the Military Industiral Complex that murders civilians abroad and imposes American Imperial Policy on nations all over the globe.

My Friends on the left are surely right to see Romney and Obama as tools of the the American Military Empire, the Corporate robber barrons, and the absurdly rich plutocrats. Neither man's campaign or debate performances mention the extreme income inequality, growing poverty, and diminshing resources of our nation's poor. Neither questions American expceptionalism and imperialism at home or abrod. Even worse, neither man seriously addresses the erosion and whole-sale decimation of the American Middle Class. With these points I agree completely.

Why, then, do I claim that Obama is not the same as Romney and that this election actually does matter?

Here's why: Obama will preserve social security and traditional medicare. Romney, on the other hand, will do away with both, turning them - slowly and carefully no doubt - into privatized and ineffective shadows of their former selves. Romney will slash taxes even more than Bush already has, diminsihing public funds, and resulting in drastic cuts to the social safety net. Far fewer food stamps, less unemployment, even more drastically underfunded schools, an infrastructure that crumbles and erodes even more so than it already has.

Romney will repeal Obamacare and pass the Ryan Budget into law. Of course, many on the left are unhappy with Obamacare, seeing it as a sell-out to the Health Insurance Industry. There is merit in that criticism. I share in that dissappointment. Despite my reserveations about Obamacare, however, I prefer a system that eliminates pre-existing conditions, expands medicaid to cover more of the working poor, allows young adults to stay on their parents insurance until they are 26, and provides free vaccines, screenings, and birth control to many who desperately need these services. Whatever Romney would put in place of Obamacare, would include none of this. It is likely in fact, that he will reinstitute the worse of the practices of the private insurance market, and perhaps even make matters worse than they were before.

I know that, for us on the left, Obama is not "our man." I know that his foreign policy has been a human rights travesty. Drones, kill lists, suspension of due process, the arrest of Bradley Manning. Yes, these are deplorable. The United States and its leadership ought to be held accountable for all of this; Obama included.

But what is to be gained by letting Mr. Romney win? Will he and his party release Bradley Manning? Stop the drones? Be rid of the kill lists? Be serious. If anything they will expand and amplify this and possibly bring back water boarding and other tortures just for good measure.

Finally, don't foget that Romney will get to appoint as many as 3 Supreme Court Justices during his Presidency if he wins this thing. If you care about a court that is set to consider same-sex marriage, if you are concerned that Roe V. Wade not be overturned, this is very far from a trivial matter.

To vote for Obama is not to support his dreadful - and all too American - imperial foreign policy. Nor is to vote for the clear corporate power structure that he represents.

We must vote for Obama to keep what is left of our social safety nets -  food stamps, head start programs, unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, etc - out of the hands of Mitt Romney and the right-wing party that comes with him.

We must vote for Obama in order to build on that which is good in Obamacare. We cannot return to what existed before it pasts.

We must vote for Obama to protect women's reproductive rights and the hope same-sex couples to have their love recognized with legal marriage.

Obama may not be the "change we can believe in," he is surely not the progressive champion some took him to be. Despite this, however, we know that his opponents are radical regressives who will undo what is left of the New Deal and the Great Society. On social views that will turn back the gay rights and womens movements, and plunge us backward. If we re-elect Obama we can push his party to the left, we can build up genuine progressive movements locally from the ground up and change the political climate of our nation for the better.We can do this not because Obama is wonderful, or even willing to join us, but because with Obama we can retain enough of the old liberal ideas and institutions to move forward and build.

But if we don't defeat Mitt Romney, if we don't win President Obama a second term, it may take us a generation, or even several generations, to undo the damages of the radical, right wing, regressive, and destructive social and economic agenda of Mr. Romney, Mr. Ryan, and a Republican Party now run by openly extremist regressives.

The Legacy of Bill Moyers

Bill Moyers has ended The Journal. It is possible to make too much of this. Moyers will still be around and will not be entirely silent. He will, however, no longer host a regular television show. Though this may very well be the right thing to do for the soon to be 76 year old journalist, it is a sad thing for the rest of America.

Much could be written about Moyers' contribution to journalism. From his time in the White House as press secretory and his impact on the founding of the Peace Corps, to his interviews with Joseph Campbell, on death and dying, and on world religions - to name but a few of his many creative and informative projects. But others have done this far better than me. I refer to Eric Alterman's fine piece on what Moyers has meant to journalism and the country and Fresh Air's thoughtful retrospective involving past interviews with him.

There is little I can add to the tributes I mention. I will say only this: In an age dominated by partisan hacks and pompous blowhards, when shock jocks are the norm and vulgarity toward one's opponents encouraged, Bill Moyers remained a Christian Gentleman.

Always courteous, kind, generous, respectful and well-mannered, Moyers nevertheless spoke the truth to power with courage, stood on principle no matter what, and battled against power interested for the good of working people everywhere.

He has been the most honest man in journalism.

Moyers' professionalism, commitment to truth, openness to others, and above all genuine integrity and humanity have seldom been seen together in a single newsman.

It is above all his combination of passion for truth, commitment to principle, compassion for his fellow human beings, together with his generosity toward others, respectful tone, courteous manner, open mind, and refusal to engage in the smear tactics and name calling that have dominated journalism and media for some time now, that make him a personal hero to me - (I concede by the way that I've not measured up to his standard here).

Mr. Moyers will be greatly missed by many of us. As for his replacement? Let us be frank: Moyers is NOT replaceable. He is a unique contributor to American Journalism. But we can carry on his mission.

We must all pick up Bill Moyers' mantle. Let us also strive, like Moyers, to seek the truth with gentility, kindness, openness, but also with perseverance, integrity, and a desire for truth over pleasing those in power.

Let's continue to fight his fight!

Let us make it our own.

Here are some of Moyers' parting thoughts (from the second to last episode, not the last):

The Full story of Health Care reform

I have frequently blogged about how incomplete and flawed the new health care reform is. It far from anything that will provide truly first class care to a high number of Americans. But It is good to have the whole story documented in one place.

Such documentation is now ready to hand.

Tonight's episode of Frontline offers a pretty clear presentation of just what the new health care reform laws are and how the Obama White House got them passed.

Despite the neutrality of the program, the facts make clear how flawed this "reform" is and how much corruption, betrayal, and backroom deals with special interest poisoned the process.

I post the link to the video here:

Frontline: Obama's Deal (April 13, 2010)

Domestic Terrorism strikes again

We all know that the far right is unstable. Their world view is one of hatred, bigotry, and unthinking blind rage. It will thus hardly be news to learn that one of their number has struck again. Alright, so Joe Stack was not really a right wing idealogue. His politics, if we are to use that term, were really anger at all the ruling classes, State and Corporate. But like the tea-baggers he is "mad as hell, and not gonna take anymore." Big government bothered Joe Stack, but so did big business.

NPR explains

The pilot, identified as Joseph Andrew Stack, 53, was presumed dead. Emergency crews found a body in the building Thursday night, but Police Chief Art Acevedo declined to say whether it was the pilot.

Authorities said Stack was a software engineer who apparently had some tax problems. His northwest Austin home was set on fire before the crash.

Stack also owned a single-engine Piper Cherokee.

Stack's neighbors described him as a mystery man, NPR's John Burnett tells Robert Siegel.

"He didn't mix with his neighbors very much at all," Burnett said. "Most of what they learned about him was this morning at 9 o'clock when the fire went up, and his wife and their daughter, who they estimate to be about 12 years old, were distraught and screaming and went into a neighbor's house."

Investigators were looking closely at a posting on a Web site registered to a Joe Stack of San Marcos, Texas, that contained a lengthy, self-described "rant" attacking the federal tax system as unfair.

This is, in a way, logical on Stack's part. Much like other domestic terrorists He is merely putting the rhetoric of Glen Bleck and the tea-baggers into action. But he is equally voicing the sheer desperation and even despair of working class Americans. Of course, before anyone writes to tell me so, I concede that Beck and most on the right are not actually advocating violence, and would probably say they oppose such things. I do not doubt their word. But the Rhetoric is unhinged and insane and it is hardly surprising to see someone with similiar rage act this way - nor is this the first time: Such angry right-wing violence is fairly common place. One need only think of the murder of Dr. Tiller or the bombings of abortion clinics.

That right wing rhetoric lends itself to this kind of madness is clear enough. The following clip From Bill Moyers' Journal demonstrates the relationship quite clearly:

The rage, anger, hate, and ignorance speaks for itself. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. People like this Stack are easy pray for hate mongers because they really do live in a country which operates against their interests. We really are victims to a system that is designed to exploit us. Americans are rightly angry, confused, and ready to take action.

Just look at what else NPR tells us about Mr. Stack's blog post:

The post portrays an America that is divided between corrupt individuals who are powerful enough to make tax laws and governmental functions work in their favor and people who have become victims of the system.

This claim is absolutely right. It is not as Stack and the loony tea-baggers imagine. The issue is not "big government" or "socialism" or "liberals" or any such nonsense. Nor is the issue simply about the federal tax system, free markets, or big banks. Five minutes of open and honest refection refutes that rubbish. The issue is much bigger than that.

The problem is that money runs the country. Powerful corporations buy our politicians and make them pass laws for them; not us. The moneyed interests own both parties and expect a payoff no matter who wins any election cycle. In fact much of Stack's anger is entirely comprehensible as can be seen here

It is indeed true that the government does exist to help out the rich and powerful at the expense of "Joe common." Americans are rightly fired up and filled with rage about this. Until this issue is honestly faced and real changes are made we will find more Joe Stacks.

Joe Stack voiced an anger, a rage, that is very present today. People from all walks of life feel betrayed and harmed by those who hold money and power. They are correct.

The Tea-bagger crowd is using this rage and this injustice to whip up hate. They are blaming "liberals" and "big-government." Let us not laugh them off. True, they are ignorant and uniformed. But they known enough to see that they are mistreated. If the Glen Becks of the world can find them a scape goat or two, they will attack it. Remember the past, fascism easily arises among the downtrodden.

Obama debates the GOP

No commentary here. Judge for yourselves what you think of the following discussion:

Why I am NOT boycotting Whole Foods

John Mackey the founder and CEO of Whole Foods is a free-market libertarian about health care reform. He recently pinned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal arguing that any "public-option" and all heavy government regulation of health care must be resisted.

I have often argued against such a view on this blog and I continue to think it is both false and very dangerous. That said, I fail to see why Mackey's having such views would lead to a large-scale movement to boycott whole foods. But such a movement exists, and it is large - check it out on facebook.

Admittedly Mackey's views reflect the "pro-rich" and "pro-corporate" outlook that is doing so much harm to so many people. But most places we shop are run and founded by people who share these views. Mackey is also, to some degree at least, anti-union ... but again, is this cause for a boycott? I am pro-union. But I don't care about trying to change the minds of people like Mackey, I care about fighting for legislation that will make it easier for people to form unions and give unions greater legal protection.

As CEOs go Mackey is actually not too bad. Whole Foods is a big supporter of animal rights - even PETA likes them! - and environmental ethics - Mackey himself donates an impressive amount to such causes. And Whole Foods treatment of its employees is better than most. Honest. Mackey actually has a pretty responsible view of the social role of business and wrote a good article on it I have used his ideas when teaching business ethics. I don't agree with Mackey's views, but he is far from the poster child for corporate greed and irresponsibility. If we must boycott Whole Foods, then we must boycott far more companies than we might be willing or capable of boycotting.

The real problem, however, is that a boycott of Whole Foods misses the heart of the problem. It is relatively easy to wag our fingers at "greedy CEOs" and even to refuse to shop at their stores. But such actions do NOTHING to actually repair our damaged political system. Our system is designed to put profits over people, to favor corporations above the public good, and to subsidize big business with tax-payer dollars. It is this system we must change.

We need to work toward changing the political system so that it no longer favors the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the rest of us. We need to work hard - not to let Mackey know we hate his views on health care coverage - but to actually make viable and effective health care reform law.

Rather than boycott Whole Foods I intend to work hard to change the political system that screws people. Boycotting Whole Foods is, in the end, pointless. Mackey may have whatever views he would like ... who cares?! Let's change the system, we won't change Mackey's mind.

A more intelligent debate on Health care reform

If, like me, you are tired of the discussions regarding health care reform revolving around absurd and foolish claims about "Nazis," "Hitler," "Death Panels," "Socialism," "publicly funded abortion," and numerous other very ignorant and dishonest claims, you might enjoy this calm and rational discussion between Howard Dean and Bill Frist.

This is from an Episode of Charlie Rose at the end of July. Frist represents a fiscally conservative approach, Dean the standard progressive approach to reform.

I think both men are worth listening to. This is very refreshing. It's nice to hear two sensible people discussing reform without firearms, shouting, and lying. Of course I think Frist is wrong about the public option - he does, however, say some very sensible things about cost containment - and that we have solid evidence and argument to show that he is wrong, but he is not stupid nor irrational.



I also want to stress that not every conservative opponent of democratic health care reform is a "town-hall lunatic." This is important. Too often critics of the "deathers" and their like are told we are snobs who intolerantly dismiss all critics of our progressive goals. That is flatly not true. And this discussion on Charlie rose nicely illustrates that not all critics are of the same breed as the woman who called Barney Frank a Nazi

A Needed Break

I see I have now gone an entire week without a post. This is the longest span since I started my blog. The explanation? I'm on vacation in my home town of San Diego. I've meditated in a Japanese tea garden, spent a day at Catalina Island boating and swimming in the sea, read Dean Koontz, gone to a baseball game, and dined at the new Bing Crosby Restaurant. Good stuff!

The advantage of all of this is that for an entire week I paid no attention to politics, and neither watched nor read the news - not even The Daily Show!

Today I looked over a few headlines and video clips. The same old things: Blue Dogs attempting to undermine the public health care option, Obama too prone to compromise, etc, etc, etc.....

But the week off, besides being a good cleanser for my soul, has added some perspective. I noticed today - not for the first time, but with added clarity - just how odd our media is. Take for example, a term they use: "centrist." I've often wondered what this means. I've finally got it.

A centrist simply means "a democrat who always votes as his corporate masters require him to." That's it. That's the whole definition. A Republican who operates the same way will be called simply a Republican.

I don't know why this is so, but such are our terms.

Another odd term: Moderate. For years I wondered what this meant. I get it now. Our media wishes to appear moderate. What this means is that they propose Barack Obama (who is to the right of most genuine progressives and self-proclaimed liberals) as the far left, and Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and the rest of the far right lunatic fringe as the "conservatives." Then, our media presents both these options (excluding a dozen or so others that are out there) as equally valid and refuse to take a side for one or the other. Oddly, this media is thought of as "liberal" because it does not champion the far right.

There is one more use of the term moderate. Sometimes a Republican is called moderate because, although he or she is right wing in almost every respect, he or she is "pro-choice," in favor of same-sex marriage, or not particularly religious. All in all this is a bizarre use of language.

To see this, look to the birthers. Obscene lunatics who, despite repeated and complete demonstrations to the contrary, insist on believing that Obama was not born in the United States. Such people should be ignored by our media. But they are mentioned almost every night. Why, in the name of all reason and sanity, are Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannitty, the tea-baggers, the birthers, and others of their brood carted out every night as if they actually had legitimate, rational, or even sane views?!

In short, my message tonight is: (a) our media is a joke; and (b) the terms "moderate" and "centrist" are meaningless, let's please stop using them.

Now I return to my vacation for the rest of the weekend.

Beyond Partisan Politics

I think the time has come for many of us to move beyond partisanship. But how to do that is the issue. We cannot choose the Obama way of simply throwing away your principles and compromising with every corporate interest or right wing ideology for the mere sake of "bringing all to the table."

I know that there are a great many well-meaning, highly intelligent, moral, kind, and remarkable conservatives out there. I disagree with them, but I must and do respect them. My question is, how do I get past my strong disagreements with them?

Let us look first at the two political parties. Neither party differs from the other on essential matters. They are both tools of multinational corporations and represent the interests of the wealthy classes, not the interests of the people as a whole. This is why I cannot identify with either political party.

Now take the divide between liberals and conservatives. On certain issues, like abortion or capital punishment, or Euthanasia, it is quite possible for intelligent and good people to disagree. I think a case can be made for those opposed and in favor of these acts. So we can agree to intelligently discuss it, and to respectfully disagree on the matter.

But beyond this where can we go? The Right-wing (which I consider a distinct group from conservatives) are simply insane. The far left (e.g. Michael Moore, and Bill Maher) are not quite so insane, but are smug, self-righteous, and too idealistic. Self-professed "centrists" are enslaved to the will of big corporations.

So, assuming both political parties do not represent us and that the far left and the far right are not sound options, where do we go? On certain issues, I cannot but oppose conservatives ... gay marriage, American imperialism and militarism, public health care, welfare, regulation of the market, I will not and cannot give ground on these matters. But neither, I suppose, will, or can, the conservatives.

So here is the question: where can I and they find common ground? My economic philosophy is from the school of the New Deal, The Great Society, and Great Britain's "Welfare State," I am close to what in Europe is called a "Social Democrat." On social issues, I'm a libertarian, favoring maximizing personal liberty. Can I find common ground and get beyond partisanship with conservatives who are on social issues far less libertarian and want more "moral legislation," but who on economic issues are far more libertarian - in favor of privatization and deregulation?

How can they and I meet and work together? Any suggestions?

Conservative Pastor Versus Liberal Professor: A Video Debate

One of the best friends I've had in my life, Isaiah Surbook, is a evangelical pastor in Kentucky. He is something of a fiscal and social conservative. As a fiscal and social liberal, I naturally have very different views from my friend.

Isaiah and I have been having a friendly debate on youtube about whether there should be a government funded health care plan - the so called "public option" that Obama favors. Rev. Surbrook is opposed to this idea; Professor Wion is for it.

Of course we are very good friends, who each greatly respect each other, and each owes to the other a great deal; therefore, this debate is very friendly, kind, and mutually respectful. With some modesty, I also think that both our views are intelligently presented and well thought out.

With all the bad blood between liberals and conservatives, all the shouting matches, I thought it might be worthwhile to post here a friendly and good-natured debate.

So here is that debate via YouTube:



















Isaiah may yet have another response ... feel free to follow on youtube and see.