> Look, I'm not talking about the *causes* of Obama's likely defeat.
> I'm saying that those who've opposed him from left and right are
> likely to prevail, not because they were effective. They just may be
> lucky and what they wanted may wind up happening. Or because Obama,
> who is the leader of his own campaign, botched it with his own
> personal decisions. It may be because of an array of factors that in
> the bigger scheme of things amounts to randomness or to History a la
> Hegel (or a la Carrol). So, no, I'm not saying it was because of you.
But the causes are what really important here. Obama isn't going to
win or lose based on the randomness of the universe, he's going to win
or lose based on the political decisions he makes. What position will
he take on telco immunity? On the war? On the economy? On health
care? Will he at least tell voters what they want to hear, or will he
tone down his rhetoric, move to the right, and try to de-mobilize his
supporters before they get any big ideas (ie. actual reforms rather
than the rhetoric of "change")
Its clear what his strategy is right now: the same as John Kerry's
was. He seems to judge that winning and having to deliver on (or
break) too many promises is a bigger risk than losing. I'm not saying
that his strategy is to lose, but that he is trying to win and
de-mobilize people at the same time.
This strategy depends on the left playing along, providing 'left
cover' and not exposing this hypocrisy. I don't see why thats
something that we should do. Maintaining our political independence
is going to make more difference in creating real 'change' than the
outcome of this election will.
Mike
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
