Naomi Klein on Obama

July 3, 2008 at 9:51 pm (Uncategorized) (elections, Naomi Klein, Obama)

The full + original version of Naomi Klein’s speech is here.

Stimulator writes:

Naomi Klein’s speech at the National Conference for Media reform was not included on the conference website. subMedia contacted Free Press, the organizer or the conference, to ask why Klein’s speech could not be found online, and the person explained that Free Press is a non-profit organization and that I should reefer to the disclaimer on their website which reads:

“Despite our best efforts, we feel that some of our speakers encroached on electoral space during their remarks at the National Conference for Media Reform. It is not in our interest to disseminate these recordings. We are reviewing all of our video content and will add that which we determine to be free of electoral statements to this page.”

I don’t quite understand how these things work, but whatever. Two sources have told me the reason Free Press did not include the speech was Klein’s criticism of Barack Obama. It would be pretty fuckin lame if it were true.

She is so completely spot on.  “Power yields nothing without a demand,” or so says Frederick Douglass.  By blindly supporting Obama (and giving him money) without placing demands upon him, we have signalled that he has our unconditional support, no matter how his policies shift.  As Klein points out, DEMOCRATS RECEIVE MORE MONEY FROM THE WEAPONS INDUSTRY THAN REPUBLICANS!  And Obama, despite his claims, is receiving large contributions from corporations who are hardly progressive in their outlooks.  What this means is this: Obama knows he has the support of the left locked up, so he is free to shift further and further right and renege on his original promises.

This is further empowered by the willingness of supporters to excuse and apologize for all of these policy changes and political sliding.  And we are beginning to see the same logic of the past two elections: “A vote for [insert 3rd party candidate] is a vote for McCain.”  This continues to lock up unchallenging, undemanding support for Obama without forcing him to stay true to his progressive promises.  It also enslaves voters into the continuing 2-party system, and prevents them from lending support and legitimacy to a candidate who truly represents their interests, instead submitting to the interests of elites.  Want to vote for someone who supports Palestinian right to return, or an end to the embargo of Cuba, or the immediate end to the war?  Tough shit, you might as well be voting for McCain, who is guaranteed to be worse.

Supporting (or threatening to support) a 3rd candidate makes Obama work for your vote–he has to slide left to capture those critical votes, instead of feeling entitled to the left’s support.  This demonstrates the poverty of the “lesser evil” mentality: it in fact creates a greater evil out of that “lesser evil,” and it explains why the Democratic Party has slowly shifted right with each election, and consequently lost each, despite the massive discontent with the Republicans.  Instead of whining about Nader “stealing” (which implies a sense of entitlement and deserving) votes, they should have made a real effort to appeal to those voters, instead of appeasing the corporate donors who supported each party.

I will also agree with Klein that this doesn’t mean we should boycott elections or vote for Nader or McKinney.  What should be clear, however, is that much work needs to be done to steer Obama in the direction we need him to go, by building a mass, militant movement to hold him accountable to us.