Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obamabots On the Attack

Michael Kwiatkowski's picture

On the Open Salon version of my previous entry, some right-winger who supports Obama kept trying to lay the blame for next year's results on the left for failing to properly support the candidate who has done far more to pass the Republicans' agenda than any GOP office-holder could have.

I am about certain Obama will be a one term president--and that one of the Republican clowns will win in 2012. Most of the blame for that will fall with the unrealistic expectations and shortsightedness of people devoted to a progressive agenda.

Naturally, when pressed for what exactly is so unrealistic about expecting Obama to do the job he was elected to do, Mr. Right-Winger couldn't answer, instead falling back on the tried and true tactic of replying with personal attacks, hoping to deflect attention away from the glaring lack of evidence to support his accusations. This is not surprising. Obamabots, lacking any substantive policy changes with which to defend their political messiah, frequently resort to attacking the messenger when it is pointed out that he has not lived up to his campaign promises.

The fact is that voter depression stems in large part from the failure — or refusal — of political parties to act in the public interest. Throw in vote-rigging (GOP) and ballot-rigging (Democrats), and it's no wonder American voter turnout is among the lowest in the Western World. But always remember that the largest component in deciding the outcome of any election, no matter how corrupted, is what politicians do or don't do in shaping the outcome from a policy standpoint.

In 2000, 2002, and 2004, the elections were successfully stolen primarily because the Democrats put up poor candidates, engaged in shoddy campaign strategies that left what should have been easy races competitive, but above all, continually acquiesced to Republicans on policy-making. From letting Medicare be partially privatized to supporting George W. Bush's war against Iraq, to their confirming his fascist judicial nominees, Democrats demonstrated that they were not to be counted on to defend the public interest.

Voter anger at Republicans nevertheless built up, and in the 2006 and 2008 elections, handed Democrats the reigns of power. That the very next election cycle, 2010, saw massive voter backlash against Democrats had nothing to do with voter stupidity or unrealistic expectations — we know more about what's going on than many pundits give us credit for — and everything to do with Democrats' endless continuance and expansion of right-wing policies. It didn't help that Obama and his party literally added insult to injury by taking rhetorical shots at legitimate complaints and threatening voters if they failed to turn out to maintain majorities in Congress.

One would think that Democrats and their sycophants capable of learning from their mistakes, which happen to be bad decisions to institutionalize right-wing policies, and those decisions were rationalized by nothing more than political hubris. When politicians break promises and then add fuel to the fire by attacking voters, we naturally don't take kindly to it. We can and will punish those who use and abuse us. Given no alternatives but to vote for the same bad policies or not vote at all, many of us chose not to vote. What's the point when nothing changes?

But try telling that to Obamabots and they will lash out with every bit as much invective as any follower of Bush and Cheney. That they refuse to acknowledge the folly of their ways, much less learn from it, says far more about them than it does about the American left.

0
No votes yet

Comments

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

they have no intention of winning and just want to beat down on the left to make sure we don't build a successful lefty movement.

Submitted by lambert on

And deserves refinement and propagation.

In other words, that's how they "win."

NOTE I like it because it's systemic. Both parties are not "the same," and in fact hate each other, but that does not mean that they don't reinforce the system of which they are a part, and reinforce each other.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Cujo359's picture
Submitted by Cujo359 on

I think it can also be explained by the self-interest of the people involved. Rocking the boat isn't something a lot of people are inclined to do. I almost think some would rather go down with it than shift positions to plug the hole or bail.

One of the main reasons I think this is that there's a difference between individual and collective blame. People who do things as individuals that are not generally accepted by their groups run the risk of being blamed for the group's collective failure, regardless of the real reasons for that failure. This guy Michael was arguing with was representing that view: What you want isn't something we accept as wise (or possible), therefore you are at fault if Obama loses. For another classic example, see here *. It takes courage, when you actually have the ability to affect things, to go against the group, knowing that if you take the strangers into your house, you will probably be blamed when the locusts come.

Of course, if you fail as a group, it's always possible that someone else will be blamed.

Politics being based largely on opinions, this seems to be a very common pattern of behavior.

* - I wrote that before Kucinich took his airplane ride.

Submitted by Hugh on

It's a bankrupt argument of a party whose real agenda is corporatism and kleptocracy. Cheney used to repeat the same lies over and over. It didn't matter how many times they were debunked. He did it on the straight calculation that there would always be rubes who would buy the lie and not hear or believe its refutation. This is essentially what we get with lesser evilism. It is trotted out in a dozen different forms. Sure, many here see it's bogus, but it isn't directed at us. It's meant to catch some voters unawares and persuade them to vote against their interests.

The best way to counter this tactic is to change the narrative. Mine is this: No one owns your vote. No one should expect your vote, unless they can give you clear, substantial, positive reasons for you to do so. The key word is positive. Appeals to vote for Democrats because of those scary Republicans doesn't cut it. That is a negative reason. If Democrats want progressive votes, they can damn well earn them by fighting for and enacting the progressive agenda, not in 2013 but right now.

If they don't want progressive votes, then fine. They can carry on as they have been for the last 2 1/2 years. Why should any progressive support a party and a President that has embraced the policies and agenda of the Bush Administration? No one would expect us to vote for Bush. Why would anyone think we should vote for Obama and the Democrats?

Hugh