ATTACK OF THE OBAMITES III

Part I.

Part II.

The debate continues. Matt says:

I think I'm likely to wear out first...

I'm going to play a little more nicely. Mixing giving Ron crap with trying to discuss some serious issues was making me less effective at both.

On to the rebuttal to the rebuttal:

We're in violent agreement on the human nature issue - the difference is semantics: "Indeed, there is some exciting new neuropsychological research suggesting that such a drive is quite literally hard-wired into the human brain, which makes sense because one easily sees how this aids human survival." I see self-interest broadly, including doing things that make us "feel good" and helping people - as long as that does not contain too high a cost for me. Another broader example would be making sacrifices so that my kids or other people live in a better world. Clearly, different people have different views on this.

"That is, people will do things in organizational structures that they would never even think of doing on their own." So this is interesting to me. I'm a mid-level executive in corporate America. I have worked for 4 companies in my career, including a Fortune 500 company. I've seen how corporate culture can change your point of view and move you gradually to do things you would not normally do. But I don't believe it's an excuse. Ultimately, each person must decide for themselves. And the influence that corporations have is a weaker version of national, regional, racial, religous and other influencers that lead to one group dehumanizing another group. Yes, the Enron traders are scum - but they are scummy people who have no excuse for their behavior - don't let them off the hook by blaming the company.

Boy, it's hard to keep on point in this conversation...

Ah, got it: "Yes, businesses are run and staffed by human beings, but, in some very important situations, businesses behave in very inhuman ways. They are not to be seen as simple projections of human nature." Same applies for governments, neighborhoods, churches, nations, clubs, sports fans, etc. It's a bit like the Frankenstein story - if you try to recreate humanity, you get a crude, clumsy version that exaggerates the
negatives.

And, ultimately, if your argument is that people are pure but companies make them less pure, companies also let them achieve things they could not. Companies are the best that we can do and the worst we can do. I guess my point is that I think you may focus a bit too much on corporations, when corporations behaving badly are just a cover for people behaving badly.

"As to your second point, if I'm really being honest with myself, I have to admit that my blogging is ultimately more about "self-righteous rhetorical masturbation" than anything else." This came across like a cheap shot on my part. In fact, I actually think of your blog as more than this - you bring together a neat little group of smart, funny, thoughtful, well-spoken (written?) group. You definitely make me think.

"Again, my beef with Obama is that he's trying to get elected, which is a very different goal from changing culture, which is utterly necessary to provoke the kind of change he invokes in his speeches; without the culture behind him, he's doomed to failure, if a real change in political goals and actions is what he's after--the pro status quo forces he will be facing from within the White House have eaten other far more experienced politicians for lunch; think of President Clinton's failed attempt to integrate gays in the military, or his failed health care reform package. Harry and Louise are still out there, stilettos in hand, just waiting for Obama to turn his back."

Ok, here's the crux (I think). I see Obama as putting himself out there to see if there are enough like-minded folks to get him elected. As opposed to other candidates, the sense I get is that he feels like if not enough people go for his message then so be it - he'll move on. His speech on race is a great example of him acting on his principles in a way that any decent political advisor would have told him not to. So, his election campaign is a movement designed to change culture. I
actually believe that he's trying to energize a part of the culture that is relatively dormant, as opposed to changing the existing culture. His change will cme from altering the math of the electorate. As long as his supporters are going to voting booths, DC will have to respond. And unlike Clinton, he's not associating with a side in the 60's culture war - which created an entrenched opposition focused on opposing his every move.

He won't succeed at everything but he might just move the needle.

"However, my sense is that Obama is being intentionally vague simply because his opponents cannot attack what they don't know. If you don't talk too much about what you stand for, but offer some vague good vibes, it's easy for people to project their own desires and hopes onto you. It's all campaign strategy."

If this is true, he's doing it poorly. If he was doing this, he would not have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. But neither of us will know for awhile, if ever.

"That is, I continue to believe that radical change is very possible. We're just not doing what it takes to get there. We're checking with the bar to see if there's Cabernet, but not willing to go to the wine storage locker in back, where we've had a case of the stuff all along."

So clue me in - what is this? Or who? In so many ways your very pragmatic and realistic - how is this not a magic wand? How do we change people's attitudes enough to get this kind of change? I go back to a statement I made several posts ago - this is the most liberal candidate you or I have ever seen this close to the White House. In light of that, how can you not support him?

My response:

Ultimately, each person must decide for themselves.

Agreed. To some extent, that's why I got out of the public school system. That, and the anxiety/depression.

And the influence that corporations have is a weaker version of national, regional, racial, religious and other influencers that lead to one group dehumanizing another group.

Maybe. But it's hard for me to avoid thinking about the fact that people are at work at least forty hours a week, even more for white collar workers, sometimes up to sixty or eighty hours a week. That strikes me as having the potential to be much stronger than the ambient culture factors you name.

Yes, the Enron traders are scum - but they are scummy people who have no excuse for their behavior - don't let them off the hook by blaming the company.

And

Same applies for governments, neighborhoods, churches, nations, clubs, sports fans, etc. It's a bit like the Frankenstein story - if you try to recreate humanity, you get a crude, clumsy version that exaggerates the negatives.

Good points, but businesses, corporations in particular, stand to be much more insidious in that corporations have almost the full array of Constitutional rights that citizens have. To further your analogy a bit, the human Frankenstein monsters known as "business" have super powers and no conscience, a very dangerous mix. Maybe the Jewish golem is a better analogy.

Boy, it's hard to keep on point in this conversation...

But I think you are on point: political and cultural change is a vast topic; it's bound to lead down weird alleys from time to time. This is not a simple, black and white discussion, if we want to do it justice.

...companies also let them achieve things they could not. Companies are the best that we can do and the worst we can do.

I totally agree, which is why I'm so regulation-happy. If we have to have business, which we do, then we must make good faith efforts to limit their swath of destruction.

...corporations behaving badly are just a cover for people behaving badly.

Not a cover, but a social structure that encourages bad behavior, while at the same time limiting individual responsibility.

This came across like a cheap shot on my part. In fact, I actually think of your blog as more
than this - you bring together a neat little group of smart, funny, thoughtful, well-spoken (written?) group. You definitely make me think.

Thanks for the kudos, but you asked a fair question about my blog, and about most political blogging in general. What are bloggers trying to accomplish, anyway?

I see Obama as putting himself out there to see if there are enough like-minded folks to get him elected.

But his rhetorical vagueness makes your assertion problematic. How can he be attracting like-minded people, if people are able to read what they want into him?

His speech on race is a great example of him acting on his principles in a way that any decent political advisor would have told him not to.

Or, more cynically, Scary-Black-Preacher-Gate was such a threat to his campaign that he decided to take really bold action: that speech was the most specific and progressive he's made to date. My take is that both he and his squad of consultants long ago saw this day coming, and have long been prepared for it--I've even read that months ago Reverend Wright actually suggested to Obama that the day may come when he would have to publicly break with his pastor (I think I got that from Democracy Now, not sure which day.)

And unlike Clinton, he's not associating with a side in the 60's culture war...

But these are exactly the issues that need the most attention, racism, cultural diversity, poverty, freedom and civil liberties, the environment, war, US imperialism. If Obama really is a progressive, he has to take a side on these issues. What kind of change is he really talking about?

...how is this not a magic wand? How do we change people's attitudes enough to get this kind of change?

Ah-ha! I came prepared. See yesterday's post meditating on a recent Howard Zinn essay. Really, it's no magic; it's very pragmatic: we change culture the old fashioned way, by organizing around actual issues, educating, and I don't mean indoctrination-called-school when I say that, and good old public agitating. It worked in the 30s; it worked in the 60s. I mean, think about it. Think how extraordinarily different contemporary US culture is now than how it was in the 50s. Racism, while still a big problem, is nothing compared to the days of Jim Crow. It took six or seven years of the Vietnam War before there was any real anti-war movement; in 2003, the movement started before the war. And on and on. This is doable.

I just don't see Obama doing anything to help make it happen.

...this is the most liberal candidate you or I have ever seen this close to the White House.

You know, there is a longstanding radical definition of the word "liberal." It sees liberalism as being essentially pro status quo. The idea is that liberals see the socio-political system as being sound overall, but that it has a few problems that need fixing. In that way, they serve as a bulwark against real change that might threaten the ruling elite in any substantial way. True radicals, of course, want to overthrow the entire establishment and start over from the ground up. I can't say that I want to see anything like that happening - I have no desire to abandon the US Constitution, for instance - but I do believe that the changes this country needs are far more substantial and sweeping than the Democratic establishment is willing to embrace.

The Democratic establishment is, however, quite ready to embrace Barack Obama. That, in itself, is cause for concern.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$