interruptions

Jan. 20, 2012 at 4:34pm with 61 notes

Reblogged from thenoobyorker

“There’s a moment — probably 35 minutes into the discussion — when Greenwald, I think, reveals what’s actually at stake behind all of his talk about Ron Paul. Paul believes a bunch of things that are anathema to progressives. But so do the Democrats, Greenwald tells Pollitt, and Paul’s campaign should serve to ensure that people know it. If they know it, perhaps they’ll demand an end to those things or they’ll vote differently or something. This is the part that’s not really clear … especially because Greenwald repeatedly says he isn’t suggesting that anyone on the Left ought to actually vote for Ron Paul. At bottom, Greenwald just wants us to have the conversation about imperialism, the war on drugs, and our loss of civil liberties that he thinks we can only have as a result of Ron Paul candidacy. All of the other politicians embrace these things. And then, once we’ve had the conversation, something will happen. Perhaps a new candidate will emerge out of thin air. This one will be perfect and incorruptible, will always do exactly what (s)he promises, and will always fight the good fight on every issue important to every single person who identifies with the Left in America. Or, what is more likely, we’ll have an election between Obama and Romney, and a whole bunch of people who voted for Obama in 2008 will decide to stay home in 2012. And then maybe we’ll be so lucky as to have President Romney, at which time the Left will be so glad we had this important conversation because that’s the guy who’s certain to close corporate loopholes, restrict money in politics, bail people out of debt, more fully embrace the LGBTQ community, help make life in America better for people of color, and put an immediate end to our (mis)adventures in the Middle East. Right?

—

Running Chicken

Well said.

This seems to overstate the case. Taken at face value, Ari Kohen is saying if we “have the conversation about imperialism, the war on drugs, and our loss of civil liberties”, “the most likely result” is that “we’ll have an election between Obama and Romney, and a whole bunch of people who voted for Obama in 2008 will decide to stay home in 2012. And then maybe we’ll be so lucky as to have President Romney….”

I’m going to be casting a ballot for Obama in November, not staying home. But does not shutting up about the war on drugs or American imperialism really mean that in some small way I’ll be complicit if we end up with a President Romney, because I’ll have contributed to leftist apathy or something? I mean, this basically reduces our alternatives to slavish, partisan obeisance to the DNC party line in all our public dealings or betrayal of the poor, LGBT community, and people of color.