Nader/Gonzalez reported yesterday that Howard Zinn is now encouraging progressives to vote for Nader/Gonzalez, not Barack Obama.
While he was supposedly only advocating that progressives do this in slam dunk states, it’s interesting that Zinn flip-flopped and sent an email to the campaign saying he made a mistake and will now vote for Nader.
Why in this historic election is Zinn, the people’s historian, not going to vote for Barack Obama, who just might become the first black president in American history?
What if voters vote their conscience in a state that isn’t all that slam dunk?
In a debate that featured Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin, which aired on CSPAN2 on October 23, 2008, Chris Hedges, the moderator, asked the two candidates to address Zinn’s argument which many progressives and liberals regard as second class politicians:
“Both Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, two people who have been traditionally very weary of the two-party system, have each announced that they will vote for Barack Obama.”
“Howard Zinn said we have gone through an insufferable eight years with the Bush Administration, probably the worst administration in history. In this situation, we are desperate for a change. So, even though Obama doesn’t represent any fundamental change, he creates an opening for a possibility of change. That is why I am voting for Obama. That is why I suggest to people that they vote for him. But, I also suggest that Obama will not fulfill that potential for change unless he is enveloped by a social movement, which is angry enough, powerful enough, and insistent enough that he fills his abstract phrases about change with some real content.” (*Hedges also addressed Chomsky’s endorsement but for the purposes of this article, I did not transcribe the quote from Chomsky that Hedges read to the candidates.)
Nader said:
“We know that Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Zinn agree far more with the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, but they are demonstrating a tactical vote. The tactical vote for the least worst (namely Obama) should involve a moral imperative to make demands of Obama so if he wins, he wins with specific mandates. The problem with the liberal and progressive intelligentsia is they don’t make their vote hard to get. And they allow the least worst to ignore them and go more to the corporate side and try to get a little slice of the right wing vote, which is exactly what Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Clinton, and Kerry did. And it wasn’t exactly a winning strategy expect with Clinton on the Perot situation. So, I think one, there needs to be demands made on Obama. People living in slam-dunk states that are slam-dunk McCain and Obama can cast a vote for their conscience because that doesn’t affect the least worst outcome. And finally, it’s not who wins---it’s how they win. Are they going to win without worrying about progressive forces because progressive forces have told them they can be taken for granted because the McCain alternative is too horrible to contemplate?”
Chuck Baldwin offered an almost equally refreshing answer:
“I think this whole mantra of a wasted vote or the lesser of two evils is what has brought us to this place. I tell you what a wasted vote is. A wasted vote is to vote for someone that you know in your heart will not be faithful to the principles and the values that you believe in; that you know will betray the things that are core to that which is central to our nation’s success and yet to ignore those central core issues and to vote for someone because they may happen to fit into that lesser of two evils category. A wasted vote in 2008, for my conservative friends who are out there tonight---I would say a wasted vote in 2008 is for John McCain. I don’t believe that John McCain can anymore win this election than Bob Dole could win the election that he fought with Bill Clinton. I really believe that if Christians and evangelicals and conservatives in 2008 if they want to waste a vote they will vote for John McCain. I believe that they want to cast a principled vote---a vote for someone that they know in their heart will be faithful to the principles and the values that they profess to believe. I believe they must cast a vote for Chuck Baldwin in the Constitution Party in 2008. I just believe that this wasted vote mentality is something that is not consistent with our Founding Fathers and our American republic.”
Perhaps, it’s worthwhile to examine all the writing Zinn put out for progressive and liberal minds to consume over the past year.
In November 2007, Zinn renewed his call to end the “war on terror” and called it a “sham.”
In February 2008, Zinn decried the “Election Madness” engulfing the nation and wrote:
Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will not move off center. The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free health care for all.
Kevin Gosztola goes to Columbia College in Chicago where he is studying film. He hopes to become a documentary filmmaker. He is a production assistant for CitizenKate.tv right now and will be going to the Inauguration to help them with production. He is also currently working as a production assistant on a documentary called "Seriously Green" which traces the development of the Green Party throughout the 2008 election. He has a passion for journalism and writes articles or press releases in his spare time. Kevin Gosztola is also a student activist who often helps members of the Chicago antiwar movement (especially those from the Chicago chapter of World Can't Wait) organize protests/rallies/forums.
His ambitions have him currently organizing and raising money for a Chicago Conference for Media Reform in April or May of 2009. It will be organized by college students to promote youth involvement in media reform and justice. Those interested in attending or helping with the organization of the program should contact him.
I would have asked, is he a hypocrite? Parasite is out of place.
Obama versus McCain is like Cladius versus Caligula. Voting for Obama is tactical, because on Nov 5th the Empire will still be in tact, tearing up the planet, so it is a hard call for many people with awareness to make, including me, and I won't criticize those who vote for Nader or McKinney.
by
Mac McKinney (49 articles, 83 quicklinks, 204 diaries, 1221 comments)
on Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 6:28:49 AM
Thanks for helping to make the case why real progressives should NOT vote for Obama.
The only major uncertainty if and when Obama wins is how long it will take for all the neo-progressives who enthusiastically voted for him to realize that they still have the same old two-party plutocracy that has run and runined our nation for so long.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (135 articles, 37 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 539 comments)
on Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 10:30:13 AM
I don't think he knows what he's doing! He certainly does not have the intellect to make up his own mind about such things. I don't think he can be trusted to make such a complex decision on his own. He clearly does not have the facts and has not made a reasonable choice. (sarcasm)
I am disappointed with him for not voting for Cynthia McKinney...she would be the first woman and the first black to be President.
Maybe we should consider imprisoning everyone who does not vote for Obama...I hear that Halliburton has been building prison camps all over the country. Might as well put them to good use. I just hope I go in the same cell as Howard. What a way to be imprisoned! With one of the greatest American heroes and intellects of our time. It would be like sitting at the feet of a master.
Cindy
by
Cindy Sheehan (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 10:30:27 AM
I have been a disillusioned progressive for more than half a century. However, there is hope. This little ray of hope came to me over 30 years ago. However, it warms to this day and gives me patience.
In the early 70s I was on the road. Hithhiking through Montana I picked up a local radio station on my pocket transistor radio. I heard a woman call in to tell about a find while she was cleaning her attic. A 1928 campaign brochure, Norman Thomas for President.
For those that do not know, Norman Thomas succeeded Eugene V. Debs as leader of the Socialist Party in 1926, he was one of the founders of the ACLU. He ran for president on the Socialist Party ticket in every election from 1928 to 1948. As a candidate he never polled more than 6% of the popular vote. However, he did manage to get many issues on the table.
The caller on that day in the early '70s told how all of the issues on the Socialist Party platform of 1928, but one, had been achieved. A 40 hour work week, minimum wage, overtime pay, old age pension(Social Security), unemployment insurance, on the job injury insurance(Workman's Compensation), workers safety(OSHA), bank and securities trading regulation. They had all become law. They are all a part of the fabric of modern American society. Even if there have been major efforts to overturn and circumvent them in the last couple of decades.
Third party candidates get issues into the discussion that otherwise might be ignored. Every vote they garner tells the mainstream candidates that there are thousands more who feel the same way but were 'afraid to waste their vote.' It tells the mainstream candidates that perhaps this idea has merit and they should at least consider it.
Paul Diamond
by
Pulladigm (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 12:35:03 PM
One: This pseudo choice between evils is handed to us every time. Don't you get it? That is the way they maintain control of us and keep real changes from altering the status quo. Like Kucinich who ironically being in the Democratic Party found himself orphaned by them with help from the Republicans. More and more it seems both parties have been infiltrated and taken over by the same group of fascists.
Two: The title use of the provocative word 'parasite' is certainly leading like a reich-winger would. Corporate capitalism is parasitic, how is Howard Zinn's view fit that definition of one thing living off another and giving nothing or too little in return?
Three: We are all being manipulated like cows to slaughter with the two choices we are given. Letting no others have the access needed to be viable is a crime. Obama is no liberal despite what the 'opponents' say about him. We are given the "False Dilemma Fallacy" and "Mocton's Fork" to be sure we won't marshal our numbers to elect any who would oppose the way things are given to us. The false dilemma fallacy limits the choices given even if other valid choices are there but not used. Mocton's Fork is a choice between two or more bad options. This is normal for our society and because of that people such as Gosztola take it for granted. We must stop this.
by
nightgaunt (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 322 comments)
on Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 12:46:40 PM
If I had to guess I'd say you read only the title and skipped the article before commenting. Gosztola is very clear that he thinks people should vote third party because Obama isn't "liberal enough."
He's making the same points you are making. It really helps to read at least a couple of paragraphs before you try to critique someone's views.
by
JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments)
on Friday, October 31, 2008 at 7:15:57 AM
If Howard Zinn actually thinks that a handful of hijackers did 911, then he is possibly unaware of how the terror networks operate. 911 was done by the 'usual suspects,' the terror network operated by the central bankers.
If the Central bankers were merely Parasites, we could tolerate them; they re' not; they’re genocidal Predators who made the decision to go ahead with a full scale nuclear buildup with plans to immolate the mass of the human race in an all out nuclear holocaust.
The plan is still the same; an all out surprise attack upon the human race with nuclear weapons.
Obama is “Rochester” to Mr. Benny. He, (as the original Rochester Van Jones) is a well paid actor, and both are employees of ‘Mr. Benny.’
When the ‘Living Dead,’ figure out that ‘Mr. Benny’ has already pulled the nuclear trigger on them, it should be a rapid end to his long running murder for hire show.
To consider that Mc Cain and Palin are possibly as dangerous-if not more so- than Obama, is a signal that they all got to go away, or be put away, to allow humanity a chance to survive.
by
Patrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments)
on Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 2:23:58 PM
Nader's the guy who said he didn't care if his candidacy gave it to a Conservative. Great. Presumably he still doesn't.
We don't have time for games like that.
Obama's not great but he's good enough. I don't even think of him as a lesser evil. The question is whether he can undo any of the evil that Bush has done. After all, Congressional Democrats have been a big part of that creativity. Does anybody think it was ignorance? I don't think so.
by
lenngray (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 69 comments)
on Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 11:39:53 PM
"Obama's not great but he's good enough." That's exactly why progressives have been so miserable and frightened about this nation's future over the past eight years.
And if there is a serious question about whether he can undo any of the damage because Congressional Democrats have been part of the problem, why are you voting for somebody who was part of Congress (which is the House of Representatives and the Senate) and who was part of the problem?
by
Kevin Gosztola (252 articles, 130 quicklinks, 76 diaries, 958 comments)
on Friday, October 31, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM
the real parasites have been collecting dividend checks since birth ...
i'm voting for old man nader. i admit it's partly a guilt vote. i wrongfully held animosities toward him for the gore loss. nader, mckinney and kucinich are the only real candidates of change. the rest are just good at sloganeering.
i am a hopeless progressive, driven to believe that there is more to life than self-gratification and that any means justifies this grandest of human ends.
i was hoping, that given the atrocities the power-elite have openly and successfully committed against our nation's people and republic and other peoples of the world for so many decades now, a truly progressive candidate would rise from the ashes of our constitution. the fisa vote convinced me obama wasn't one and to leave the democratic party. the bailout left me with no hope for american democracy.
i am so sorry. are you following the narrowing polls? with millions of voters deleted from their only participation in the usa democracy? how ridiculous ... i guess americans are just too stupid and gullible to be the caretakers of america.
i've posted this too often elsewhere for years now, but as this exhausting media-fed exercise in fake democratic choice has again made clear, it is as relevant as ever.
u.s.a. - r.i.p. 1776-2000
by
hourglass (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Friday, October 31, 2008 at 2:03:47 AM
Progressive Parasitism? Only 2 choices in the Real Election
Obama was not my first, second third or fourth choice. But I'll vote for him because there are only two candidates running who can win. Just two. The other candidates are not in the race to win. They are there to sell a vision and/or a message.
I can see voting for them if you live in a state that is "Safe." Then, your vote as a message makes some sense.
But otherwise, I consider you, if you're a progressive, to be a parasite. You KNOW that there is a difference between McCain and Obama. You know the ways they are different. You know that the future of the world will be very different with Obama compared to what it will be with McCain..
IF you choose to use the one vote you have to send a message-- by not voting or by voting for someone with no chance of winning, then you are depending upon, using other voters to carry the weight, to get the job of preventing the worst of the two candidates from winning done.
You can tell yourself that you are doing what is true to your conscience, but you are selling out the greater good. I realize you will argue against this statement and say that the greater good is the bigger picture that the duopoly or the corrupt vote counting system must be replaced and the way to do that is through sending your message.
I don't believe this is the way or time to send that message.
I believe that Obama will be the most liberal president elected in a long, long time, certainly more liberal than Clinton, maybe more liberal than Carter, Johnson and JFK. That takes us all the way back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He's no progressive, not even a liberal. But he's a hell of a lot of progress over anyone since at leas Carter, maybe since Roosevelt. And he could turn ou to be even better. He could turn out to be amazing. Regardless of what he's done so far, there IS that potential. There is no such potential for any other candidate-- McCain because of his politics, the other candidates because they have zero chance of winning.
Go ahead, if you must, and send your message, which will be lost in the noise o the big election. But don't delude yourself that there is no difference between the two candidates. Don't try to sell that nonsense to anyone. It's a sloppy, lazy attempt at best, or a deluded, in-denial distortion, at worst.
We who challenge your choices to go third party or to not vote genuinely care about you. We've lived through eight years of earth and human destroying, civilization eroding right wing toxic control and it blows our minds that you don't see that your are waving protest signs at an approaching category five hurricane.
Signs work for some occasions. Sending messages work for some occasions. But we face not just another four years of destructive, neocon, theocon trashing of democracy and the constitution. We face the end of hope. If Obama fails, a new generation of voters may decide to become as cynical and angry, as hopeless and impotent as... well, as you've become. Impotent? Yes. Surely, when you cast a vote for someone who cannot win, you can't argue that it is an not an impotent vote!! It may send a message, but it doesn't affect the outcome of the election.
ON OEN, among the 1850 people who have answered our demographic question on sexual preference, about 4% said they were celibate. Voting for someone who cannot win is sort of like choosing to take a political dead end, just like celibates choose to remove themselves from the gene pool.
Or consider another analogy. I have a cell phone. I can use it to make phone calls, or I can use it to hammer nails or, not very effectively, to shred cheese. You have one vote to cast. You can choose how you use it too. You have the right, but face the facts. If you don't vote for either McCain or Obama, you are making an impotent vote, acting like a parasite, depending upon the rest of us, hoping that the worst won't happen in spite of your choice to not participate the REAL election.
I say, with love and affection for all of you who think that blowing off the REAL election is a REAL choice; You are certainly right if you say that the election is for the lesser of two evils. Life is full of those choices. You don't buy the perfect house. You buy the one you can afford. You don't go to all the exotic vacation spots on your time off. You go to what you can afford to go to, if anywhere at all. You make choices and settle for less than perfect every day. So get over your idealization of the elections. I can see a 20 something demanding the ideal. But for the rest of you, come on! Wake up!. You've settled for less than perfect thousands of times and that's what life is all about.
by
Rob Kall (891 articles, 4057 quicklinks, 350 diaries, 1925 comments)
on Friday, October 31, 2008 at 7:59:24 AM
1
1
1
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (