Progressive participation required.

::::::::

In less than a week, I will be in Denver at the Democratic National Convention participating in events that will take place outside the Pepsi Center. As I prepare to head to where the political epicenter of American politics will be next week, I have formulated a series of articles. The series is titled, "The Right, the Left, and Your Prized Candidate." The second in the series is as follows.

There is no significant progressive or liberal movement in America right now for the same reasons there is no significant antiwar or peace movement right now. What we have witnessed in the past three to four years is the implosion of a GOP Party, an improvement in the way Democrats engage in politics, and an awakening to all the horrific and terrible actions the Bush Administration has taken in our country’s name among the American population.

With a progressive/liberal and the antiwar/peace movement in fragments, it’s no wonder Americans were not able to get an impeachment or peace candidate in a position to claim the Democratic Party’s nomination.

It is refreshing that many Americans have expressed a desire to get Obama elected and then go to work afterwards. This proves Americans are aware of the need for Americans to be the change they have been waiting for. But, preceding events in this election concerning Obama lead me to doubt our ability to affect change if we continue onward with that line of reasoning.

Recall the following---

February, 1, 2008, MoveOn.org threw its “progressive weight behind Obama” and endorsed him. A supposed antiwar and progressive group threw its weight not behind a peace or pro-Constitution candidate but rather behind one who has no qualms over being pro-military and trampling the rule of law.  

Obama accepted the endorsement saying, “"In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war - a war I also opposed from the start - to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead."

And why wouldn’t a candidate like Obama want to work with MoveOn.org? Despite the flap with the “General Betray Us” ad, which Obama condemned, MoveOn is a machine that any politician would like to have integrated into his or her campaign so long as that politician could control the agenda of it:

Many believe MoveOn to be leading a widespread progressive movement in America, but John Stauber, over at the Center for Media & Democracy, said in July of this year:

“MoveOn is not a movement although it wants to be perceived as one. It is a brilliant and effective fundraising and marketing machine, but 95% or more of their so-called members ignore any particular email appeal. These 3.2 million people on the MoveOn email list are the object of marketing and fundraising campaigns, but they have absolutely no meaningful or democratic control over the decisions of organization, there is no accountability from the leadership to the MoveOn list members, and those of us on the list are unable to organize and communicate amongst ourselves within the list because it can’t be accessed by the grassroots at the local or state level. MoveOn, the Democracy Alliance, and the various liberal think tanks that have arisen to fight the Right are clearly a force able to raise millions of dollars for Democratic candidates and launch PR and messaging campaigns, but none of them are about empowering a populist grassroots uprising.”

MoveOn told its members to vote for John Kerry in 2004. MoveOn convinced its members to support more war funding in 2007 claiming it was “a way to end the war.” 

MoveOn is not progressive. All one has to do is consult the Progressive Democrats of America’s agenda and see that very little of what MoveOn does is actually aimed at securing progressive victories for Americans.

MoveOn’s power to integrate angry frustrated Americans into its top-down workings has greatly affected this country’s ability to meaningfully challenge the Bush administration.

With MoveOn’s endorsement, it is now next to impossible for an independent force to organize and influence the rhetoric of Obama’s campaign as we head into November.

If we are going to push Obama to be the candidate for change, we will need to confront the elephant in the room, MoveOn.org, before this election is over.

Recall the following---

On June 28, 2008, an Obama supporter, Sarah Rath, started a group called, “President Obama, Please Get FISA Right.” It did not take long for the group to become one of the biggest groups on MyBarackObama.com, a social networking site supporters can join to participate in the Obama campaign.

Unfortunately, Obama got FISA wrong. A man who should understand the Constitution very well voted to damage one of the Constitution’s most precious provisions, the Fourth Amendment.

What Obama did get is an act of compromise between Democrats and Republicans that he could use to show his ability to know when the “right decisions” need to be made and allow the “best” of both parties’ ideas to be integrated into policies or bills that will enact change.

Obama’s decision to ignore a group that now has over 25,000 members is astonishing and in fact, inexcusable. Yet, it is symptomatic of the top-down system the Obama campaign is running and begs the question---

If Obama cannot be moved to listen to 25,000 people who “support” him, how many people will it take for him to listen to the people and restore the Constitution if elected in November?

How many million must we organize for real change before Obama will consider those organized important enough to influence the actions he takes or the compromises he brokers?

Finally, recall the following---

Just as July came to an end, The Nation magazine put together a letter titled, “Change *We* Can Believe In,” praising Obama for inspiring a “wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades.” The magazine went on to praise his “vision of a better future” emphasizing the fact that he is now the head of a movement that “believes deeply in the change you have claimed as the mantle of your campaign.”

After praising Obama, the letter proceeds to attempt to apply pressure to Obama. The letter states that “troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance--including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation granting telecom companies immunity from prosecution for illegal wiretapping, which angered and dismayed so many of your supporters” have occurred.

The letter ends listing positions The Nation magazine has agreed with and then details positions that have “varied from the positions” held by, as they put it, his “friends on the left.” 

Those who wrote this letter clearly believe they must challenge Obama’s positions and that is good. But, the letter fails to grasp or understand the fact that Obama isn’t and has never been a progressive or liberal. Therefore, rhetoric he has used that progressives liked was just that---rhetoric to get progressives to vote for Obama in the Democratic primary.

Norman Solomon, in his article, “Obama and the Progressive Base,” understands this. He highlights Obama’s response to people who say he has been moving to the center and illuminated it beautifully:

But on July 8, Obama made a valid point — even if it wasn’t exactly the point he was trying to make — when he disputed “this whole notion that I am shifting to the center” and argued: “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.” Overall, his career as a politician has embraced conciliation and compromise rather than pushing against centrist corporate agendas.   

Solomon’s article calls on us to “dispense with illusions” and understand that the “changes worth believing in are the ones that social movements can make possible.”

The Nation magazine letter seems to be just that---a letter born out of illusions.

No one understands the need to dispense with illusions more than Sunsara Taylor and she points out in her response article to the magazine’s letter, “The signatories to this letter are an impressive list of writers and intellectuals, a number of whom are respected tremendously as voices of conscience. But, this letter, and its whole logic and method, is very bad. Whatever their intent, those who put their names on it are wielding their influence to get people to join them in a deadly exercise in self-delusion.”

Furthermore, Sunsara Taylor challenges the idea that Obama has put forth a vision of a better future proclaiming that his vision is “a vision of massive escalation—to the tune of 10,000 more troops!—of the war in Afghanistan, a willingness to unilaterally use military force in Pakistan, and a refusal to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran.”

She goes on to show a proper amount of outrage at the idea that Obama has been “cautious and centrist":

What exactly is “cautious and centrist” about voting for Bush’s FISA law sanctioning massive domestic wire-tapping and retroactively protecting those who violated the rights of millions to privacy? What is “cautious and centrist” about giving a bloodthirsty speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) that essentially writes Israel a blank check and threatens Iran with war? What is “cautious and centrist” about blaming Black fathers, in his infamous Father’s Day speech, for the way this system has written off a whole generation of youth, unable and unwilling to provide jobs or decent education or any kind of future at all, and instead funneling 1 in 9 Black men into jail?! What is “cautious and centrist” about getting to the right of George Bush’s Supreme Court and arguing for even wider use of the death penalty? What is “cautious and centrist” about promising to expand Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative?!

If all this is “cautious and centrist,” I’d really hate to see “cynical and fascist”!

Taylor’s writing is a warning shot fired across the bow of a ship progressives are sailing into rocky waters that potentially could have dire consequences for progressives supporting Obama if these progressive leaders fail to confront reality.

Taylor's article rightfully illuminates why Obama never will read this letter with the intent of considering the content of it. Therefore, we must dispense with illusions.

And so, over the course of this election, MoveOn has stifled the progressive movement, Obama has found 25,000 supporters to be not important enough to respond to meaningfully and respectfully, and progressive leaders with the help of The Nation have written a letter assuming it might prevent Obama from further shifting to the center or right in this election.

Progressive attempts to rein in Obama have faltered and unfortunately, in the past month Obama has spearheaded a move to insert offshore drilling in a bill that will supposedly confront our energy crisis.

Why has this happened? Because Obama has said he would support it if supporting offshore drilling would prevent deadlock on energy policy.

To all those who say he is just saying things to get elected and we should let it go, this is proof that we should not. It also shows that Obama, as a leader, has the potential to respond to Republican Party tantrums like the one put on in the House Chamber demanding a vote on offshore drilling as Congress adjourned for vacation favorably in the future.

In the next article, I will propose what to do to leverage Obama so that he does not take our energy and power for granted.

For now, I ask:

Is it possible for progressives to come together and leverage Obama? Do progressives possess the fortitude to take such an action?

Will progressives find it important to challenge Obama before this election is over? And is it possible for any meaningful challenge to actually make a difference?

Could putting together a progressive bloc that can challenge Obama to pretend to be progressive or liberal like he did during the Democratic primary actually increase his lead over McCain?

Think on those questions. I’ll be back with my ideas in the next article.

Authors Bio:
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for OpEdNews.com