Sunday, November 04, 2012


I've talked to many on the left who won't vote for Obama, some who won't vote at all. A great deal of this is due to the continued waging of imperialistic warfare in the Middle East. These folks are so enraged that they can't bring themselves to vote for Obama. I get that. I really get that. When it comes to foreign policy, we are a long way away from electing a President or a Congress that is not imperialist. And this election won't change that. There's also the argument that elections are a public spectacle that drain energy from potential grass roots action and resistance. I have to plead guilty to participating in the spectacle. My twitter feed has been largely taken up with satiric jabs at the Republican nominees. However, I don't find this argument very convincing. The apathy of the public towards political engagement is a larger systemic issue that may not change unless conditions starts affecting relatively well-off Americans more directly. I won't spend a lot of time making my case for voting for Obama. It's rather late in the game for that. But I would like to call your attention to these statements by Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky. Neither of these men are fans of Mr. Obama. Chomsky is about as anti-imperialist as you can be. Ellsberg has been tirelessly fighting against the persecution of Bradley Manning, and outspoken against Obama's foreign policy, and particularly the administration's anti-whistleblower actions, which are disgraceful. So why are they telling voters in swing states that they should vote for Obama? Simple. They understand the reality of practical politics today. The Republicans represent a much worse alternative, one that is significant enough to cause a great deal of suffering if they gain more power. It's as simple as that.