Revolution #119, February 10, 2008
Comments From Our Readers
Reader Debates Our Position on Obama and Election
Editors’ note: This letter was selected from reader comments and correspondence to Revolution. We’re printing it (and will continue to print more correspondence) to give readers a sense of the letters sent to Revolution, and to spark more interactivity between this paper and readers, and among readers. Selecting and printing letters does not imply that we agree, or disagree, with them.
Hello,
I wanted to reach out to again talk about how you are characterizing Obama. I am not sure it’s quite fair to characterize a man by who supports the guy. Just because the author of The Bell Curve endorses the guy doesn’t mean I know who Obama is or is not. [Editors’ note—Our article noted that Andrew Sullivan, the author of a commentary arguing that Obama should be president, promoted the book The Bell Curve. Sullivan is not the author of that book.]
Does he represent the imperialist view of America? Maybe—I’m not sure one way or another. Is there a current candidate for President who does not? If any of them had to be examined, who is the best representative for a new direction for America (away from imperialist domination...)?
I would probably have to say Ron Paul is the biggest candidate for you. But instead of examining, you criticize. I don’t see any candidates from the socialist party running—why is this? It is easy to be a critic and tear anybody down over a number of things that some other person has said about them. It is a lot more difficult to be behind something that is real and tangible.
I am not sure I like Obama or not, but one thing I do like about him is the way he advocates active participation in government. He is a populist and not an oligarch. Of any of the Democratic candidates in the race, he represents the farthest of the outside of the circle of power (is that good/bad?).
In terms of him having the ability to hold America away from the oncoming Civil War because he will appease people, or will he diffuse tension because he looks different and has a name that has more of an international sound... Maybe. Is this a bad thing though?
I think the best thing for the socialists to do (speaking as one who firmly thinks highly of socialist government and how it is needed in this era of consolidated media and business run amok) is to stay out of the horse race politics (unless they want to run somebody) and stick to the issues. You can speak about people’s views on these issues (and not how somebody characterizes somebody’s view on the issues). And you can continue to shine a spotlight on the government’s problems when they continue with imperialist policy in a post-Bush world.
And there will be a post-Bush world that isn’t in full anarchy or revolution. Unless something major happens this year, the election will be won by somebody who you guys don’t really care for—let’s come to terms with that now, and continue to build a base of people who know what is right/wrong, are organized to do something when something goes wrong, and can bring us forward with a new vision. To me, the socialist party isn’t even close to this vision, and people will not look to anybody but the same people who are getting us in to this mess to get us out of this mess.
Instead of focusing on what is wrong/right—let’s engage on what the role of government should/ should not be.
If you like this article, subscribe, donate to and sustain Revolution newspaper.
