I have been disenchanted with Barack Obama since the summer of 2008. I didn’t vote for him in 2008, because I’m a liberal, not a Democrat, and the writing was already on the wall that Barack Obama was not going to promote liberal causes. I admire the progressive presidential campaigns of Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein, and right now, my intention is to vote for one of them in November.
In that context, it’s a big deal for me to even think this, much less say it: Something happened today that, if it is followed through to completion, could convince me to vote for Barack Obama for President in 2012.
I’m talking about the statement from within the Obama Administration that President Obama is considering massive cuts to America’s arsenal of nuclear weapons – perhaps down to 300 nuclear warheads.
Right now, the cuts are just talk. They’re not even talk from Obama himself, and certainly not a promise. Besides that, Barack Obama has made plenty of promises to liberals that he has broken. My trust in Obama is not high.
However, getting rid of nuclear weapons is a big deal. When Republicans talk about spending as a big problem that we have to face down, I shake my head, because budget issues are nothing compared to the problem we have with nuclear weapons.
There’s a whole lot I don’t like about Barack Obama, on many issues that matter to me as an American liberal. However, if I see concrete action, with a commitment that’s got teeth, to get the process started of reducing our nuclear weapons down to 300, I just might give Obama my vote.
The insane headlines today from America’s right wing publications today have only confirmed for me what a serious issue this is, and how far from the responsible path the Republicans have gone.
“Obama’s Irrational Warhead Cuts: Nuclear Gun Control”, said one headline.
“Obama Nuclear Weapons Plan ‘Downright Scary’”, read another.
It’s crazy for someone to think that eliminating weapons of mass destruction is “irrational” or “scary”. Consider the purpose of a nuclear weapon: To kill millions of civilians per explosion.
It is a national disgrace that the United States continues to hold so many nuclear weapons as a threat over the rest of the world. For the sake of any public official who does serious work toward eliminating nuclear weapons, I am willing to overlook a whole lot of other policy differences.
Of course, if Barack Obama backs away from eliminating nuclear weapons, then that will just strengthen my resolve to vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson for President, and encourage others to do so as well.
It’s time to put on the hope, Mr. President.
I cannot believe that you would consider voting for Obama based merely on one statement!!!! I voted for him in 2008 based on his rhetoric. He and every other member from both parties will say ANYTHING to be elected.
Stick with the Green Party.
You don’t understand, Caye. I’m not talking about Obama making a STATEMENT. I’m talking about ACTION. If Obama does more than make a promise, but the nuclear warheads actually begin to be dismantled, that’s when I’d consider making the change in my vote.
The truth is, I don’t really expect that to happen. I expect grand statements and sweeping violins, and then a terrible “compromise” and then no action at all. That would by typical Obama.
Caye, what are the chances that a Green Party (or any other 3rd party candidate) will win, historically speaking? Remember Ralph Nader? You’re correct about their campaign rhetoric though, as we unfortunately saw with Obummer.
The chances are 100% if majorities vote Green. It’s not like weather. We are collectively responsible.
Stein’s on the ballot; she has as much as chance as anyone else. romney is a corporatist, obama is a corporatist whore. Stein is qualified, intelligent, honest. Vote your conscience.
“The chances are 100% if majorities vote Green.” There’s also a 100% chance Colbert will get elected if a majority votes for him. His point was there’s no chance in hell a majority will vote for him. It’s an embrace of faith and rejection of logic to think that a poorly funded minority party candidate can make a serious impact in a winner-take-all election system like our own. I’m sure Obama hates half the choices he makes too, but the reality is he straddles the line between doing what is best for the country/world and doing what will make 50% vote for him. Liberal third party voters actually push that line to the right, since, for every true liberal he loses to the Greens, he has to pick up a moderate republican to keep Santorum from taking the White House….
It’s not ideal that we live in the real world, but you can either live in your fantasy land and feel warm and fuzzy about how you voted, or vote strategically and actually help make incremental changes for good.
You could atleast donate to their campaigns to get the ball rolling to give them the momentum to get that many votes to win.
The problem isn’t a lack of votes directly, but a lack of campaign donations that leads to a lack of good campaigning that leads to a lack of votes. Give $2500 (to Jill Stein below) and vote for Obama in November if you want.
https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/donate
If I donated $2500 to Stein, that would probably get her five or ten votes, all liberals. That would mean the president would have to get five or ten more votes, which will most likely have to be moderates.
The system we have is far from perfect, but we have two options within that system: 1) chase major electoral reform, get a constitutional amendment establishing a proportional representation system which will allow minority parties to have a serious impact or 2) Empower liberal organizations like the ACLU, Americans United and MoveOn, while voting for officials who can get 50% AND who are open to the arguments those organizations make. We have to be conscious of the electoral system we’re in and how to best use that system to achieve the results we want.
I’m not saying just you to make the donation, but to get hundreds and thousands of people to make equal donations so that she would qualify for matching donations from the government and get a total of $1 billion within her reach if she received enough donations.
If you wanted to employ this strategy to take votes from Republicans, you could donate to Gary Johnson.
https://donate.garyjohnson2012.com/
That line of argument only works if Obama has been incrementally moving policy in a liberal direction, Jeff. In many areas of policy, from the environment to civil liberties to robot warfare, he’s continued to push policy in a rightward direction. I see no reason to reward such behavior…
… and I really doubt Barack Obama will follow up his disarmament talk with action.
“In many areas of policy…he’s continued to push policy in a rightward direction.” I guess my main question with that argument would be,’rightward of what?’ We live in a (strange) republic, where in order to win the White House, you have to gain the support of close to half of the people who choose to get politically involved. For liberals, that frustrating reality means we are about 25 points short of getting someone with Stein’s philosophy elected. So, we have to make some concessions. But “rightward?”
Yes, the US produced more oil last year than any previous year. But also, fuel economy standards now essentially guarantee all new cars will either be electric or hybrid within the decade. The national government has been more supportive of wind and solar than ever before. We’ve danced with SOPA and PIPA, but for the first time in the US, employers can no longer discriminate based on gender identity, DADT is history, and birth control has been enumerated as a human right. Yes, we use drones to attack threats to the US (and liberal gov’ts in general), sometimes in violation of international law. But we have ended a war which McCain said he would support for 100 years, and we’ve taken a different strategy for regime change (one supported by international law).
Can you say with a straight face that if McCain were president today, you don’t think we’d be at war with Iran? That gay soldiers would not still be silenced? That health insurance would still be a luxury?
All I’m asking is that we operate in reality instead of sabatoging real progress in pursuit of a pipedream.
You mean operate in your reality. In the reality I see around me, Barack Obama has aided and abetted offshore drilling beyond Bush, extended Patriot Act reauthorization for longer periods than Bush, expanded surveillance programs in multiple areas beyond what Bush did, shut down a civil liberties oversight board that was at work under Bush, institutionalized indefinite detention for broader ranges of people than under Bush, legalized the domestic airspace use of the robot drones that are killing civilians in Pakistan, started a war without any congressional authorization or debate with an audacity even George W. Bush didn’t dare, and so on and so forth. Please don’t call me me unreal because I notice these facts.
Jeff, you are surely content with small potatoes. obama has been a disaster, to the environment, to world peace, to the economy, to our Liberty. Compare to what we could have had in 2008.
Jim, I’m not calling you unrealistic for noticing those issues; they’re serious and need to be addressed. This is the reality I’m speaking of: 1) Make a list of people who have the support to possibly become president in 2012. 2) Of those people, which is the most likely to advance the country in a progressive way?
My answer to number 1 is : Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Obama. Using that list, the answer to 2 is obvious. If you have any polling or historical evidence to suggest I’m missing anyone, please provide it. Otherwise, I’d suggest liberals do what we can with what we have.
4 months ago, nobody would have seriously placed Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum on your list, which indicates that “possibly” is a very flexible term.
Haha, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. But in all seriousness Jim, I respect you and love your posts. I’ve been reading the times since 2010, and I look forward to reading more from you in the future.
Take Care
Jeff,
Thanks. I’ve been where you are, and if you look far back enough you can even find J. Clifford arguing passionately that people need to work within the Democratic Party to make change.
I think fluidity can be a good sign; it means we’re thinking critically. I voted third party in ’08. Although I’m in one of the least competitive districts in the country, so if anyone’s going to try to make a statement with a hopeless vote…
Working for change within a party seems unlikely to work. Wether turning the Democrat Party into more like the Green Party or turning the GOP into the Libertarian Party. The GOP is doing all it can do to neutralize Ron Paul and his supporters which means parties will resist change from within. Only third party runs has histrocially caused the parties to change.
Problem is, if you look at the policies of either the Democrats or the Republicans, THEY aren’t living in the real world either. They’re both hopelessly mired in a world of make believe in which oil will never peak, the American economy can recover while continuing to outsource jobs, we can keep racking up debt forever, global warming will just give us flowers earlier in the spring, and military aggression abroad keeps us safe at home. Anyone who votes Democrat or Republican has a lot of nerve lecturing someone else about living in a fantasy world.
You had five straw man arguments and I’m not lecturing, I’m commenting. And Jim, four months ago the list was larger, not smaller. As elections go on, the number of viable candidates gets whittled down. Show me one reputable model that shows Stein has a 1% chance of winning and I’ll cede this point. Her name recognition is maybe 2% nationally. In light of that, explain to me how, realistically, 50,000 liberals voting for her rather than Obama will help anything get accomplished.
But 4 months ago, nobody said that Gingrich or Santorum had a chance of winning, either. My point is just that these things are social creations. There’s no iron law of physics that says a Green candidate can’t be a popular candidate for president.
http://www.voterocky.org/dylan_ratigan_show
Dylan Ratigan explains the self fulfilling porphecy of spltting votes.
Hear-hear regarding the prioritization of nuclear weapons control vs almost everything else. When you compare a problem which could wipe out civilization as we know it in, literally, the blink of an eye, versus almost anything else…well, it’s hardly a contest. Over the years, START and the collapse of the Soviet Union have rendered us way too complacent regarding the nuclear threat. The problem is still there, and still very serious.
Radically reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal would be a great start…but only a start. We also need to get way more serious about non-proliferation, because even a few nukes in the hands of unstable, radical Third World regimes presents a threat out of all proportion to the absolute number of warheads and kilotons involved. The old ‘Nuclear Club’ of the 20th Century, if nothing else, at least shared a common understanding that each of its members had a lot more to lose than they had to gain if nukes start popping off, and consisted entirely of stable governmental systems with militaries solidly under civilian control, pretty much insuring against rogue events. Alas, the same cannot be said for the Nouveau Nukes — Pakistan, N. Korea — and the Wannanukes such as Iran and Syria and God only knows who else.
I don’t pretend to know how we could better control nuclear proliferation, or how we should respond to terrorist state nuclear wannabees like Iran. Reducing our own warhead count gives us the moral high ground, but alas that counts for nothing when you’re up against crazies like the Kims and Ahmadinejad. I really don’t want to see us preemptively bombing Iran, but I also don’t want to see a nuclear-tipped freighter sailing into New York harbor with “Death to the Great Satan” scrawled on it.
All I really know is, we need to make non-proliferation/de-proliferation a high priority issue, or the world my grandbabies inherit for sure won’t be worth a bucket of warm spit.
obama gives lip service to everyone. How long before you realize he is a pathological liar? Fool!