Should liberals vote for Obama?

We need a liberalism that engages as well as spectates - without power, there is no change.

By John Stoehr Published 02 October 2012 16:08

Barack Obama. Photograph: Getty Images

With the effect of Mitt Romney's comment about 47 per cent of Americans now being felt in the national polls (it doesn't look good), with the economy adding 386,000 more jobs than originally thought between March 2011 and March 2012, and with early voting beginning into battleground states, things are looking very good for President Barack Obama's chances at a second term in office.

The Associated Press based its analysis of how things stand on polls, TV ads, and interviews with campaign officials and concluded that: "If the election were held today, an Associated Press analysis shows Obama would win at least 271 electoral votes, with likely victories in crucial Ohio and Iowa along with 19 other states and the District of Columbia. Romney would win 23 states for a total of 206."

In other words, you need 270 electoral votes to win, and Obama seems poised to make that impossible for Romney. Even if Romney took Florida, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Virginia -- all of which are up for grabs - he'd still have just 267 votes, according to the AP. Close but not close enough.

Perhaps this is why we are seeing a fresh debate on the political left over the president's first term. Now that the chances of a Republican taking the White House appear to be diminishing, the coast is clear for dissent over the president's record on civil liberties: drones, extra-judicial killings and suspension of habeas corpus. In other words, on a record that's abysmal and maddening to some of Obama's 2008 supporters. The debate began when Conor Friedersdorf, of The Atlantic, said that he won't vote for Romney but he won't vote for Obama either.

I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might conclude that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers.

He continues:

The whole liberal conceit that Obama is a good, enlightened man, while his opponent is a malign, hard-hearted cretin, depends on constructing a reality where the lives of non-Americans - along with the lives of some American Muslims and whistleblowers - just aren't valued.

In protest, Friedersdorf says he plans to cast a vote for Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico and current candidate for the Libertarian Party who, he says, "won't win". Like former GOP candidate Ron Paul, who sat at the top of the Libertarian ticket back in the late 1980s, Johnson has been virtually alone in denouncing such constitutional violations while conservatives and liberals have been silent. Of course, liberals were anything but mute when George W. Bush was president. During the 2000s, they rallied against torture. But while Obama has banned torture, he has "indefinitely detained" Bradley Manning, personally overseen the killing of an American citizen in Yemen and escalated a drone war in Pakistan, terrorizing the locals there while fearing little political fallout at home.

As Friedersdorf says: "Obama soothes with rhetoric and kills people in secret."

Jamelle Bouie, of The American Prospect, appreciates Friedersdorf's frustration but demurs. "For as much as they have a huge effect on the direction of the country, presidential elections are not the place where meaningful change occurs."

Health care reform, Bouie says, didn't begin with Obama but ended with him. The new law was the culmination of years of grassroots effort. Voting for Johnson, moreover, won't force the two major parties to change, he says. They are too entrenched and too self-interested to fall apart. Besides, he adds, Johnson's position is hardly the lesser of two evils. He wants to slash the US budget to the bone, decimate social programs and reverse Roe v. Wade. Bouie says:

A world where Johnson could be elected president — which, Conor says, would be a good outcome — is a world where these things are possible. His domestic policies would throw millions into hardship, and his hugely contractionary economic policies would plunge the country — and the globe — into a recession.

I, too, sympathize with Friedersdorf. I also think he confuses ideology with partisanship. He claims to have come to his conclusion about Obama because he is "not a purist," by which he seems to mean he doesn't divide the world between friend and enemy. Ideas matter to him, as do ethics, and if these contravene partisan allegiance, then so be it. He is, however, an ideological purist, which is why he's on firm ground lambasting the incumbent for violating human rights.

Yet, like many American liberals, Friedersdorf overestimates the importance of ethics in presidential elections and underestimates the importance of raw politics. Politics means power, and without power, the liberal agenda, no matter how righteous, cannot effect change in any transformative and majoritarian sense. Indeed, if I were to take a wild guess, Friedersdorf's ideal might be voting for the presidential candidate who actually does the right thing, no matter what, even if that right-thing is politically dicey. That's nice but solipsistic and impractical.

And perhaps selfish. As it happens, Rebecca Solnit, writing for tomdispatch.com, provides a counterpoint to Friedersdorf a day after his article ran (though not in response as far as I can tell): "When you choose not to participate [in the political system], it better be for reasons more interesting than the cultivation of your own moral superiority, which is so often also the cultivation of recreational bitterness."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting a politics focused on power only. What I'm suggesting is a liberalism that engages rather than spectates. A vote for an outlier with no chance of winning is a spectatorial politics in its most basic form.

American conservatism has tended to view liberalism as illegitimate. The Republican Party doesn't listen to its own social libertarians. Why would a President Romney listen to liberals? Better to vote for a president who will listen, then hold his feet to the fire. To do that, activists need to radicalize the Democratic Party's base.

As Solnit says, electoral politics are nominally important but important all the same. If Friedersdorf wants Obama to stop terrorizing Pakistani families, imprisoning Americans without trial, and killing with impunity, he's not going to do it by voting for Gary Johnson. Yes, if enough Americans voted for an alternative party, then the major parties might change. But that's a liberal canard more in keeping with one's sense of self-importance than one's concern with majoritarian progress.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: US Election 2012

More from John Stoehr

View the discussion thread.

20 comments

Sat, 2012-10-20 07:53 — Artemis caesar (not verified)

Obama or Romney? No difference,they'll say what the electorate wants to hear, get elected, forget about the voters until the next election! Works most of the time and the sheeple fall for it.
What a joy to have the illusion of democracy!
You get to choose from just two 'chosen' candidates, from the two parties that 'rule' America publicly! Not allowed to freely choose who you want to vote for! Dictatorship
by a different guise!

Mon, 2012-10-08 05:05 — Paul Strait (not verified)

This article seems to make the argument that the ends justify the means -- that despite all of the innocent men, women, and children murderd by Obama's drones, and despite the fact that he's prosecuted more whistle-blowers than all 43 of his predecessors combined, and despite the fact that he fought an illegal war in Libya, and despite the fact that he is prosecuting medical marijuana patients, and despite the fact that he has kept Gitmo open, and despite the fact that he legalized domestic propaganda, and despite the fact that he passed the NDAA.... it was all worth it because he was able to leverage those betrayals into an enactment of a massive liberal agenda. So what exactly justified all of the above? The fact that he passed the Heritage Foundation's health care? If you think that that justifies the murder of so many innocents in Pakistan, you might be the most selfish person on the planet. This argument is terrible. At least when republicans are in charge, liberals have a conscience. Those of you so-called 'liberals' who are enthusiastic supporters of Obama, I have no idea how you sleep at night.

Fri, 2012-10-05 10:12 — AMeshiea (not verified)

"When you choose not to participate [in the political system], it better be for reasons more interesting than the cultivation of your own moral superiority, which is so often also the cultivation of recreational bitterness.""

Voting third party IS participating in the political system.

Wed, 2012-10-03 10:36 — JJJ (not verified)

See here's the thing that the tribalists won't understand, but maybe people with a brain cell will:

Only Nixon could go to China.

Meaning only a Republican, who doesn't have a point to prove about how big his c*** is can make changes in foreign policy. Obama drone strikes for electoral gain. Were he not to do it, the Republicans would have a clear line of attack. He doesn't believe it's making America safer because he's not stupid, and he doesn't enjoy it because he's not psychotic (heartless and cynical, clearly, but not psychotic)

And just as only a Republican can get away with taking a milder path in foreign policy, only Obama was able to normalise Bush's excesses and pardon his war crimes. Only Obama was able to get the banks off the hook for their catastrophe. Only Obama is able to dismantle social security and medicare. Only Obama can get progressives to cheer for things they screamed bloody murder about not a few years before.

If you want a liberal outcome, you need a Democratic congress and a Republican president. History shows that to be true.

Something to think about, if you can.

Sun, 2012-11-04 14:10 — Daniel Jereb (not verified)

Eisenhower and Nixon, honorable men and pure alpha-males.

Wed, 2012-10-03 01:45 — Spitefuel (not verified)

Firstly let's clear up a few things for people who don't understand the US political system.

By the time it gets to the presidential election it is too late for a third party vote to make any difference.

If you wanted to vote for a third party you should have done it for Congress or Senate where you would firstly have a better chance of getting a candidate in; and secondly where local campaigning would have more effect.

If you are Liberal then a vote for a Third Party candidate is a vote for Romney. It's that simple. There are only 2 viable choices. Romney or Obama. If you choose to opt out then you're reducing the Centre/Left vote and basically giving Romney more of a chance. it's not a "protest vote". A protest vote is a vote for the opposition in Congress or Senate. If you don't get that. Just don't damn vote as you clearly have no idea how the US political structure works.

I'm not suggesting you have to vote for Obama but don't kid yourself about the consequences. Perhaps it would be better for the US in the long run to suffer under an increasingly fundamentalist Republican party. It might be good for women to lose the right to abortion to remind them what life was like before under a more Republican American ideology. It might motivate people to push the Democrats further to the Left.

Of course you'd be guaranteeing a lot of suffering for a lot of people.

If as a US citizen you want a third party to break the 2 party dominance; you do it like every other political movement has done it. You start local and you grow. To imagine that you can win the presidency from having no base is at best naive and quite frankly plain stupid.

As for European pundits droning on about how awful Obama is; fine. If you want Romney carry on. It's not just America has a dominant 2 party structure. So does the UK. The only way that ever gets broken is again by building a third party base up from scratch. Right now we have a pretty stark choice; a man who believes that God talks to him directly is very close to getting access to the a nuclear arsenal and the worlds largest military force. I'm sure Europe will be delighted to fight along side Romney as he bombs the hell out of any country he feels will help him win the next election on. Happily applauding Israel as they tear up the Middle East in their battle with Iran.

But hey, you keep taking shots at the sane option (however clearly flawed he is).

Learn how the political structure works before you start pontificating about it.

Start suggesting how a third party can grow and for goodness sake just wear a "I want Romney to bring about Armageddon" badge to make your anti-Obama stance clear.

Don't get me wrong. I'm VERY disappointed in Obama; but not as genuinely worried I would be if that moron Romney (no I haven't dropped the second "m") gained the White House.

Wed, 2012-10-03 03:26 — John Cheese (not verified)

Typical unknowledgeable euro rant about US politics- entertaining & tiresome all at the same time... I suggest taking a pill to sooth your upset tummy over the big dog global issues. Let the adults handle things and go take a nappy. The empty suit is going to lose. The bad ole scary "flyover" people with happy families are energized and voting this time. Early voting has started & Ohio GOP is way ahead of early votes from 08 levels at this same time. Also, the plank is, abortion goes back to indiv states rights- like the death penality, it's not a national issue. You'll always have California to visit & drop one in a bucket if needed...

Mon, 2012-10-22 21:27 — Terry Chillean (miner) (not verified)

There you are, plastic yankee...
still going strong for dumb America.
Keep up the good work.
But know this pal..erectile dysfunction aside,
word is out...you am de shit.

Tue, 2012-10-02 22:51 — Mbrecker (not verified)

Why do so many automatically say if you vote third party you're an egotistical _____ that's throwing away your vote? Even if voting is mandatory (ex. Australia), the point is to vote for who you feel is the best choice?

Why will millions vote for Obama? One reason is they refuse to see the evidence in front of them. I don't have time to protest (only students and unemployed people do that). I don't care if he does lie about torture, takes away many of my rights and will kill me if he decides if I'm a "terrorist". All I care about is stopping the neocons at all cost.

Even after Obama is re-elected, will he be held accountable for his actions? No. Why? Because the Democrats will never allow it. Obama has also said he won't prosecute former leaders who are accused of war crimes. This means that Bush, Cheney (and even Obama) will never be touched. Does Obama really want to be the butt of war criminal jokes (if I go abroad, will I be arrested)? Many don't want to deal with ulgy and inconvenient reality like torture and innocent people being killed by drones. Instead, just continue being the Supercool Rock Star President for a second term.

Tue, 2012-10-02 22:42 — jankaas (not verified)

surely it is utterly pointless to equate our Euro political sense of left & right with the US version? Obama is well to the right of the Tories. the fact that many Yanks try and paint him as some sort of socialist is cretinous.

Tue, 2012-10-02 22:34 — Ashley P (not verified)

"Better to vote for a president who will listen, then hold his feet to the fire"
Exactly what I was saying the other day to someone. Because in the civil rights area, Romney is just as bad or worse than Obama. Allowing him to win would not only undo the progress Obama has made, but would double the civil rights failures Obama has made. At least if Obama wins, the dems will feel free to go after him on these subjects, secure in the knowledge that he's not running for another term

Tue, 2012-10-02 21:10 — John Cheese (not verified)

GOP must win the Senate & Presidency to make any headway against the left socialist Obama surge into high taxes, bigger gvt, even more spending & printing $$ & the potential fold-in of another 11 million illegals (most to be Democrats). Obama followed the Bush program to get osama, crashed GM & has a 3rd grade foreign policy agenda. He makes Carter looks grand... The prize at the end of all this is repeal of Obamacare/Obamatax, the Supreme Court picks & energy independence. We know the left dirty Mormon and evil capitalist tricks are coming, I just hope Romney/Ryan can throw turd for turd with the Blamer...

Wed, 2012-10-03 17:49 — mittfh

And do you seriously think that a Romney presidency would result in significantly lower spending? If you cast your mind back to the previous Republican president, he introduced widespread tax cuts but failed to curb spending - and in fact implemented several large increases in military spending.

Even with a Republican controlled Congress, the politicians may espouse plenty of rhetoric about cutting spending, but if spending programmes that are very popular with their constituents are in the firing line, it's likely they'll vote against the cuts, which could leave the US in the unenviable catch-22 situation of politicians both voting anachronistically: against higher taxes, against raising the debt ceiling, but also against widespread tax cuts. After all, the US currently spends 1.5x what it receives in taxation revenue, and it's inconceivable that a 1/3 reduction in spending would not negatively affect millions of citizens - particularly those in lower socio-economic demographics - especially if the military (which, together with medicare / medicaid / social security, forms one of the biggest chunks of spending) is excluded from cuts.

As for the Affordable Health Care Act, my understanding (from several different news sources) was that over time it would cost the government less than at present, through a variety of mechanisms, including through the "tax" which would probably be better described as penalty charges for those who are ineligible for state health care support but also don't buy health insurance (a category that apparently only applies to a few percent of the population - the vast majority would not be impacted by the charge). In fact, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the AHCA is very similar to a scheme the Republicans have proposed in the past, as well as the scheme implemented in MA by a certain Mitt Romney...

Mon, 2012-10-22 21:35 — Terry Chillean (miner) (not verified)

dont argue with a one trick pony dude,
he honestly cant retort...
You are wasting time..I think he's 15,
and listens into his dads conversations
with his republican redneck pals...
He knows not what he says.

Tue, 2012-10-02 17:50 — Robert Rich (not verified)

Thanks for the article.

Pro-Libertarians are not conservatives. Johnson does not want to get rid of Roe, and Libertariasm holds that public or community social programs should not be 'decimated' but made e.g. voluntary and endowment funded and so outside of political micro-managing.

A larger issue involves the ridiculous ballot access laws in this country that block independents and 3rd parties, and the need for direct democracy.

For info on people worldwide using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization Libertarian-International.org ....

Tue, 2012-10-02 17:50 — Robert Rich (not verified)

Thanks for the article.

A larger issue involves the ridiculous ballot access laws in this country that block independents and 3rd parties, and the need for direct democracy.

For info on people worldwide using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization Libertarian-International.org ....

Tue, 2012-10-02 17:43 — Robert Rich (not verified)

Thanks for the article.

A larger issue involves the ridiculous ballot access laws in this country that block independents and 3rd parties, and the need for direct democracy.

For info on people worldwide using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization Libertarian-International.org ....

Tue, 2012-10-02 22:00 — Daryl Davis (not verified)

Nice to see a libertarian open to direct democracy. Many purist libertarians are opposed to any majority rule whatsoever. If you're interested, have a look at my design of a hybrid system of direct democracy and libertarianism.

whatdirectdemocracymightbe. wordpress .com

Tue, 2012-10-02 18:02 — Robert Rich (not verified)

Sorry for the multiple posts the button didn't seem responsive...

Tue, 2012-10-02 21:02 — jankaas (not verified)

i'm more bothered by the cumbersome mouthful of a website title; "Libertarian International Organization Libertarian-International.org"