Adapted from a letter written December 10, 2007:
A friend called about an hour ago and asked me if Hillary Clinton is ‘bought.’ I wouldn’t exactly put it that way, but I said ‘yes’ because I think I understand what she means and there’s some truth to it. I guess she’s disappointed because she has some fondness or hope for Hillary.I’ve tried to share whatever little brotherly advice I might have learned about relationships with my friend and I like to be gently supportive of what I think is best but in this case she should just get over the romance with Hillary. Obama appears to be a much better prospect.My vote in most presidential campaigns is usually based on who’s likely to do the least harm. There are only three who have any serious chance of winning the Democratic Party’s nomination. Those are Clinton, Obama and Edwards.Of the three, Obama was the only one to oppose the 2003 invasion of Iraq.Hillary and Edwards voted to allow it. Edwards, after public opinion in the US turned, called his vote a serious mistake. Maybe his conscience kicked in, maybe it didn’t.Hillary contends that her vote was for authorization only after WMD inspections and diplomatic efforts had been fully pursued and she acts surprised that Bush was intent on war. She knows better. It’s much more likely that she, thinking ahead to her presidential aspirations, voted for authorization because she thought it was necessary for her to win this campaign. She didn’t want to be painted as weak. That label has plagued Democrats for decades in the media discourse.International war and human rights law, international public opinion, Iraqi opinion (the most relevant opinion) and US public opinion (finally), oppose this war. US public opinion is a special case due to the extremely effective nature of US media and the fact that there was a terrorist act directly upon the US. Public opinion here has changed as it’s dawned on most of the nation that Washington’s response was to use the attack as a pretext for aggressively pursuing their own long-held Middle East business goals.History as slaughter bench, despite this attitude’s long persistence, is but one of several main human and historical tendencies. The best studies have the death toll in Iraq at well over 600,000. That’s a very large pile of bodies and no joke in the Middle East and everywhere else amongst people who recognize the motive. There’s an extensive and unambiguous historical record revealing that the energy reserves of the region are viewed, as US planners like George Kennan and Dick Cheney have said, as a “stupendous source of strategic power” that can be used for “intimidation and blackmail” against industrial rivals. That record goes back to at least the 1940's.The main emerging rival is China. They and others are making arrangements with Iran outside of US influence. That’s a sin to Washington. China is practically immune to intimidation. But Iran can be roughed up. It’s been done before. Iran remembers when the US and UK led a coup in 1953 that overthrew a secular democratic state that had pursued reclaiming (nationalizing) possession of their oil resources from Euro-America. The coup installed a dictator compliant to the West. The Shah’s rule ended in 1979 with a revolution against him and what he stood for.The region is torn between brutal, Euro-American supported violent tyrannies as in Saudi, Egypt and Syria, and anti-Western militant religious parties, amongst others. The West has been beating up on the place, fostering tyrannies that act as local mafia-type systems to maintain control and a favorable business climate. This engenders deep resentment and violent response, like 9-11. Iran broke free of Euro-America in 1979 and has been on Washington's shit list ever since. There’s absolutely no reason to attack them and they understand exactly what we’re doing in the region. Despite her claims of vast experience, it’s not at all clear that Hillary understands any of this.She voted again this fall to authorize the use of force - this time against Iran. That is a huge mistake on every level, recognized as such even by the foreign policy establishment in the US. Her incompetence is comparable to Bush administration policy; in this case it’s virtually identical. Obama didn’t vote. He was campaigning. It may be that he wanted to avoid looking soft but he at least didn’t vote for authorization against Iran. He’s conceded it was a mistake, that he should have voted against authorization instead of not voting. That helps but it still doesn’t look good. He’s also voted to fund the war. He may have feared the serious beating he would’ve taken for what they call “not supporting the troops.” In itself that’s not impressive. But there is a case, although not necessarily a very strong one in my opinion, that can be made that a serious and losing funding battle would have a devastating consequence on the discourse.Kucinich is the most principled. His excellent principles, his equal regard for peasants and elites, his limited organization and his sometimes awkward speaking style might account for his low poll numbers. I’d vote for him if he had a shot. But at this point the best thing I can do in the voting booth is support Obama. Hillary and the Bush administration have similar foreign policy objectives, goals historically shared by most of Washington. Hillary probably would do less damage than Bush because she probably has at least some tact, but Obama appears to be on a different track altogether, despite some of the compromises apparent in part of his record. Geopolitics can be conducted ethically and without the savage cynicism we’re so used to. I think Obama is most likely to make the most constructive changes although, in the end, he may be likely only to do the least harm.All of the Republican candidates, with Ron Paul as a slight exception, are completely off-base and right in line with the worst historical trends. Their approach compares well to unvarnished mafia politics, what one observer called the “multiple factions of competing elites.” John Dewey wrote many decades ago that politics “is the long shadow cast over society by big business.” I think that’s what my friend was talking about on the phone. Hillary is part of the shadow cast by big business, an agent of multiple factions of competing elites. There are two main views on whether or not history involves constructive social evolution away from these kinds of power relationships. I’m of the view that it obviously does, albeit too damned gradually. I think Obama is of the same opinion, a rare opinion among political elites.So I’ll probably be voting for Obama in the primary in Missouri. I can’t see any reason to vote for Hillary.
- kjl
I think this would be an opportune time to change the signs to:
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN
'CAN' should be italicized. I think the emphasis would be particularly timely and relevant.
-kjl
Good Luck
Here's a message from MLK's legacy, not too late to remind the nation: How you get there matters. Corrupt means corrupt ends. We don't make enduring advances outside of the domain of honest political practices. We trust principles, goals and ourselves that much. This is the legacy, proven time and time again in campaigns for social progress. This must come to be expected. I wish this lesson of MLK and his predecessors had occurred to me before the last debate. It would have been a good time for the Clintons, and all of us really, to be reminded of it. But it's not too late to recall this.
