Further analysis of this paradox is needed.
I'm not fully convinced by these statements: >“If Obama started talking like John Edwards and >tapped into working-class, blue-collar >proletarian rage, suddenly all of those white >voters who are viewing him within the lens of >transcendence would start seeing him >differently,†says Charles Ellison of the >University of Denver’s Center for African American Policy. > >That’s because once Obama parroted Edwards, he >would “be stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing >race,” says Manning Marable, a Columbia >University history professor. That is, the media >would immediately portray him as another Jesse >Jackson -a figure whose progressivism has been >(unfairly) depicted as racial politics anathema to white swing voters. Jackson's racial specificity in relation to his political history is unmistakable. If Obama talked about class and kept mum about race, would he thus be automatically be racially stigmatized? ^^^ CB: That's what they are saying. ^^^^^ He could gain among working class whites outside the South and he would lose his Republican and independent crossovers. Yeah, white swing voters wouldn't dig him, black or not black. But working class whites might. There are of course other factors, such as the solidity or fragility of loyalties already forged to Democratic Party candidates, old vs new, perceived experience vs. "change" . . . Obama was until recently less firmly established than Clinton. But the question remains, if he is so damn progressive, how did he get to where he is today? ^^^^ CB: His campaign persona is not progressive. However, his personal background is like "one of us" , i.e. he was a left political l activist ( See his _Dreams from my Father_) ^^^^^ Obama, regardless of his intentions, is walking a tightrope. At times he will be forced to talk more "populist", at other times he will have to revert to this bipartisanship crap. ^^^^^ CB: Yea the idea of this article is that he has to run right to win, right of his background political career and the politics of this group of left email lists. However, he discovered what looks like the possibility of winning through this tactic. Of course, he has a long way to go before he wins. He's just gone farther than any previous Black person. We are in a historical node because of that. ^^^^ At 12:52 PM 2/21/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >Content-Transfer-Encoding: >base64Content-Disposition: >inlinehttp://www.michigancitizen.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=76&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=5663&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1070&hn=michigancitizen&he=.com > >The Democrats’ Class War >By David Sirota >CREDO action > >For all the hype about generational and gender >wars in the 2008 Democratic presidential >primary, we have a class war on our hands. And >incredibly, corporate America’s preferred >candidate is winning the poorer “us” versus the >wealthier “them”-a potentially decisive trend >with the contest now moving to working- class >bastions like Ohio and Pennsylvania. > >In most states, polls show Hillary Clinton is >beating Barack Obama among voters making $50,000 >a year or less-many of whom say the economy is their top concern. > >Yes, the New York senator who appeared on the >cover of Fortune magazine as Big Business’s >candidate is winning economically insecure, >lower-income communities over the Illinois >senator who grew up as an organizer helping >those communities combat unemployment. This >absurd phenomenon is a product of both message and bias. > >Obama has let Clinton characterize the 1990s as >a nirvana, rather than a time that sowed the >seeds of our current troubles. He barely >criticizes the Clinton administration for >championing job-killing trade agreements. He >does not question that same administration’s >role in deregulating the financial industry and >thereby intensifying today’s boom-bust >catastrophes. And he rarely points out what >McClatchy Newspapers reported this week: that >Clinton spent most of her career at a law firm >“where she represented big companies and served >on corporate boards,” including Wal-Mart’s. > >Obama hasn’t touched any of this for two >reasons. First, his campaign relies on corporate >donations. Though Obama certainly is less >industry-owned than Clinton, the Washington Post >noted last spring that he was the top recipient >of Wall Street contributions. That cash is hush >money, contingent on candidates silencing their populist rhetoric. > >But while this pressure to keep quiet affects >all politicians, it is especially intense against Black leaders. > >“If Obama started talking like John Edwards and >tapped into working-class, blue-collar >proletarian rage, suddenly all of those white >voters who are viewing him within the lens of >transcendence would start seeing him >differently,†says Charles Ellison of the >University of Denver’s Center for African American Policy. > >That’s because once Obama parroted Edwardp >&H]XÚÜÈۈܙYY[™[™\]X[]@, he would “be >stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing race,” >says Manning Marable, a Columbia University >history professor. That is, the media would >immediately portray him as another Jesse Jackson >-a figure whose progressivism has been >(unfairly) depicted as racial politics anathema to white swing voters. > >Remember, this is always how power-challenging >African-Americans are marginalized. The >establishment cites a Black leader’s race- and >class-unifying populism as supposed proof of his >or her radical, race-centric views. An extreme >example of this came from the FBI, which labeled >Martin Luther King Jr. “the most dangerous man >in America” for talking about poverty. > >More typical is the attitude exemplified by Joe >Klein’s 2006 Time magazine column. He called >progressive Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., “an >African American of a certain age and ideology, >easily stereotyped” and “one of the ancient band >of left-liberals who grew up in the angry >hothouse of inner-city, racial-preference politics.” > >The Clintons are only too happy to navigate this >ugly cultural topography. After a rare Obama >attack on Hillary Clinton for supporting >policies that eliminated jobs, Bill Clinton >quickly likened Obama’s campaign to Jackson’s, >and the Clinton campaign told the Associated >Press Obama was “the black candidate.” These >were deliberate statements telling Obama that if >he talks about class, they’ll talk about race. > >And so, as Marable says, Obama’s pitch includes >“no mention of the class struggle or class >conflict.” It is “hope” instead of an economic >case, bromide instead of critique. The result is an oxymoronic dynamic. > >Obama, the person who fought blue-collar >joblessness in the shadows of shuttered >factories, is winning wealthy enclaves. But >Clinton, the person whose globalization policies >helped shutter those factories, is winning blue-collar strongholds. > >Obama, who was schooled by the same organizing >networks as Cesar Chavez, is being endorsed by >hedge fund managers. But Clinton, businesp >&\Èfavorite, is being endorsed by the United >Farm Workers- the union that Chavez created. > >Obama, the candidate from Chicagl >&\È[\Ý™\š\ÚYÛÝ]ÚYK\Èš[™[™ÈÝ\ÜÀn Connecticut’s >gilded south coast. But Hillary Clinton, the >candidate representing Big Money, is finding >support from those with relatively little money. > >As the campaign heads to the struggling Rust >Belt under banners promising “change,” this >bizarre class war may end up guaranteeing no real transformation at all. > >David Sirota is a bestselling author whose >newest book, The Uprising, will be released in >June of 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for >America’s Future and a board member of the >Progressive States Network - both nonpartisan >organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota. > > > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
