The Dailykos bloggers have been hammering Obama’s recent rightward shift. One blogger, interestingly enough, even used a deep analysis of my book Education and the Cold War (regarding the differences between good and bad pragmatism) to frame his argument towards Obama’s stance on FISA. See the article here. This blogger (Cassiodorus) argued–again, using my book–that pragmatism is bad if it is only an attempt to achieve power within given constraints, as opposed to a good pragmatism tied to utopian visions about how society can be better.
Obama, Niebuhr, Zizek?
April 20, 2008
On the blog that I co-edit with a number of other US intellectual historians, a compelling discussion has developed in response to a piece I posted. It includes references to Obama’s “bitter” comments, Niebuhr’s Christian realism, and Slavoj Zizek’s interpretation of fundamentalism. Check it out:
The Possibility of Change in Washington
February 5, 2008
Today is Super Tuesday and we are all supposed to vote for the candidate who will bring “change” to Washington. But what kind of change is actually possible? Democrats wistfully long for an alternative universe in which Gore or Kerry had beaten Bush, but let’s seriously consider how our world would be different:
If a Democrat had been President for the past eight years….
1. No occupation of Iraq (although they all voted for it, Democrats would probably not have taken the initiative to falsify so much intelligence) . Some of our contributors disagree, and have claimed that
Secretary of State Holbrooke would not even have had Colin Powell’s minimal qualms about such a war. And think about the pressure Gore would have received from the right, who still controlled Congress (not to mention the AM radio waves). Gore would have been forced to show his toughness, his mettle. I think our tendency to imagine Gore would have acted differently is a superimposition of the new and improved Nobel Laureate Gore on the old politician Gore. Also, let’s not forget that Lieberman, who is a clone of Dick Cheney on issues of foreign policy, would have been vice president.
2. Serious action on global warming
3. A more forward thinking and lucid foreign policy which better preserves American hegemony
4. Marginally increased foreign aid to the world’s poor
5. No torture of detainees or spying on Americans
How it would be the same…
1. Absurd wealth concentration: 2% of the world’s population controls 50% of the wealth and 50% of the world’s population controls less than 1% of the wealth
2. Well over 1.5 billion people living on less than 1 dollar a day.
3. Occupation of Afghanistan
4. Unconditional support for Israel
5. No serious attempt to deal with the consumerism and commodification which create the industrial conditions responsible for global warming.
5. All foreign aid is given out through the same, horrible USAID.
6. We continue to pursue free trade policies that manufacture poverty
This is just a short list. There are obviously many more items for both. I hope these lists can illustrate that when we say this election is a nonevent, it is not to suggest that there is literally no difference between parties or candidates. The question is one of emphasis. Most Americans believe the differences listed above are VERY important. Indeed, they are all that matters, as to address problems on the bottom list is “unrealistic.”
The disagreement on the Left about whether or not to vote then comes down to a question of what voting means, what it entails as a personal statement and as a moral action. Such a discussion is beyond me right now. I am toying with some Marxist/utilitarian/deontological comparisons, but none are wholly coherent.
Free Trade? A Historical Critique
December 27, 2007
By Andrew Hartman
The trade issue is central to the 2008 election. I think some Democrats have improved their outlook on trade, namely John Edwards. However, we could all benefit from a more historical and international perspective.
I am not against trade in its crude sense. You have apples, I have oranges, let’s trade. But this is not the issue. The common claim that free trade leads to more peace and prosperity is patently false. This argument, most famously known as Thomas Friedman’s “golden arches” theory, goes like this: countries that have McDonalds, McDonalds being symbolic of a country committed to free trade, don’t bomb each other. Of course, Friedman’s cutesy formulation—part of his sloppy apologetics for corporate globalization, The Lexus and the Olive Tree—was blown to bits when US-led NATO bombed the crap out of Belgrade, golden arches and all (it should be noted that US planes also bombed the Chinese Embassy and Serbian television during that war). But regardless of the Belgrade bombings, Friedman is easily unmasked as a charlatan with no concept of international economic history, which would be fine if he wasn’t so damn influential.
Historians Against the War Conference
July 24, 2007
I’m thinking of putting together a panel for the HISTORIANS AGAINST THE WAR NATIONAL CONFERENCE to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, April 11-13, 2008. The title of the conference is, “WAR AND ITS DISCONTENTS: UNDERSTANDING IRAQ AND THE U.S. EMPIRE.” Anyone interested in joining me?
I think my talk would be on the development of the “stab in the back” theory in the aftermath of Vietnam, or, how conservatives came to understand that the loss in Vietnam was the fault of the antiwar movement and the Democratic Party of George McGovern. I would also discuss the implications of the “stab in the back” theory for Iraq and the current antiwar movement, such as it is.
If you would like to join me, we’d have to tie our topics together in some sort of logical fashion. The conference stresses that this is not just for academics. So, if there are any high school history teachers out there who would like to present on how to teach Vietnam from an anti-war perspective, or how to teach Vietnam while comparing and contrasting Iraq, that would be a good topic. Let me know.
Andrew Hartman
ahartma@ilstu.edu
Mike Gravel on Colbert
May 3, 2007
Gravel makes some good, honest points in this interview. It is somewhat silly, but Gravel manages to interject stinging, humorous critiques of money in American politics and the war in Iraq. Also, Gravel does something in this interview I haven’t seen any other presidential candidate accomplish: he talks comfortably about homosexuality.