I find a great deal of Doug Henwood’s over-wrought Obama “endorsement” irritating and wrong, but I’d like to concentrate on this for the moment:
As I paged through this magazine’s recent presidential endorsement issue, I searched vainly for the “plague on both their houses” point of view. Though many Obama fans are happy to cite the spirit of the Occupy movement, they don’t want any part of the skepticism about electoral politics that many Occupiers express. Vote Green, vote Socialist Workers, don’t vote at all—there was no trace of those venerable positions in these pages.
I’m not sure that I’d embrace any of those positions myself. But I wish, just once, an endorsement of a Democratic presidential candidate coming from the left would mull over some serious structural issues that are at stake.
Um… really? I mean, really? I’ll grant that LGM rather oversaturates on this issue, but could we please dispense with the notion that no one on the left ever talks about third parties, dealbreakers, not voting for Dems, etc? To suggest that no endorsement of a Democratic presidential candidate coming from the left has mulled over some serious structural issues is either appallingly lazy or utterly misinformed; seems to me that there’s a considerable space on the left that does nothing but wring its hands (and at LGM engage in counter-wringing, whatever that may be) about the structural issues associated with voting Democratic in Presidential elections. For crying out loud, just two weeks ago we were supposed to be taking seriously the pained ruminations of a guy who would never, ever consider voting for Obama on the subject of why leftists shouldn’t vote for Obama.