The Hollywood Liberal

Michael O’McCarthy

There is no pleasure in this. It is a troubling thing I must do, but I must do it.

I have met and interviewed Kucinich and liked and admired him, for surviving the hell of his childhood and persevering through a sea of ridicule heaped upon him for both his politics and his seemingly eccentric personality. I have read and participated in the review of his biography. I have utilized my columns and blogs to support him; to defend him because he represented the very best progressive politics of a lifetime stretching back to the 1940’s.

I have made attempt after attempt to volunteer for the campaign at the lowest possible fee that would allow me to pay my bills. Within the last two weeks I called upon the Kucinich campaign to demand of us progressives that we stand united, on principle and on progressive politics. I am sad to say that night before last Kucinich did just the opposite. In going to the American people and giving away his principled position opposing Obama and what the Democratic Party hierarchy represents, he gave away his right to champion progressive politics.

I have been briefed on the reason, aside from his apparently losing status in Iowa. His attempt to use his support for Obama on the second Iowa call so that he might win Obama and Michigan Congressperson John Conyers’ support in Michigan is on its face pathetic; worse, it is an endorsement of the corporate state’s party politics as usual.

No person of conscience can stand for progressive politics in this imperial beast of a nation and capitulate to a candidate who is now and will be in the future enwrapped in the arms of the corporate state as is Obama, nice guy or not.

As Michael Moore said:

“Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the
same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up
would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let’s not waste time talking
about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he
made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator
Obama as their “second choice.”’ …

But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he’s for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn’t think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan — the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.” MMFlint@aol.com - www.MichaelMoore.com

In a letter sent me via Progressive Democrats of America on January 3, 2008 entitled, “Edwards Reconsidered,” Norman Solomon capsulated it:

Quoting Kucinich’s final statement, “Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.” ‘

Solomon went on to say:

This statement doesn’t seem to respect the intelligence of those of us who have planned to vote for Dennis Kucinich.

It’s hard to think of a single major issue — including “the war,” “health care” and “trade” — for which Obama has a more progressive position than Edwards. But there are many issues, including those three, for which Edwards has a decidedly more progressive position than Obama.

But the most disturbing part of Dennis’ statement was this: “Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.” This doesn’t seem like a reasoned argument for Obama. It seems like an exercise in smoke-blowing.

I write these words unhappily. I was a strong advocate for Kucinich during the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. In late December, I spoke at an event for his campaign in Northern California. I believe there is no one in Congress today with a more brilliant analysis of key problems facing humankind or a more solid progressive political program for how to overcome them.

As of the first of this year, Dennis has urged Iowa caucusers to do exactly what he spent the last year telling us not to do — skip over a candidate with more progressive politics in order to support a candidate with less progressive politics.

The best argument for voting for Dennis Kucinich in caucuses and primaries has been what he aptly describes as his “singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade.” But his support for Obama over Edwards indicates that he’s willing to allow some opaque and illogical priorities to trump maximizing the momentum of our common progressive agendas.

Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads. No matter how much we admire or revere an individual, there’s too much at stake to pursue faith-based politics at the expense of reality-based politics. There’s no reason to support Obama over Edwards on Kucinich’s say-so. And now, I can’t think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.”

http://pdamerica.org

As for Edwards: As I have said, the bottom line is twofold. It’s difficult to trust a millionaire and a lawyer. My experience is that they hang with their class every time. That Edwards hasn’t the courage of his rhetoric in cleanly breaking from the health insurance industry, (thus, miming Obama and Clinton,) is evidence enough of just how hard he “will fight those greedy corporate interests.”

Very, very few patricians have been known to bring about economic justice for the producer’s of their wealth. And economic justice that defines social justice requires a just share of the profits from what a human produces.

FDR, the most memorable Democratic Party patrician of all time, broke the back of the progressive movement for social and economic justice when his “New Deal” failed. Aside from the controversy concerning his foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor or not, his foreign trade policy was that was that that took America to war. He followed the allied victory then by building the largest war machine in the history of mankind and while fighting fascism, set the stage for what would become the greatest imperialist crusade in America’s history.

Aside from the ethical issues involved, the wealth produced by his war industry simply made his class all the more powerful, and all the more wealthy. The booty from this imperial machine trickled down to the working class and for a time grew a new white middle class of managers who were then trained and slotted for the corporate world his class was creating.

The next “liberal” to play the “reformist game” was his heir apparent, Lyndon Baines Johnson. His price for signing a “Civil Rights” bill was the endorsement of McNamara’s One Hundred Thousand of the poor and ethnic disenfranchised that was skiploaded into the death and torture trap of America’s war on South East Asia

Edward’s apology for his war vote is not reassuring. When asked about withdrawal from Iraq he is equivocal about when and how many. But that is not the question!

The real question is: if President will you get American forces out of countries where they do not belong and are not wanted? Only Kucinich stated that his foreign policy would not be imperialist.

The rest, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, et al are wedded to the machine. Anyone who trusts that the agents of terror working for this corporate state will not drive these “liberals” to military use are just fools.

Nor has any of them said the magic phrase: “redistribution of wealth.” Or that those that produce the wealth deserve a just share of the profits from the GNP. Only Kucinich’s progressive platform addressed those two absolutely essential challenges to the death machine of the new CSA: the Corporate State of America.

Kucinich may come out of this being a nice guy in congress. But he has just shafted the people he represented. That is an old political act. Way too old. Shame on him. But “don’t mourn organize!”