Obama administration just one of two evils
To the editor:
Columnist Jonathan Klate’s confused argument Sept. 10 (“Wrestling with Compromise”) that “... you don’t not vote for Obama because he didn’t get more stuff done any more than if he didn’t cure cancer you’d go vote for cancer” doesn’t begin to address his own criticisms of the Obama record, which focused upon the “stuff” that the president actually had done: “He has perpetuated many of the odious policies of the Bush rightwing policies of his administration.”
While Klate acknowledges that the Obama presidency “can be analyzed as undermining progressive resistance and activism,” the same can be said of the professional army of “liberal” apologists for the Democratic Party who will never allow their occasional, progressively tinted criticisms of Obama to expand beyond the context of their defensive and tired “lesser of two evil” arguments.
Klate’s endorsement for a “pretty good president” serves to legitimize the Bush/Obama policies (torture/rendition, never-ending wars of aggression, indefinite imprisonment without trial, assassinations, etc.) he claims to oppose.
If a “vote for cancer” can be taken to mean a vote for a candidate with an established record of subservience to the parasitic layer of finance/banking elites that, for all intents and purposes run this country, then the “choice” between Obama and Romney comes down to nothing more than a matter of picking your own preferred brand of poison. The fact that 93 per cent of the income growth achieved during the Obama “recovery” has gone to the richest 1 percent of the population is neither a random accident nor a statistical aberration. It is the socially destructive results of the carefully calculated, reactionary policies of this administration.