A voice of frustrated liberalism

The progressive case against Obama

I think Stoller has it right about Obama not really being a very liberal guy, and in a lot of ways he is just a nicer 1 percenter than Romney.

There is no Zealot like a convert, they say, and no elitist like a climber; and that boy Obama is certainly a climber, and has been all his life.

But I think the idea that electing Mitt is a reasonable way to punish Obama is nuts.

As Obama has noted a propos this very matter, he and Michelle and the girls will be just fine, to put it mildly, no matter how this plays out.

What matters is what happens to the 99%.

And, sure, it won’t be pretty in either case.

But it will be worse, quicker, with Romney in the White House.

On the other hand, Stoller’s notion that an individual vote doesn't matter in solid states but does matter in swing states is an obfuscation.

Yes, he was thinking specifically of the votes of angry liberals, but that doesn't matter.

It's an obfuscation, either way.

The truth is that the vote could be close enough in a swing state for it to be true on the morning after that, had a thousand angry liberals stayed with Obama rather than going for minor party candidates, the state would have gone to Obama though in fact it went to Romney.

Or for it to be true on the morning after that, had a thousand angry liberals defected to minor party candidates Obama would have lost to Romney rather than beating him.

How can one not think of Florida in 2000?

In a swing state, in a tight race, it could happen that a relatively small number of votes together make the difference not only for how the electoral votes of the state are cast but for who wins the entire election.

So small that it could be made up of angry, disaffected liberals who defected to minor party candidates giving the state to Romney or of angry, disaffected liberals who stayed with Obama and gave him his victory.

But your vote?

Your one individual vote?

Pshaw.

Don’t ever premise your decision on the idea that your vote makes a significant difference.

That never happens, in any state.

Not only has no race been decided by one vote but a difference of one vote is well within the margin of error, anyway.

You are less than a number.

You are an accounting glitch.

You will never, on the morning after, face the amazing realization that, had you only done otherwise – voted, not voted, or voted differently, whatever – a different politician would be in the White House, the US Senate, the House, the governor’s mansion, the state senate, the state house of representatives, the county commission, the mayor’s office, the city council, the school board, or whatever.

It’s just not going to happen.

So when you think about what to do on Election Day put far from your mind the delusion that your vote will make a difference.

The rest of Stoller’s argument is just the sort of drivel you would expect from a political movement that insists, constantly and proudly, that it is uniquely "reality-based."

Not even worth a refutation.

But I will say this.

Stoller's argument rests entirely on the idea that the Democratic candidate is not a fully satisfactory liberal, as these things are measured by the orthodox.

If it is good against voting for Obama will it not be good against voting for any Democrat, for the rest of your life?

Hat tip to Booman, whose response to Stoller is largely one of moral declamation and hence, just to that extent, empty coercive bombast.

Wanker of the Day: Matt Stoller

Update, 11022012, 0916 hrs EDT.

On the other hand, in his heart of hearts Obama could be red as a fire truck and what difference would it make?

If he came out of the closet as a devout Marxist would it help the cause?

Hell, no, neither now nor after next week.