Anarchists for Obama???

I just finished reading "Chomsky on Anarchism" AK Press, which is a compilation of a bunch of interviews and articles where he's talked about anarchism. A question that kept coming up in interviews concerned whether or not he voted. He gave thoughtful and nuanced answers and made one point two or three times that "might" be relevant to Amerikan anarchists over the next 2 months. He said that for anarchists to move beyond being slogan or 'bumper sticker' anarchists they may need to be willing to vote IF a cnadidate represents a clear potential for moving things toward anarchist ideals; a vote for progress so to speak rather than a refusal to vote all together based on principle or idealogical zealotry. It got me thinking about Obama a little bit and wondering if, 1. He meets the criteria of representing the clear potential for progress, and 2. If the answer to #1 is yes, should I "repent" of my 20 year refusal to participate in National politics and cast a vote for that potential progress? What do you think?
Leon

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack on September 1, 2008 at 2:14pm: Well I live north of the border, but for what it's worth, my answers to your questions are:
#1) no. (define progress)
#2) no. (but that's just my opinion remember - I'm a little uncomfortable with saying someone should or should not vote, except you asked.)
I live in Ontario and there's a similar scenario unfolding here with Ontario by elections (or bi-elections or something, I forget how it's spelled) and the big push for my age and social group is to vote Green for a real change...
We had elections for something else this past October and I was totally into it for the Green Party, believing it was the right thing to do.
Honestly, I hate putting too much emphasis on any one book (except the Good Book of course, yuk yuk), but in reading this one other book, it's like it just unlocked or put words to something I'd been struggling to identify for quite some time, but so it did that, it just captured so well how I perceive things having to do with the kingdoms we find ourselves in and the Kingdom we are citizens of, the rulers we find ourselves under and the King we pledge allegiance to.)

I'll say more if you want, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes or piss anyone off...

Anyways, attached is a pic of the book....; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leon Hebrink on September 1, 2008 at 2:56pm: Yep, I hear ya Jeff and I tend to agree. I was just curious what others out there are thinking and had I not read this stuff by Chomsky I probably wouldn;t even be asking the question. He doesn;t vote in his state in national elections because its not a "swing state." I guess the topic of so-called "throw away votes" for third party type candidates is yet another discussion. I like your comment about kingdoms and who are rulers are; Vernard Eller speaks well to that in his book on Christian anarchism.
Shalom,
Leon; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by somasoul on September 1, 2008 at 7:45pm: I don't know what ideals Obama has that are 1) anarchistic 2) serve Christ 3) make way for anarchy or progress.

We have to be really careful when we, as Christians, put cultural or political labels in with our Christianity.

A Christian-Anarchist, or a Christian-Radical, or a Christian-Conservative, will always filter his worldview through the lens of the latter. By adding the hyphen we begin to believe that Christianity must meet cultural or political norms to be true Christianity.

I've never met a self proclaimed hyphenated Christian that doesn't put the latter word as the latter priority. Rather, the latter word has always taken the foremost priority while the "Christian" part gets scrutinized and left as sloppy seconds.

It is hard enough to obey Christ first and foremost without adding in our own cultural experiences to the mix. Doing so is an added ingredient that always dilutes the Purpose.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leon Hebrink on September 2, 2008 at 7:56am: Indeed, caution. I too have met many folks who self identify as hyphenated Christians; sometimes its overt and sometimes its implied but all too often the ideology trumps the Christ following or the Christ following is coopted by the ideology. I don't think anyone is suggesting that any election is better than the "lessor of two evils" the question being, "If that "lessor" might reasonably lead to positive progress, is a vote for them appropriate." [One need only recount the history of the 'moral majority' and the right wing Evangelical takeover of the Republican party in the late 70's and early 80's to see the dangers of ideology trumping discipleship]
I would add my own caveat, saying first, I am sad that you've "never" met anyone who's ideology hasn't trumped their latter hyphenated label, however, in my opinion it is impossible to divorce cultural context and experience from Christ following. The parables are primarily agrarian because the culture and the experience was agrarian; in meeting the woman at the well Jesus' confrontation was cultural on at least three levels and the response to the gospel is almost always cultural and behavioral. "I will make you fishers of men." spoken to a group dominated by fishermen; the cultural response of Zacheus folowed by the proclamation that "Today, salvation has come to this house." and so on.
So, I would deduce from your response that your answer is No...he he
Shalom,
Leon; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by somasoul on September 2, 2008 at 9:42am: Leon said: "I would add my own caveat, saying first, I am sad that you've "never" met anyone who's ideology hasn't trumped their latter hyphenated label, however, in my opinion it is impossible to divorce cultural context and experience from Christ following."

Leon, most people use the cultural subtext to re-enforce their vision of God. If they are an anarchist or a feminist they use the "Christian" label to see their agenda through. But Jesus didn't do that, ever. If Jesus spoke in a cultural subtext he used that to make us look at the Kingdom of God. Jesus was always empowering the Kingdom, not these kingdoms.

Am anarchist might say: "God never intended the Israelites to have a king. Therefore God is an anarchist." (This person wants to empower anarchy)

But someone with a heart to follow him, indeed, this person might likewise be an anarchist, might say: "The Israelites had no King but God. Therefore I follow God alone." (This person has a heart for God)

The former wants to empower a vision of utopian anarchy. The latter wants to envision a people trusting in God. Both might call that anarchy, but only latter does so to enhance the Kingdom, not his personal agenda.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leon Hebrink on September 2, 2008 at 9:51am: I understand your point. Thanks, Leon; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dlw on September 24, 2008 at 1:41pm: I can tell from personal experience that I have been in email contact with Noam Chomsky and he strongly(but not publicly as of yet) endorsed my idea for strategic state-level election reform called Project Democratic Renewal.

http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2008/08/initiative-for-most-peo...

I am in a dialogue w. the Californians for Electoral Reform on this, and generally they like how it accelerates the inclusion of proportional representation into our political system. I pair this though with a call for third parties to stop trying to rival the main parties and to be decentralized like the third party Progressive Dane(google it) and to vote quasi-strategically in those elections where it is not feasible for them to contest the election.

I think an anarchist shd like the idea of a host of local-state third parties as a countervailing force against two major nat'l parties. My idea of quasi-strategic voting is a way for influence to be decentralized in an election w. only two parties. It also shakes up the dynamics of such elections, since third parties are wielding their potential to spoil an election for influence, and can therefore make them less predictable or take away some of the incumbency advantage. For the incumbency advantage to be attenuated is a good thing because it puts the senator/gov'r/president on a shorter string.

dlw; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Christison on October 15, 2008 at 10:25pm: I don't see how any politician is going to accomplish more than further enslaving and oppressing people. Government is an entity unto itself, and even if a candidate sez he is going to do something, the beast (government) is only about centralizing control and hoarding power for itself. They will get sucked into it (if they aren't already). One candidate offers more soup kitchens, while the other offers more money for the existing soup kitchens, yet neither of them offer the people any thing real. I think the only real change possible is the change you can effect in your family and community.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leon Hebrink on October 16, 2008 at 6:12am: I tend to agree...even more so as this thing has drug on. It does however, continue to amaze me that so many people continue to put their faith in the Amerikan political system and the cogs of that machine. Almost daily I hear, "But Obama is different. Or, I hope Obama is different." Though I try to understand their perspective it escapes me that so many "thinking" people continue to have faith in these institutions of domination. I watched about 15 minutes of last night's so-called debate and shut it off in disgust.
The flip side of my chagrin over the hope placed in political institutions by so many people is that many of those same people ridicule anarchists as unrealistic dreamers or pie eyed utopians....seems an odd logic to me.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by somasoul on October 16, 2008 at 7:48am: David Christianson Said: "I think the only real change possible is the change you can effect in your family and community."

I think I'd sum it up similarly but you said it better.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dlw on October 21, 2008 at 12:48pm: Well, I'm not asking you to put your faith in our existing institutions, I am asking you to help me to change them so that there is room for smaller local state third parties that are consciously different from the main parties and not trying to rival them in their duopolistic struggle to capture the state.

dlw; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dlw on October 21, 2008 at 12:46pm: Help, help, I'm being oppressed!!!

Real sustainable change is only due to following Christ in self-sacrificial acts of love, but the state serves a secondary role in providing cover-fire to check the natural suicidal tendencies of humanity and Christians can also serve their mandate thru (relatively) self-less participation in the ongoing process by which the rules that govern us are made and remade. This can involve running for office as a politician, but such shd never be the focus and we shd push for the empowerment of local-state third parties that effectively focus on influence rather than power and thereby decentralize control somewhat.

dlw; ▶ Reply to This