An open letter to John Cusack
John,
I appreciate and admire your willingness to look beyond tribal, party-partisan conventions to take a principled view of American politics... and to be outspoken about it. It is rare beyond measure among Hollywood notables.
I read with great interest your discussion with Jonathan Turley about "Obama's Constitution."
Throughout the discussion, you both discuss the crossing of lines—"Rubicon lines" and "bright lines"—that a moral person should not abide.
You recount several civil-liberties / war crimes of Obama. But in the end, you describe yourself handwringing about whether you can vote for Obama's reelection.
Vis-a-vis the kinds of issues you raise, and numerous others about Obama's presidency, I've proposed some terminology re: whether one straddles the line of support or conclusively walks away.
One of these terms, and it's an unflattering one, is "shallow-end." Many on the left are bluntly critical of Obama but, in the end, they won't affirmatively desupport him. This, in my view, no matter how earnest, tends to encourage others to stay in the fold, to grudgingly lend their assent to the sorts of policies you rightly criticize. It seems that, for some, indulging a little such criticism is a sufficient catharsis before voting for more of the same.
Despite your thoughtful critiques, your bottom line is this:
What a world of difference it would be if left/liberal/progressives saw a John Cusack conclusively state "I will not vote for Obama's reelection," for the reasons you listed and more.
You said Hillary Clinton's Iraq AUMF vote was enough to make you not support her. (Let's put aside the matter of Biden's, Kerry's, and Edwards's votes for same, along with Obama's subsequent musings that he might well have voted similarly had he been in the Senate.)
You and Jonathan Turley present ample "Rubicon line" evidence. Obama's at the helm for countless murders and vile civil liberties precedents. We could expand at length beyond what you've discussed, in terms of "special ops" killings in multiple countries, his attempt to extend the Iraq War past Bush's deadline, and so forth, not to mention playing footsie with wealthy interests in finance, energy, and healthcare. (On the latter topic, Turley notes that some forgive Obama's civil liberties and military actions because he's "really good on healthcare." He's so good, people were repeatedly arrested for trying to bring Medicare for All into his vaunted HCR discussion).
Won't someone on the left with mainstream visibility—perhaps you—break the taboo on formally opposing Obama's reelection?
In order to formalize such a declaration, I've printed up shirts that say "2L4O: Too Left for Obama" and "2L4O: Too Liberal for Obama." I'd love to send you one with my compliments. And one for your friend, Jonathan, too!
Best regards,
"Vastleft"
http://www.vastleft.com
vastleft@vastleft.com
I appreciate and admire your willingness to look beyond tribal, party-partisan conventions to take a principled view of American politics... and to be outspoken about it. It is rare beyond measure among Hollywood notables.
I read with great interest your discussion with Jonathan Turley about "Obama's Constitution."
Throughout the discussion, you both discuss the crossing of lines—"Rubicon lines" and "bright lines"—that a moral person should not abide.
You recount several civil-liberties / war crimes of Obama. But in the end, you describe yourself handwringing about whether you can vote for Obama's reelection.
Vis-a-vis the kinds of issues you raise, and numerous others about Obama's presidency, I've proposed some terminology re: whether one straddles the line of support or conclusively walks away.
One of these terms, and it's an unflattering one, is "shallow-end." Many on the left are bluntly critical of Obama but, in the end, they won't affirmatively desupport him. This, in my view, no matter how earnest, tends to encourage others to stay in the fold, to grudgingly lend their assent to the sorts of policies you rightly criticize. It seems that, for some, indulging a little such criticism is a sufficient catharsis before voting for more of the same.
Despite your thoughtful critiques, your bottom line is this:
If you want to make a protest vote against Romney, go ahead, but I would think we’d be better putting our energies into local and state politics — occupy Wall Street and organizations and movements outside the system, not national politics, not personalities. Not stadium rock politics.
What a world of difference it would be if left/liberal/progressives saw a John Cusack conclusively state "I will not vote for Obama's reelection," for the reasons you listed and more.
You said Hillary Clinton's Iraq AUMF vote was enough to make you not support her. (Let's put aside the matter of Biden's, Kerry's, and Edwards's votes for same, along with Obama's subsequent musings that he might well have voted similarly had he been in the Senate.)
You and Jonathan Turley present ample "Rubicon line" evidence. Obama's at the helm for countless murders and vile civil liberties precedents. We could expand at length beyond what you've discussed, in terms of "special ops" killings in multiple countries, his attempt to extend the Iraq War past Bush's deadline, and so forth, not to mention playing footsie with wealthy interests in finance, energy, and healthcare. (On the latter topic, Turley notes that some forgive Obama's civil liberties and military actions because he's "really good on healthcare." He's so good, people were repeatedly arrested for trying to bring Medicare for All into his vaunted HCR discussion).
Won't someone on the left with mainstream visibility—perhaps you—break the taboo on formally opposing Obama's reelection?
In order to formalize such a declaration, I've printed up shirts that say "2L4O: Too Left for Obama" and "2L4O: Too Liberal for Obama." I'd love to send you one with my compliments. And one for your friend, Jonathan, too!
Best regards,
"Vastleft"
http://www.vastleft.com
vastleft@vastleft.com
posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy at 10:25 AM
3 Comments:
I enjoyed reading your letter. Thank you for sharing it.
It reminds me of my feelings towards Michael Moore. I remember an interview he did on the view about a year ago or more. When pressed about how he intended to vote, he said "I won't vote for the Republican." The hosts replied, "So you're supporting Obama then." And he corrected them, saying "No, that's not what I said." [Those aren't exact quotes, I'm paraphrasing from memory] At that time, I thought there might be hope that a very notorious lefty would publicly de-support Obama, which is so desperately needed.
Of course, Moore has now made it clear he's quite comfortable in the shallow end. It's particularly disappointing considering the issues central to his three biggest movies of the last decade are ones in which Obama has made worse.
Bowling for Columbine: Despite the numerous mass shootings he's presided over, Obama has turned his back on even the most minor gun control laws and has actually loosened gun restrictions.
Sicko: I can't believe Moore has a positive opinion of Obama's HCR law. I think we all understand how awful it really is, so I won't delve into that.
Capitalism: A Love Story: Again, I think we can bridge the gap on that one, too.
I had similar hopes for Cenk Uygur [host of The Young Turks], but those appear to be drowning away in lesser-evilism.
Anyway, I don't want to hijack the discussion. I just hope someone with big-time exposure will be more courageous than they.
Cheers.
Let’s say that some fact became known and that by force of reason it could be proven beyond doubt that God does not exist. Would people accept God’s nonexistence as easily as being told the rain had stopped? Given that the logic was irrefutable and as clear to the many as the understanding that the Earth goes around the Sun, could people just walk out into the daylight with that knowledge, and look for a new way to understand their lives, simply leaving their old beliefs behind, as would a snake that shed its skin?
America is a concept in much the same way that God is a concept. Could people look at the concept of America, with all the emotion invested in it as being powerful, wise, just and merciful on one day, and then be confronted with facts that prove the contrary the next day, then embrace the refutation of that concept, and then take that refutation in stride, calmly beginning then, the search for a new way to understand America?
Is it possible to be a theist one day and, by the simple acquisition of one more fact, become an atheist the next day? I say a group conversion is not possible though it is possible for an individual.
So whenever facts challenge the concept, be it the concept of God or the concept of America, the inclination is to say, “I still believe,” whether from honesty or from fear of being stoned by an infuriated mob. It is to be rehabilitated, to ask for forgiveness, before leaving the public view.
It is to bow before the concept of money, that pervasive totalitarian authority that demands veneration, that demands one recede from its presence facing it, walking backwards, as if departing the presence of a monarch.
It is to say, as one would of a king: America, as a concept, is dead; long live America.
Same comment here as at Shannyn Moore's place...
My bright line has definitely been crossed. Voting for Obama because of health care strikes me as not that different from the the oft-mocked idea that Italians supported Mussolini because the trains ran on time. To vote for Obama is to lend my support (or at least acquiescence) to his policies which in turn are just continuations or even extensions of the very Bush policies I so vehemently opposed. I can’t and won’t do that. And for all my Democratic and liberal friends, I have to ask where is their principled opposition that they were also vehement about when it was Bush?
The question of whether Romney will be better or worse is not really relevant to me. What is relevant is that Romney has not yet committed these crimes. Obama has. I have to deal with what is. I will oppose the wrongs that are yet to be when they are about to happen or happening. The hope that other Democrats and liberals will rediscover their opposition to the current wrongs if it is again a Republican behind them is about all I have. Under Obama, the opposition is neutered and rendered ineffective, and the roots of wrong just get stronger.
Obama must go. And it must be liberals and progressives who are seen to do it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home