the reasons why

This morning I walked across the canal to the public school nearby and voted. It was the first time I’ve voted in person since I was a teenager (all these years of overseas absentee ballots) and it felt wonderful.

I’ve been an activist since I was sixteen, but I’ve never donated to or volunteered for a campaign before (though if I’d been in the US in November 2004 I’d have worked to get out the vote against Bush). This year is different. I’ve been a fan of Barack Obama for some time now, and in recent months have become a supporter and active volunteer for his candidacy. Here are some of the reasons why.

The war takes center-stage for me, as a deal-breaker of sorts: I have the option of helping ensure the Democratic nominee for President was on the right side what I've considered the most important political issue of my adult life. I’m not particularly impressed by the argument that we should discount this difference between the two candidates simply because it was an easier or lower-stakes call for Obama as a state senator. For one thing, I am not at all convinced that Hillary Clinton’s vote was simple expediency; her track record and advisors on foreign policy are quite hawkish, and I am inclined to take them at their word. In any case, Spencer Ackerman’s overview of Clinton’s changing stance on the war is, to my mind, damning. Listen to Obama’s speech from that rally in Chicago in 2002 (read by supporters, since only 13 seconds of the original tape survives) or read the text. This is the kind of judgment—and yes, the kind of rhetoric—I want from my leaders.

Obama’s far from perfect. He’s moved noticeably to the center since going to DC (though it says something that he’s still rated one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate). His vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act was a huge disappointment. But that’s a failure borne by the Democratic Party as a whole—every Senator save Feingold voted to do the same. Obama’s also been weak on some environmental issues, and I have been disappointed by his rhetoric on Social Security. (Here’s a nice piece from the Nation that argues for Obama’s candidacy while noting some of the instances in which he's let down his progressive fans).

I’m one of the supposedly mythical voters who decide primarily on the basis of foreign policy. I certainly think that bread-and-butter domestic issues like health care issue matter (although I have heard persuasive arguments both for and against universal mandates). I’ve been uninsured for significant periods as a non-student adult, and as a child had healthcare largely because my family was low-income enough to qualify for Medicaid programs. I know what it is like to go years without seeing a dentist; to have to make a choice between buying food and buying medicine. My concerns about class and poverty in this country are not abstract, and I have been grateful for John Edwards’ efforts to bring these issues into the discussion. But the differences between Obama's and Clinton’s positions are relatively small—and may become less so when their proposals hit the legislative process. In any case, I trust that a Democratic-controlled Congress will make progress on these issues under either an Obama or a Clinton Presidency.

As appalling as our current domestic political shortcomings are, I cannot grant them the same moral weight as the terrible impact of American foreign policy—above all, the war in Iraq and the so-called war on terror—on people who have no voice in the democratic process in this country. (It may be relevant here to say that many of my loved ones are not citizens. I have the absurd, incredible privilege of a vote here, and they don’t—but they too, may pay the price or reap the benefits of the decisions the American electorate makes, far more so than the reverse. The burden of that inequality weighs heavy on my choice).

Foreign policy allows the greatest scope for presidential discretion, and it’s where the greatest difference between the two candidates lies. This NYT magazine piece from last fall sheds some light on Obama’s foreign policy perspective and team: on the whole, his advisors are more progressive than Clinton’s, and like him, most opposed the war. I have greater faith in their judgment, and greater sympathy for their view of the role America should play in the world. For an issue-by-issue breakdown of the candidates’ foreign policy stances, see Common Dreams. Obama’s overseas experience and unusually cosmopolitan background also strike me as great benefits—both in enriching his perspective, and as Ethan Zuckerman argues here, in helping change the way this country is viewed around the world after the long disaster of the Bush Administration.

I think Obama is good for the Democratic Party’s chances overall, and is probably a stronger candidate against McCain (it’s notable that many red state Dems seem to believe he will have better coattails on Election Day, and have thus endorsed him). But beyond that, I do have hopes that he can grow the progressive constituency in this country—yes, through his political gifts, the charisma and rhetoric that appeal to independents, but more importantly, by helping inspire and organize and involve a new base of voters and activists. Read this piece from the American Prospect about the way Obama’s campaign has been using community organizing and social movement principles to get the vote out. I've witnessed these tactics in action, and think the strategy could have longstanding benefits. And Obama's own experience as a community organizer in Chicago is a promising part of his resume.

I am impressed by Obama’s legislative achievements—notably, getting a Illinois law mandating videotaping of police interrogations passed unanimously—despite starting out with opposition from the police, the governor, and legislators from both parties. This Charles Peters column—"Judge Him By His Laws"—tells the story. Read this fact-filled post from hilzoy before you accept the media-driven line that Obama has a weak record as a legislator.

His achievements on that bill and on other racial profiling and criminal justice questions speak to another strength: he’s the strongest mainstream candidate on civil liberties, despite the black mark of the Patriot Act vote. He opposed the Military Commissions Act, promises to close Guantanamo, and has won the endorsement of a significant number of the lawyers doing pro bono defense work for “enemy combatants”: see Habeas Lawyers for Obama, whose voices mean more to me than any Kennedy family imprimatur.

His advocacy of immigrants’ rights, particularly on the drivers’ license question (which helped win him the endorsement of LA’s Spanish-language paper La Opinion—you can read it in English here); and his vote to ban the use of cluster bombs against civilians are courageous positions that set him apart from his opponent. On queer rights and reproductive rights, both candidates are very strong; there’s not enough difference between them to sway my vote.

There are also the symbolic politics issues, which I take seriously (they deserve a whole other post). I’m voting for Obama as a dedicated feminist who would dearly like to see a woman in the Oval Office. I do believe that electing a woman to the Presidency would have a vast and beneficial impact in terms of norm-setting, in changing our ability to imagine what the exercise of power looks like. But so would electing a multiracial man—and on the symbolic politics front, Obama’s potential impact, both in America and internationally, is equally compelling. So my desire to see a female nominee is not enough to outweigh the policy differences between the two.

Finally, like Tim Burke, I’m a Historian for Messy Desks, and found that heartfelt answer more than a little appealing.

So I’m voting for the organizer. I’m voting for the candidate who rallied with us against the war in 2002; who marched again in the streets with us in 2006 to uphold the rights of immigrants. I’m voting—for the first time, really—for someone I very much want to be the President of this county. Sí se puede. Let this be the year.