The music business killed you Phil
They ignored the things you said
And cast you out when fashions changed
Says Phil “But I ain’t dead”
Says Phil “But I ain’t dead”The FBI harassed you Phil
They smeared you with their lies
Says he “But they could never kill
What they could not compromise
I never compromised”“Though fashion’s changed and critics sneered
The songs that I have sung
Are just as true tonight as then
The struggle carries on
The struggle carries on”-Billy Bragg, I Dreamed I Saw Phil Ochs Last Night
Every single day of my life, i think about dialectics- in short, that relationship between the positive and not-so positive aspects of our existence. That relationship between our material conditions, and the roots of what shapes those conditions. The relationships between the past and our current actions, which inform the future.
It would be of little surprise to anyone that i am certainly thinking about it now.
i have been thinking a lot about it in relation to Phil Ochs, a clinically bipolar man whose abusive actions toward partners and other women were documented in books such as Phil Ochs: Death of a Rebel, by Marc Eliot. i think about how people attribute mental illness to Ochs’ demise (and eventual suicide the year i was hatched onto this earth), without consideration of the demise being prompted by a system that doesn’t address mental health (or intimate partner violence) in humanistic ways. i think about how artists whose works were once fueled by a righteous anger at an unjust system have quelled said anger to varying degrees, because they didn’t want to experience the same fate as Ochs, who in many cases has been written out of the annals of ‘protest music’, despite him being one of its strongest voices.
Ochs is a potent figure of contradictions; like most humans, he should never be singularly admonished or lionized. This certainly is another discussion for another time; no artist, regardless of how ‘connective’ they are, should be absolved of their abusive actions, or other problematic behaviors. Again, past actions (and our current responses) inform what occurs in the future.
While it is an accurate assertion that music itself cannot save the world; it would not be inaccurate to state that the best art is the one which challenges the status quo. From the ‘Satanic panic’ outrage, the ‘Disco Sucks!’ movement, the development of the bi-partisan Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) and the steamrolling of rap records; there has always been an active opposition to those on cultural, social and political margins. The folk movement Ochs was a part of was no different. While the FBI’s files on artists were given a wide berth (regardless of political affiliation), there was heavy concentration on those who were most outspoken against capitalism, imperialism and colonialism- those who not only sang songs about freedom fighters, but participated in organizing and mobilizing themselves.
It again, should be of no surprise to anyone to know that Ochs (who wrote songs such as the still applicable ‘Here’s to the State of Mississippi’ and was friends with Victor Jara) was on an FBI watch list.
Yes, even though lyrics such as “All the rudiments of hatred are present everywhere/And every single classroom is a factory of despair/There’s nobody learning such a foreign word as fair”; as well as “They’re guarding all the bastions of their phony legal fort/Oh, justice is a stranger when the prisoners report/When the black man stands accused the trial is always short”; “And criminals are posing as the mayors of the towns/And they hope that no one sees the sights and no one hears the sounds” and “Unwed mothers should be sterilized, I’ve even heard them say” were all written in 1965, they absolutely still apply, regardless of what administration is representing the white house.
This is why, as accurate as many of Ochs’ songs are regarding the state of U.S.-based injustice (as well as songs that extend to imperialist violence in South America and Africa), there is a specific song i am thinking about. People love this song, but have not necessarily heeded the words. Its brilliance stands among the lines of songs such as the Dead Kennedys’ ‘Holiday In Cambodia’, and films such as Jordan Peele’s Get Out.
‘Love Me, I’m A Liberal’, while perhaps being one of Ochs’ most recognized songs (and one which is continually updated as the years go by), is simultaneously undervalued. It is a brilliant, biting satirical reading of the individualist selective ‘moral compass’ of those who identify as (of course)… liberals. In his performance of the song, he even prefaces it with this scathing quip: “In every American community, you have varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. So here, then, is a lesson in safe logic.” Phil Ochs’s commentary is in the musical tradition to what Glen Ford or Chris Hedges have been to the journalistic tradition, regarding this subject: that democrats are the ‘more effective evil’, due to the complacency people develop, as people do not see what the democrats do as abject violence. Democrats are able to perform and support global/imperialist/state violence, when the illusion of individual/personal comfort is assured.
Ochs’ satire also takes a similar position to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s more sobering approach, in his Letter From Birmingham Jail: “First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.”
________________________________________________________________________________
“In America there’s no such thing as Democrats and Republicans anymore. That’s antiquated. In America you have liberals and conservatives. This is what the American political structure boils down to among Whites. The only people who are still living in the past and thinks in terms of “I’m a Democrat” or “I’m a Republican” is the American Negro. He’s the one who runs around bragging about party affiliation and he’s the one who sticks to the Democrat or sticks to the Republican, but White people in America are divided into two groups, liberals and Republicans…or rather, liberals and conservatives. And when you find White people vote in the political picture, they’re not divided in terms of Democrats and Republicans, they’re divided consistently as conservatives and as liberal. The Democrats who are conservative vote with Republicans who are conservative. Democrats who are liberals vote with Republicans who are liberals. You find this in Washington, DC. Now the White liberals aren’t White people who are for independence, who are liberal, who are moral, who are ethical in their thinking, they are just a faction of White people who are jockeying for power the same as the White conservatives are a faction of White people who are jockeying for power. Now they are fighting each other for booty, for power, for prestige and the one who is the football in the game is the Negro. Twenty million Black people in this country are a political football, a political pawn an economic football, an economic pawn, a social football, a social pawn…”
-El Hajj Malik El Shabazz (Malcolm X)
Regardless of the many iterations of the song over the years, the message is always the same: ‘I support human rights and global justice, but I have a deep-seated fear of any direct action to ensure systemic change, in order for the justice i claim to support to actually be a reality.’ Just as there is bi-partisan support for the perpetuation of U.S.-based hegemony in the global south and anywhere in the ‘third world’ (via coups, sanctions and blockades, etc.), there is a particular idealism that both liberals and conservatives share, regarding the U.S. being a potential (or direct) example of what ‘freedom’ is… or could be, if you tweak it.
The potential of an idyllic America could never be a reality, when its very foundation was based in theft and exploitation. Just because someone may currently live in what is assumed to be relative comfort does not erase the fact that the U.S. is a settler colony. The reason why one may live in comfort in the first place, is because it is at the expense of other places around the world, which have been held hostage as outright neocolonies, or military bases. In this way there’s more access to resources and land, but also control of political operations. To think that democrats have a more humanistic position on global affairs- or that you can further push an established (neo)liberal politician ‘to the left’ is an idealistic (or naive) position at best, and a decided refusal to study historical documentation at worst. It is also an ironic position, given that dedicated democrats (particularly those of the ‘vote blue no matter who’ persuasion) tend to hold positions that are again, not left at all, as there is an adverse reaction to the actual struggle/conflict that is required to affect deep change to the status quo.
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I’d lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don’t talk about revolution
That’s going a little bit too far
While there is the obvious opposition to the abolition of the forces behind the actors of state violence (while simultaneously being ‘saddened’ by the fact that this state violence consistently occurs); one of the more fascinating bits of opposition has always been for the ‘third party vote’. There are the common statements: “I want to vote for a third party, but now is not the time. There’s too much at stake.” “Voting for a third party (or not voting at all) is a bit too idealistic, with everything going on.” “A vote for (name third party candidate) is a vote for (name Republican candidate).” “A third party vote is a wasted vote.”
We are being told we need to take the process of voting seriously; however, the way we are conditioned to look at the elections process is in a binary, myopic way. The common analogy to sports teams is a perfect way of observing this: i want ‘my’ team to beat ‘your’ team. While the game lasts for a number of hours though (and is confined to two teams in a specific location), one’s vote undoubtedly affects the whole globe for a much more significant amount of time and a not insignificant amount of people.
Your name’s Martin, hello Martin
You disagree with our stated policy
Well Martin to tell you the truth I couldn’t agree with you more
I think it’s outrageous, disgusting
But unlike my colleague on my right, were the party who say what we do, do what we say
You can bank on us MartinGood evening, Shirley
I’m so glad that you’ve rung
The matter is as dear to me as it is to you
Give me four years and I’ll get right down to it
Because unlike my little balding colleague on my left, we don’t make promises we can’t keep-Chumbawamba, ‘Always Tell The Voter What The Voter Wants To Hear’
It is a game of ‘political football’ which happens every four years, on the second Tuesday in November. It is the the one time the masses are significantly and openly invested in their future. It is the one time that ‘discussion of politics’ is acceptable in polite society. That said, voting for a candidate that is an alternate to the primary imperialist/capitalist parties (or again, abstaining from voting) is out of bounds, and there are particular penalties you will face.
This concept that voting for a capitalist/imperialist candidate, running against another capitalist/imperialist candidate as a means of ensuring or protecting democracy in an imperial core as the most important act one can do not only ignores the varying levels of activism and organizing many people do on a daily basis (which directly address and respond to the barbarism of capitalism, from food bank shifts and mutual aid, to prison abolition); it also ignores that the candidate we are being asked to vote for has no qualms about supporting the destabilization of a democratically elected country (via coups and sanctions) as a means of ‘liberating the people’ or ‘bringing democracy’, if that country in any way practices some level of anti-imperialism or socialism.
When we are asked to vote for a democrat versus a republican, we are being asked to focus on issues such as education, gender equality and reproductive rights. While these are crucial things to be concerned about, we are never asked to reckon with the history of this country, the remnants which still exist to this day. While the lament regarding the banning of books (at the behest of right wing philosophy) is not at all unwarranted, there’s not as much emphasis on the connectivity between educational and economic disparities. Blaming everything solely on republicans lends to a forgetfulness regarding the dependence on a neoliberal, market-based approach to education from the democrats, thus perpetuating these disparities. As people cried and were angered due to the cessation of Roe v. Wade (again, not unwarranted), it must be remembered that Barack Obama, a democrat, ran on stating one of the first things that would happen once in office was the codifying of Roe v. Wade, via the Freedom Of Choice Act. Once in office he declared that this was “not the highest legislative priority.” He added, “I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on.”
This was a man who, also in 2009, went to Ghana and said that Africans should not blame colonialism for the problems that exist today. In this same speech, he says what is an obvious lie: “America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation — the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny.” With the institution of AFRICOM (which was established in the Bush era but strengthened during Obama’s tenure); the support of NATO’s invasion of Libya (and more); and with the continued occupation of Haiti and blockade on Cuba, this statement cannot in any way be true. And of course, in line with Malcolm X’s point regarding liberals and conservatives, there is bi-partisan unity on this speech.
While people are lamenting the cessation of Roe v. Wade; while there is great concern for our queer, trans and gender non-conforming family, friends and loved ones here in the U.S., we must also remember that those living under occupation and/or experiencing a genocide at the hands of U.S. imperialism do not have the opportunity to freely express gender, nor do they have reproductive freedom. Their highest priority is trying to survive in an environment they did not ask for, which is being funded directly by U.S. dollars. People are trying to not die.
And currently, it is a democrat in office, overseeing it all.
You cannot move an established warmonger who supports the establishment of neocolonies to the left, no matter how hard you wish for it.
The real question would be, is this what people actually want? Are people truly serious about wanting a world that is more humanistic, equitable and compassionate? Or is it relative, individualist comfort they are ultimately aiming for? Are people okay with being complacent to what ‘their candidate’ is doing, as long as it does not personally affect them, their community or their surroundings?
If the answer is ‘no’, one would really have to sit with their decision.
It is easy to blame an ‘illiterate, uneducated person’ for voting for Trump (or some other republican); with that, not only would a person need to sit with the contradiction of voting for someone who is just as anti-people’s class, but they would also have to sit with their own classism, since many who vote for democrats don’t particularly educate themselves on their preferred candidate’s policies and political histories either. Many people vote for the simple fact that ‘they don’t want the other person in.’ People have to sit with how potentially similar they actually are to the people they are making fun of, or denigrating.
It would be hypocritical to call Trump and his supporters out as racist, while denying, absolving or rationalizing the just as egregious racism of the current president.
After seeing scores of young people over the years discuss why they joined (and then ‘abandoned’) a movement to ‘Make America Great Again’; after some keen study the realization became, even if disillusionment occurs at the end, that the right wing and republicans are experts at recruitment in ways democrats have not learned to do. You have people who are feeling isolated in society, and don’t necessarily connect that capitalism contributes to said isolation. The right wing presents a more detailed hypothesis that confirms a young person’s already burgeoning confirmation bias around certain subjects. As the saying goes, ‘Organization decides everything,’ and the right wing contingent of the population are, again, better at it.
Why would people leave the MAGA community then? Just because they are organized regarding recruitment does not mean they are necessarily as effective at retention. What i have observed is that the young people (in particular) who renounce any connections have done so, because they studied the policies and inner workings. Even if the now-MAGA expats have decided to vote for a democrat, their grievances are not unlike what i’ve seen from people who decide to vote for a third party candidate.
People who are fanatically dedicated to a MAGA ideology are more similar in scope to someone who will ‘vote blue no matter who’, as both hold a more ‘them vs. us’ perspective, and rely on cultural references or single issues as a means of defending their line. Qualifiers used to describe the opposition are also similar: ‘stupid’, ‘uneducated’, ‘too educated’, ‘communists’, ‘Marxists’, ‘hicks’…
_______________________________________________________________________________
It also should be much easier to recognize- particularly since the news of Elon Musk paying others to vote- that the marriage of commerce and electoral politics is one of the primary problems. Donald Trump (who is a manifestation of the foundation of this country) is indeed a symptom of the celebrity worship and parasocial relationships that have developed in more recent times; he is also a malleable individual who loves attention (and the prestige the title of ‘president’ brings). His malleability and conceit allow for him to be manipulated by those who collude with the government to enact destructive policies.
We must observe Trump dialectically as well. For those who wield political and economic control, the existence of a Trump is advantageous for them, because they can also control the illusion of the power he is assumed to have; as he is, again, attracted to the power, and will most likely not ask questions. He is a perfect diversion, as the focus will therefore be concentrated on him, and not on ‘the people behind the curtain’. There will be those who will either continue to blame him for the rise in fascism and white supremacy (despite those things being the foundation of this country), or those who will continue to worship him (and consider him to have committed class suicide, and was ‘divinely chosen to protect America’- despite him still building wealth from his enterprises).
The more you singularly focus on trying to prevent a Trump presidency, the less time you spend fighting against the system that created and enabled a person like Trump, especially if the opposing candidate you vote for upholds this same system.
And with that; simultaneously, it is not necessarily advantageous, because he is too unpredictable, and doesn’t have the political sophistication. If Musk (and others like him) are already utilizing space exploration, AI and surveillance technology (and holding perspectives on ‘foreign affairs’), it would better serve them to have a seasoned politician. It could be seen as an asset to have a ‘more effective evil’ as a representative, because the populace- save the hardcore right wingers- would be too complacent to resist.
Because of the conditioning we were hatched onto this earth with (specifically if we live in the imperial core)- to hold a binary perspective on everything- there may be someone reading this (that is, if that someone hasn’t closed the page and stormed off in anger yet) who considers this piece to be a condemnation of those who vote; specifically, people who vote democrat or republican. As someone who abhors capitalism- that is, the system (and the ideologies which frame/support it) in which a handful own the means of production and profit off of the exploited labor of the majority- it would be hypocritical of me to refute the humanity of the masses who are fearful of an even more repressive future.
Like anything else i’ve written, this piece poses a question of the reader. Not just the reader, but also, myself, the writer. One of these questions would be: if there is indeed a fear of a more repressive future, why would the concern be assuaged by the presence of a democrat, given the repression we are currently seeing (and experiencing), with a democrat currently sitting in office?
It may also be assumed (if one has gotten this far) that i am in opposition to voting. These assertions would not be accurate. Watching days upon days and multiple hours of the most recent elections in Venezuela (from television networks that presented the process from all sides, in a place on the map that is facing repression from the U.S.), i know it is possible that elections can work in ways that are not antithetical to the masses.
What i am opposed to is the idea that a candidate is entitled to my vote for whatever reasons they’ve claimed (such as, ‘If you don’t vote for (insert democrat candidate) you are racist’, or ‘If you care about the social order, you would vote for a republican’). i am opposed to the idea that voting is seen as a competition or a numbers game. i am opposed to the fact that the process of voting in the U.S. is generally devoid of a dialectical analysis.
In particular, i am opposed to the gaslighting and attacks that occur when someone makes the decision to vote for a third party candidate, or makes the decision to not vote at all. One of the biggest concerns i have is that if a democrat is not selected for the presidency this year, those who will be blamed will be students of voting age (many who have been in the streets and at university encampments), Africans, Muslims, people of Arab descent, and antizionist Jews and Christians- people who, for all intents and purposes, are opposed to the current administration’s funding of a genocide. Those who will also be blamed most likely are the (once again) ‘ignorant’ and ‘uneducated’ Trump voters. The recipients of the blame (if and when it happens) will undoubtedly be those who are on the sociopolitical and class margins.
And liberals who make the decision to distribute blame have to sit with that.
This post is nearing its end, but not before i ask the questioned we opened with: When will it ever be a right time?
Because voting in the U.S. is seen as an event and not a process (like damn near everything else in this country), voting for a third party candidate is never the right thing to do, because seemingly every four years, ‘this year is the most important election.’ If this is the case EVERY SINGLE TIME; if the people claiming this is the ‘most important election’ continue to vote in imperialist and capitalist candidates, how are they expecting any change to occur? What elections are going to be any LESS important, where people would be comfortable enough to not vote for someone not backed by billionaires, multinational corporations, banks and military contractors?
Or is comfort all you want, and not actual change?
As a voter, if you think change is imperative, what active steps are you taking outside of that one second Tuesday in November, to enact it?
These are questions that need to be sat with. Whatever your answer is though, guilt (whether internal or external), blame or shame are not productive. However, anger is indeed productive, if you utilize it to effect positive change, not only for yourself, but for humanity.
i have no interest in loving you as a liberal. i have a vested interest in loving you as a person who desires justice for the peoples of the world. We may hold different ideologies (or even different paths), but if you’re serious about the work, i am there with you on the front lines.
When is the right time? It is right now.
Overjobbed and Underworked 