In Rolling Stone’s endorsement of Barack Obama, editor Jann Wenner seems both astute and, our apologies, simplistic. Like Rolling Stone, we at Happily Hippie are grappling with the Presidential election; while we find ourselves leaning towards Obama as the most progressive of electable candidates, we find Wenner’s almost-worshipful patronage of Obama worrisome. In addition, as the most prestigious countercultural publication in the nation, Rolling Stone might be reasonably expected in its endorsement to take into account issues directly concerning Hippie-America. It doesn't.

Yes, Obama is charismatic, perhaps Lincolnesque. Problems with this approach: First, character isn’t everything; who‘s paying the bills is also important as is the larger context in which that character becomes President. Jimmy Carter had character; yet early on, his Presidency was undermined by, essentially, hippie-baiting--the Peter Bourne drug scandal and allegations the White House was filled with “drug users.” And then came the Iranian hostage crisis. What we tend to forget is that decent Jimmy Carter was hardly decent regarding Iran: while Amnesty International’s Secretary General had branded the US-backed Shah as “the worst human-rights violator in the world,” Carter toasted, literally, the Shah as a champion of human rights. In short, Carter became complicit in the nightmare of the Shah’s reign; he became an administrator of American empire, and for an American President--at present, at least--that seems part of the job; a President who doesn‘t defend the empire is seen as "weak."

Implicit in this notion is the understanding that, politically, the American people aren’t there yet: many remain suckers for WW II analogies and see our foreign policy as exclusively one of national defense when, in fact, it’s largely about defense of empire, and resentment of American empire is what’s fueling anti-American terrorism. We've become like Ancient Rome; we conquer and occupy others; we dominate them. Yet, many Americans are convinced that "Islamofacists" or some other enemy--which militarily don't pose a serious threat--are on the verge of conquering us; according to in President Bush's irrational explanation, they want to destroy us "because they're jealous of our freedom" (if you're jealous of something, doesn't that, by definition, mean you want it?). We have 750-some military bases circling the globe, yet most Americans remain convinced that we need those bases for "national security," as if the world were a giant either-or fallacy where either we occupy them, or they'll occupy us. Few Americans would tolerate a foreign military base on our soil, yet we expect others to always welcome ours, and when they don't, we're somehow shocked--"damn anti-Americans!" It's a warped and unhealthy view of the world that guarantees constant conflict.

(See the story below, "If Nations Are LIke People . . . ," for some insight into how Americans look to the rest of the world.)

Now, consider Obama: yes, he has been against the war in Iraq. On the other hand, he wants to expand the US military, wants to build a new nuclear sub or two. Why? So we can “defend” ourselves against Third World people angry about neo-colonial policies that reduce the majority of humanity to the status of laborers on a vast international plantation?* Only a president who clearly understands the imperial nature of our foreign policy, its creation of a master-servant relationship with the less powerful, will avoid repeating the mistakes of history.

As Ralph Nader correctly notes, Obama self-censors himself and is deliberately vague. Question: If the guy can’t tell the truth about American empire on the campaign trail, how’s he going to educate Americans and guide the nation in an anti-imperial path when in office? Yeah, if we’re lucky, he may actually get us most of the way out of Iraq. But will he then invade Pakistan, use our new leaner, meaner military to rough up some reluctant others on the receiving end of American empire?

Also, it’s no accident that Obama has bucks. A large portion of big business apparently feels quite comfortable with the “Obama revolution.” As such, his ties to such interests may impact his environmental policies as well. Wenner implies Obama has too much character to be compromised; we wonder if he already hasn’t.

And what about Hippie-America? What specifically is Obama going to do for us? Will he legalize or even decriminalize it? Will he drop the persecution of the British Columbia Five? Will he say that hating hippie-Americans and scapegoating of the counterculture are a national cancer and that these things must stop?

As for the hopeful argument--always raised by perpetually wide-eyed Democrats--that flaws apparent in a candidate are really just a clever ploy to lure reactionary America to sleep, and then when that sometimes-conservative-sounding candidate is elected, s/he will suddenly be transformed into the most sterling of progressives, more enlightened than we dare dream, guess what? History would seem to show candidates doing the opposite: running left, ruling right. Nowadays, every politician runs as an outsider for change--even Mitt Romney did it.

Yes, Obama is probably the best of the electable. But two things: one, if Obama is to yield an enlightened presidency, then it’ll be because a progressive America--mobilized and determined--holds his feet to the fire, standing behind him where appropriate, vigorously pushing him where necessary. Romanticization of Obama may tend to undercut that by somehow implying that our new Presidential messiah can be trusted to do it all for us.

Two, as Hippie-Americans, as members of an ethnicity under siege, we should be asking for specifically pro-countercultural policy positions before we give our support to anyone. Granted, the larger national issues should probably take precedence, but if we lightly trade away the interests of our community as if they were unimportant--if we fail to act as an effective lobby--we’ll never be free, never earn the respect we both crave and deserve, never have the impact we could.

So, where does this all leave us? Well, if gushing over Obama should be discouraged, critical support isn’t such a bad option. Yes, it’s possible he may deliver the best Presidency we’ve seen in quite a while--it wouldn’t take much, really.

On the other hand, we would recommend a Vice-Presidential choice like John Edwards. America still has a vicious far-right operating within and without our government: elections still get stolen; candidates and Presidents can still get assassinated. And if Obama delivers, they probably will try to kill him. Putting an anti-corporate populist like Edwards in the VP spot is smart.

Also, don’t rule out a vote for the now-declared independent Ralph Nader, assuming an Obama win looks likely--we suspect the Democrats will win handily in November. First, in terms of earning Hippie-American votes, Nader does: he actually calls for the legalization of marijuana, for instance. Second, Nader’s goal in entering the race isn’t so much to win; it’s to drive national politics and the Democrats in a progressive direction.

Arguably, votes for Nader will to some extent do that. If, on the other hand, the race looks close, we say, vote Obama (assuming he wins the nomination), and let’s not just hope for the best: let’s push for it. Let’s make those things we now hope for realities.

FN--For those who would doubt that "plantation" accurately describes the conditions Western investment and US foreign policy have reduced much of the Third World to, please see John Perkins' book Confessions of an Economic Hitman. As a life-long insider, Perkins describes well how underdeveloped nations are encouraged and then coerced to accept US loans, resulting in barbarous exploitation, a neocolonial relationship and "plantation"-like conditions.