However, as the election nears, it seems that Mr. West has made the calculation to abandon purity for strategy.
We have to prevent a Romney takeover of the White House. No doubt about that. It would be very dangerous in terms of actual lives and actual deaths of the elderly and the poor. Those people who are dependent on various programs would have to deal with the ugly damage of the further redistribution of wealth from the poor and working people to the well off.I welcome Mr. West into the fold of those who will cast their ballot to re-elect President Obama. Every vote counts.
I’m strategic...American politics are not a matter of voting your moral conscience—if I voted my moral conscience it would probably be for Jill Stein. But it's strategic in terms of the actual possibilities and real options available for poor and working people.
But I want to ask him why it is that he can claim the mantle of being strategic for himself when he so emphatically denies it to President Obama.
For example, Mr. West often talks about the failings of President Obama to take on the oligarchs and plutocrats of Wall Street. Perhaps he could have understood the strategy needed to get Dodd/Frank passed. He wouldn't need to be satisfied with the outcome, but at least he could have understood what it takes to get that kind of legislation passed by a Congress funded by Wall Street.
When it comes to politics, there is one outcome for those who embrace purity over strategy...loosing. Mr. West now understands that when it comes to his vote in this election. Perhaps he'll learn something from that going forward.