On Obama
“I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington… I’m asking you to believe in yours.”
A few thoughts.
Most of the people I associate with have serious critiques of the electoral system and recognize its limitations. Despite that, I’ve encountered many friends and comrades who are excited about Barack Obama. It started a few months ago, when I was on a hike with a few friends right after the “Race Speech.” Granted, there was a lot of stuff in there that was really good–-it’s pretty much unheard of for any policymaker to talk about race in such a frank way, about things like discrimination and lack of economic opportunity. He acknowledges the anger that exists in black and white communities. He also lauds protest and civil disobedience (in the context of the civil rights movement), right in the beginning of the speech. Despite this, the speech is far from perfect and it has a lot of problems, including comments like this, where he’s denouncing Rev. Wright’s sermons as: “a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.” There are lots of people talking about how much they like him. Though not the most radical of sources, here’s an essay of Tom Hayden‘s where he talks about why he is campaigning for Obama, and The Nation has come out strongly supporting him.
I remember when people were excited about John Kerry. In 2004 I lived in Ohio, a swing state, and I remember going to the poll the morning of the election and seeing lines of my friends as they prepared to vote, believing that Kerry would win. I voted because at the time I was working at Planned Parenthood, and I believed that who was in office would influence policies that control funding for family planning and restrictions on abortions. I didn’t have any illusions that voting him into office would be some transformative experience, though I thought that it might make a minor difference to a select group of people.
That’s not how people are talking about Obama. People, even radicals who have checked out of the system, some who vote and some who don’t, believe in his message of change. So, over the last few months, I’ve been asking a lot of people I’ve come into contact with about why he is exciting. It boils down to a few points:
- Symbolism. The simple fact of a black man being head of the country, would, I agree, be a big deal. One friend put it this way: there would be a whole mess of people in the U.S. who would have to look at Obama and just accept that he was the president, despite their feelings toward him, just like how a lot of radicals and progressives feel about GW Bush. (Like, the “not my president” campaign). I agree that this would make a difference, even in foreign politics, with how other countries view the U.S.
- Messaging. OK. You have to admit that the Obama campaign is doing an amazing job of getting their message out there, and this is where we need to take notes and understand why their message is so compelling. The whole ploy to announce the VP over text message so they could get a ton of people’s cell phone numbers was, well, brilliant, and shows that they are doing a good job of adapting old methods. I’d love to see someone radical (and more qualified than me) write an analysis of the campaign from this angle. What is exciting to many people about his messaging is the talk of change—as community organizers and activists in social movements, we know that people are ready for change, and excited by big picture talk, and talk of changing the system. That change is something that will be done “together,” and that he can’t do it alone. This, of course, appeals to the masses of people who feel like the system doesn’t work for them, and they might have a chance to help shape it in the future.
- His history as a community organizer. I don’t know if people are excited about this because they feel he can identify with them, or that he has some sort of shared values. Yes, I think that having someone who understands what organizing is shows with his messaging and how he’s able to bring people along by making them feel part of something bigger. My roommate Max says that this signifies an understanding (at some point), of a fundamental way of how change happens – from collective organization versus working for the same things but expecting change to come from the top down. This is a fundamentally different way of looking at the world, and the fact that he has that experience is a good thing. Apparently, the peeps at the RNC are using the community organizer thing against him. See Palin and Guiliani’s speeches.
What is exciting about this? I don’t know. Obama’s just another guy, who great as he may be, isn’t saying anything very exciting about Iraq (or any of the other big issues), and is still part of a fucked up system that would likely prevent him from making substantive change even if he wanted to. And is it possible for anyone in the federal government to be free of influence from corporations and lobbyists? For example, Here’s Paul Street’s analysis of his acceptance speech, and here’s David Moberg talking about how Obama has never really been as progressive as people have made him out to be, or have wanted him to be.
When I saw Billy Bragg in concert in June, he was very supportive of the Obama campaign, and what I really liked was that Bragg said that this campaign is about possibilities. If Obama gets elected, there are a lot of good things that could possibly happen. One or two or three of them might actually happen. If McCain is elected, there are no possibilities. It is enough to hope for the possibilities? Sure.
Now. Here is my great concern. This mass of people, particularly young people, who are being mobilized by his message of change—what will happen when either a) he doesn’t win or b) he wins but then doesn’t do anything? Or rather, he doesn’t do what people hope of him, which is make a substantial change in how things are for the majority of people.
Is there some infrastructure or apparatus that could swoop up these people before they become disenchanted and refocus their energy to community organizing and social movements? Unfortunately, that apparatus doesn’t exist, and it’s probably too late to create it in time. United for Peace and Justice is not that apparatus, neither is MoveOn. Can that refocusing be done a million times in a small way in every town across America? Maybe.
This morning, when I was quizzing people about their views on Obama, my friend Jason said, “As radicals, we need to keep our eyes on the prize and not be confused by the window dressing.”
Matt Leonard said,
September 5, 2008 at 7:02 am
Great post Jen! I agree with much of what you said. I think a lot about the 2000 election – with Nader running. That was at the height of a visible radical resurgence in the US – globalization was a key issue that was uniting people across movements, a general more-systemic analysis and understanding of social problems was developing even in mainstream concsiousness – and at the end of the day people were recognizing how a flawed economic system lies at the root (or at least exacerbates) all our struggles.
And people were doing more than talking – they were getting out on the streets, mobilizing their communities, and exploring new models of organizing and structuring their daily lives.
I was pretty bummed initially at all the energy the Nader campaign sucked out of that movement. HORDES of really awesome community organizers, students, and radicals were out in force pushing the Nader vote. At first I saw it as a step backwards -by falling into trap of electoral politics (At least at the national level). But then I realized that the election is where the mainstream is looking – and his campaign DID reach a lot of people like my parents to at least start questioning a two-party system, exploring instant-runoff voting, exposing people to the actually pretty-awesome values of the Green Party (their principles, not necesarily their tactics and people) and at least getting more mainstream discourse about the relatedness of social problems. HUGE!
But then, as everyone knew full well, Nader lost. And where did that momentum go? It was dropped – both by Nader himself, the Green Party at large, and certainly by the hordes of people who worked on his campaign as part of strategic movement building. That energy was somewhat re-captured by groups like MoveOn – but that went from pushing the envelope of analysis – to basically shilling for Democrats (not to totally knock MoveOn – but that is how their brand is understood).
I fear the same will happen with Obama – in many ways it already has. He knew that to beat Hillary – he had to mobilize new, young voters – and people who would be organizers in their communities to expand his base – so he gave big, bold, visionary talk of change. He beat Clinton – and now he’s steadily moving back to the center – knowing that that base has nowhere else to turn now and will stick with him regardless.
Is his move back center just the electoral game needed to win – and will his “true self” once elected still reflect the visionary speeches he gave 6 months ago? Or will it be business-as-usual – as he caters to the corporate influences that have him just as deep as most any other politician? Time will tell, but I’m honestly not that hopeful. The nuts-and-bolts of most of his policies on energy and climate, his and recent steps back on numerous issues (like wire taps) points him in a direction that will disappoint greatly.
-Matt
Lori said,
September 6, 2008 at 3:06 pm
To borrow from the loathsome Caitlin Flanagan, I say “to hell with all that.” There is no law at all that says people have to vote either Democratic or Republican. There are other candidates (including, yes again, Nader) on the ballots. I would rather that the most activist thing anyone can do (Besides protesting and doing other actions) is to vote for anyone other than the Democrats, which are Republicans in disguise (Remember the Clinton Administration? And if you are old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter was President, he was and still is, pro-life), and other than the Republicans, too, of course. Voting for other candidates would send a strong message to the “mainstream” that many citizens are becoming fed-up with the two-party “system” that’s been plaguing humanity since machines were invented. To truly demand real change, one has to act upon it. There is a part of me that genuinely respects Obama, but there is also a part of me who believes (and agrees with Jen and her friend’s above quote “we need to keep the eyes on the prize …”) that if he is indeed elected in November, nothing will really come out of his election that would benefit anyone else other than the “status quo” (to me, meaning the wealthy elitists) I truly admire, and am becoming a part of, the grassroots efforts of movements becoming more organized and mobilized. Real change will occur when the message is spoken at its loudest and clearest, and directly acted upon once it is spoken. The ballot box can potentially become a vital tool in this (as long as there is no tampering with the results), but only if we exercise the true right to vote that we have in a democracy, that we also must move to preserve. Thanks for this insight!
thomaselsted said,
September 7, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Being a foreigner with a limited insight in the elections and u.s. election system, I’ll venture a comment that you will have heard and talked about hundreds of times, but is still worth saying again. It is about the ‘sending signals’ and strategic voting. Since the United States is the most powerful state in the world, the world’s only remaining superpower, this election also has me and millions of outsiders on the edge of the seat. Yes, the two-party system is a dinosaur in a democratic system, especially one that pretends to promote democracy throughout the rest of the world (republican or democratic alike), and there is every need to demonstrate a will to alternatives to that system and to fight for it. At the same time this is such an important matter for the whole fucking world that I have to admit that I tremble at the thought of ‘wasted’ votes (sorry sorry sorry for the expression). I mean, we do know that the people who would vote alternatively are all radicals on the leftwing, and that no vote cast for an alternative (non-democrat-,non-republican) would go from the republicans. In the case of these elections I tend to be less carefull with experiments, which may send a strong signal but will not have the power to keep the republicans out of government the next term. In domestic politics the signal value may be worth it, but internationally it’s not going to be visible, so my opinion is vote for the best bid (or lesser evil if you will), because it is going to affect not just the three hundred milion u.s. citizens but people in every country in the world.
I agree on the criticism points on Obama, but if I had the chance he’d have my vote. It’s just such an important election and the consequences of another Republican government just scares my shitless.
(I am a bit ignorant about the electoral system in the u.s. and I think in more direct-election terms because that´s the way it works in my country – we don’t vote indirectly through electors, but directly, which makes every vote count in a slightly different way).
(comment from Argentina, but I’m from Denmark originally)
thomaselsted said,
September 7, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Correction: “I tend to be less carefull with experiments” was of course an awkward sentence of a foreigner. I meant “I would be very careful of experiments”.
Karl Richardson said,
October 29, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I myself was, and still am, very critical of Obama. However as Bragg and others, such as Howard Zinn, have pointed out, the alternative is not acceptable. While I hope voting for the “lesser of two evils” does not persist throughout my lifetime, it is a choice I will make when posed with a person and potential administration that seeks to do away with a woman’s right to choose; accelerate the process of taking income and other necessities from the poor, working poor, working and middle classes; and further delay the civil rights of individuals and families who fall outside of heteronormativity, among many other things.
Just heard you on Media Matters, Jen- fantastic! I am a huge fan of Clamor and was heavy in heart when you were forced to shut down. Anyhow, we miss you in Toledo and hope all is well.
Take care…
Karl
Matt Leonard said,
November 2, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Another quick comment. I just saw Tom Morello/The NightWatchman (guitarist from Rage Against the Machine) last night – and he had some great things to say. I’ve seen SO many notable public radicals and bands get on stage before an election – and the radical critique goes by the wayside – as the message of “Vote vote vote” dominates all.
But Tom was spot-on last night. He essentially said – “Next week will be one of the most important elections in our history. But it’s still just an election – and while having a slightly progressive black man in office is a big step – those steps aren’t the ones that change the world. Social change doesn’t stop, or even start with the elections – it happens when people like you and like me – and the countless nameless faces who weren’t elevated to historical status took risks, committed themselves and took action for economic and social justice.”
Jen Angel said,
November 3, 2008 at 6:52 am
Yay for collective action! Thanks for posting Tom’s comment, Matt.
Against Fake Empire and Beyond False Solutions « It’s Getting Hot In Here said,
November 6, 2008 at 12:06 am
[...] of our new President. (Indeed, despite an organizing and communication strategy so successful then even radicals must take some notes, I’m distinctly unenthusiastic about the thing that in the end is more important: [...]