EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The History of Hope
America seems to be holding its breath, trying to decide what kind of country we want to be. The current presidential election may provide an answer.
Political campaigns don't ignite grassroots movements for change, but politicians, by their rhetoric and actions, can encourage or discourage people from joining crusades for social justice. They can give voice and lend credibility to people working for a better society.
In recent weeks, Hillary Clinton and some of her supporters have taken to criticizing Barack Obama for his charisma, his inspiring speeches and his campaign's boisterous rallies. "There's a big difference between us--speeches versus solutions," Clinton said February 14 in Ohio. "Talk versus action. You know, some people may think words are change. But you and I know better. Words are cheap."
The Clintonites say that Obama is peddling "false hopes." They suggest that the fervor of the crowds at his rallies is somehow "creepy," as though his followers are like a herd of sheep who would follow Obama off a cliff.
But Obama is clearly touching a nerve in America's body politic--a pent-up idealism that seeks not utopia but simply a more decent society. Obama can recite his list of policy prescriptions as well as, perhaps even better than, most politicians. But he also views this campaign as an opportunity to praise and promote the organizers and activists on the front lines of grassroots movements and to explain what it will take to bring about change. A onetime organizer himself, Obama knows that, if elected, his ability to reform healthcare, improve labor laws, tackle global warming and restore job security and living wages will depend, in large measure, on whether he can use his bully pulpit to mobilize public opinion and encourage Americans to battle powerful corporate interests and members of Congress who resist change.
Talking about the need to forge a new energy policy during a speech in Milwaukee on Saturday, Obama explained, "I know how hard it will be to bring about change. Exxon Mobil made $11 billion this past quarter. They don't want to give up their profits easily."
The dictionary defines "encourage" as "give hope to"--and that's an important role for a public official, including a President. In his 2002 book, A History of Hope: When Americans Have Dared to Dream of a Better Future, New York University historian James Fraser examined the nation's history from the bottom up. He showed how ordinary people have achieved extraordinary things by mobilizing movements for change. But it is also true that at critical moments, a few Presidents--including Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson--embraced these movements and helped propel them forward.
Obama, who called his recent book The Audacity of Hope, understands this history. In his speech in Milwaukee, he challenged Clinton and others who accuse him of being what he termed a "hope-monger." His opponents, Obama said, think that "if you talk about hope, you must not have a clear view of reality."
Hope, Obama countered, is not "blind optimism" or "ignoring the challenges that stand in your way."
Obama explained that during his twenty years as a community organizer, civil rights lawyer, state legislator and US senator, "I've won some good fights and I've also lost some fights because good intentions are not enough, when not fortified with political will and political power."
"Nothing in this country worthwhile has ever happened except when somebody somewhere was willing to hope," Obama insisted, reviewing the history of American movements for social justice, starting with the patriots who led the fight for independence from England.
"That is how workers won the right to organize against violence and intimidation. That's how women won the right to vote. That's how young people traveled south to march and to sit in and to be beaten, and some went to jail and some died for freedom's cause."
Change comes about, Obama said, by "imagining, and then fighting for, and then working for, what did not seem possible before."
That's the lesson that Fraser recounts in A History of Hope. Starting with the revolutionaries of 1776, he shows how activists have built powerful rank-and-file movements through hard work and organization, guided by leaders who have combined empathy, political savvy and that elusive quality we call charisma.
Fraser examines the abolitionists who helped end slavery; the progressive housing and health reformers who fought slums, sweatshops and epidemic diseases in the early 1900s; the suffragists who battled to give women the vote; the labor unionists who fought for the eight- hour workday, better working conditions and living wages; the civil rights pioneers who helped dismantle Jim Crow; and the activists who since the 1960s have won hard-fought victories for environmental protection, women's equality, decent conditions for farmworkers and gay rights.
The activists who propelled these movements were a diverse group. They included middle-class reformers and upper-class do-gooders, working-class immigrants and family farmers, slaves and sharecroppers, clergy and journalists, Democrats and Republicans, socialists and socialites. What they shared was a strong belief that things should be better and that things could be better.
Abraham Lincoln was initially reluctant to divide the nation over the issue of slavery, but he eventually gave voice to the rising tide of abolitionism, a movement that had started decades earlier and was gaining momentum but could not succeed without an ally in the White House.
Woodrow Wilson was initially hostile to the women's suffrage movement. He was not happy at the sight of women picketing in front of the White House, a tactic designed to embarrass him. But eventually he changed his attitude, in part for political expedience and in part through a sincere change of heart, and spoke out in favor of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in an address to the Senate. Women gained the right to vote in 1920 only after suffragists combined decades of dramatic protest (including hunger strikes and mass marches) with inside lobbying and appeals to the consciences of male legislators--some of whom were the husbands and fathers of the protesters.
In the 1930s, workers engaged in massive and illegal sit-down strikes in factories throughout the country. In Michigan--where workers had taken over a number of auto plants--a sympathetic governor, Democrat Frank Murphy, refused to allow the National Guard to eject the protesters even after they had defied an injunction to evacuate the factories. His mediating role helped end the strike on terms that provided a victory for the workers and their union.
President Franklin Roosevelt recognized that his ability to push New Deal legislation through Congress depended on the pressure generated by protesters. He once told a group of activists who sought his support for legislation, "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it." As the protests escalated throughout the country, Roosevelt became more vocal, using his bully pulpit to lash out at big business and to promote workers' rights. Labor organizers felt confident in proclaiming, "FDR wants you to join the union." With Roosevelt setting the tone, and with allies like Senator Robert Wagner maneuvering in Congress, labor protests helped win legislation guaranteeing workers' right to organize, the minimum wage and the forty-hour week.
President John Kennedy was a hard-line cold warrior and ambivalent, at best, about the emerging civil rights movement. Despite this, his youth and his famous call to public service ("Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country") inspired Americans, especially young people, to challenge the nation's racial status quo.
When Lyndon Johnson took office after JFK's assassination, few expected the Texan--a stalwart New Deal liberal but, like FDR and JFK, no civil rights crusader--to embrace the Rev. Martin Luther King and his followers. At the time, many Americans, including LBJ, viewed King as a dangerous radical. However, the willingness of activists to put their bodies on the line against fists and fire hoses tilted public opinion. The movement's civil disobedience, rallies and voter registration drives pricked Americans' conscience. These efforts were indispensable for changing how Americans viewed the plight of blacks and for putting the civil rights at the top of the nation's agenda. LBJ recognized that the nation's mood was changing. The civil rights activism transformed Johnson from a reluctant advocate to a powerful ally.
King and other civil rights leaders recognized that the movement needed Johnson to take up their cause, attract more attention and "close the deal" through legislation. King's "I Have a Dream" speech at the August 1963 March on Washington inspired the nation and symbolized the necessity of building a mass movement from the bottom up. LBJ's address to a joint session of Congress in March 1965--in which he used the phrase "We shall overcome" to urge support for the Voting Rights Act--put the President's stamp of approval on civil rights activism. Johnson said, "There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem. And we are met here tonight as Americans--not as Democrats or Republicans. We are met here as Americans to solve that problem."
Not all Presidents rise to the occasion. Some straddle the fence, forgoing the opportunity to rally Americans around their better instincts. And some actively resist movements for justice, siding with the forces of bigotry and reaction.
Obama recognizes that some candidates and public officials engage in demagoguery: "I've seen how politicians can be used to make us afraid of each other. How fear can cloud our judgment. When suddenly we start scapegoating gay people, or immigrants, or people who don't look like us, or Muslims, because our own lives aren't going well."
And he clearly understands that as a candidate, and as President, he can give voice to those on the front lines of a grassroots movement trying to unite Americans around a common vision for positive change. "That's leadership," he told the enthusiastic crowd in Milwaukee last week.
Then Obama called on the crowd to "keep on marching, and organizing, and knocking on doors, and making phone calls." Yes, he was asking them to work on his campaign, but he was also encouraging them to see themselves as part of the long chain of change, the history of hope, that has often made the radical ideas of one generation the common sense of future generations.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


13 Comments so far
Show AllAfter hearing and watching Obama, do Hillary Clinton and John McCain give you "hope"? (Didn't think so.)
A nation without hope feeds on itself until its all gone!!!
At least Obama(not even on my radar as a choice in the beginning), talks about hope - not 'hanging in there'
Americans really do have to decide whether they want to be full of hope or full of fear - and I'm not holding my breath for the former.
Although HRC's positions as outlined are more liberal than those outlined by Obama, she cannot emphasize "experience," since the public has already sampled the stagnant and even regressive policies of her husband's presidency. Surely everyone remembers that WJC once called himself "the man from Hope." Obama is unproven and can offer a hope outside of the DLC's incrementalism. As matters stand right now, hope is the most scarce commodity in US politics.
Pressure for change has been building as the corporate class has run off with our treasury and taken our living wage jobs to China, and the village idiot has turned our Constitution into a G-Damned piece of paper. Obama's message is to fight for change if the people back him and the people are responding. I never thought I would live in such exciting times. Obama is right, we are seeing a movement, an historic shift, the public stirring to reclaim it's right to a fair share of this country's wealth, and a say in the direction we go. About time. He makes people realize that we are not powerless. Together we are more powerful than the corporate thieves who have stolen our country, and we can take it back.
kathyodat
And thank you, Peter Dreier, for a great article. You are also inspiring.
kathyodat
it is his ability to rally the people that leads me to believe that obama's greatest service to this country would be to continue to rally the people for these upcoming struggles when we finally get a chance to have a president other than bush. in the role of mover, obama could keep the public pressure on--the pressure that gets legislation enacted. meanwhile, hillary clinton could do the tough job of heading a country with plenty of problems. thus each could do what s/he does best.
Give me a break !
HOPE,CHANGE,YES WE CAN!
translation
If you find an old can you may get change
for it.
Well, it looks like Obama will be the Democratic nominee. And it also looks like - nay, it is open and obvious - that McCain is detested by many conservatives. Some of the real reactionaries hate him so much they say they will raise funds for, campaign for, and vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. Yes, many crypto-fascists like Hillary Clinton much more than McCain. She is one of them, apparently, more than McCain is.
Well, here's a thought: why doesn't Clinton run in the REPUBLICAN primaries? Yes, let her beat McCain and become the Republican nominee. Then she can run against Obama again - in the general election this time! She'll have a second chance to beat Obama and may even win the second time around.
obviously, she is a democrat
if you cannot get with that, perhaps you can vote as green
i cannot do more
i do believe voting hillary as your candidate
is choosing the one who will lead
to a proper presidancy
For creepy, How about Bill Clinton! Sure the man is a genius of charm, and he had sufficient intellect to handle the job of president compared to the present chimpanzee. But Porking your interns in the oval office is DEFINITELY CREEPY! And Hilary's inevitable inclination to want to be president is SICK! doesn't she have something else she wants to do with her life? What a creepy pair! Hilary's ambition is definitely creepy!
we should call the Clintonites and the war party "the hopeless"
"The Clintonites say that Obama is peddling "false hopes." They suggest that the fervor of the crowds at his rallies is somehow "creepy," as though his followers are like a herd of sheep who would follow Obama off a cliff."
Of course they see it as creepy. What they are invisioning in their minds is a future where Hillary and Bill and all the triangulaing DLC powerbrokers fade into the sunset of political obscurity and diminished influence. If I were looking up the road and could see my approaching loss of income, influence, and prestige I'd call it creepy also.
Making predictions is a risky proposition, but I'll forge ahead anyhoo: Hillary will not be the nominee, and whether Barak wins the White House or not she is now serving her last term in the Senate (whether she knows it or not.)
Guess what Billary: Americans of all stripes are gingerly allowing themselves to again be hopeful after 7 years of hopelessness. You've already lost, but you've lost quite a lot more than you yet realize.
it amazes me that when i point out the obvious, the haters come forth. what good does it do to spew forth bile about both of the clintons? are you doing that because the conservatives and the media have done it for so long that you believe all the myths that making her a hate object can build? just as you looked at bush and saw that he was lying, so look at the smear machine and tell me if it isn't lying about both bill and hillary clinton.
at some point obama will have to live up to his hype as everybody's hope object, and that is the point at which our government will break down if he becomes president. jimmy carter entered office idealistic and got very little done.
i do hope that whoever becomes president has plans to fix the economy, the military, the parts of the federal government that should be kept (let's just eliminate the homeland security department) and the public discourse as well as our country's status in the world.