Will Obama Inspire a New Generation of Organizers?
Americans are used to voting for presidential candidates with backgrounds as lawyers, military officers, farmers, businessmen, and career politicians, but this is the first time we've been asked to vote for someone who has been a community organizer. Of course, Barack Obama has also been a lawyer, a law professor, and an elected official, but throughout this campaign he has frequently referred to the three years he spent as a community organizer in Chicago in the mid-1980s as "the best education I ever had."
This experience has influenced his presidential campaign. It may also tell us something about how, if elected, he'll govern. But, perhaps most important, there has not been a candidate since Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy who has inspired so many young people to become involved in public service and grassroots activism.
Through his constant references to his own organizing experience, and his persistent praise for organizers at every campaign stop, Obama is helping recruit a new wave of idealistic young Americans who want to bring about change. According to surveys and exit polls, interest in politics and voter turnout among the millennial generation (18-29) has increased dramatically this year. But Obama isn't just catalyzing young people to vote or volunteer for his campaign. Professors report that a growing number of college students are taking courses in community organizing and social activism. According to community organizing groups, unions and environmental groups, the number of young people seeking jobs as organizers has spiked in the past year in the wake of Obama's candidacy.
Whether or not he wins the race for the White House, Obama, through his own example, has already dramatically increased the visibility of grassroots organizing as a career path, as well as a way to give ordinary people a sense of their own collective power to improve their lives and bring about social change.
Obama's Organizing Experience
In 1985, at age 23, Obama was hired by the Developing Communities Project, a coalition of churches on Chicago's South Side, to help empower residents to win improved playgrounds, after-school programs, job training, housing, and other concerns affecting a neighborhood hurt by large-scale layoffs from the nearby steel mills and neglect by banks, retail stores, and the local government. He knocked on doors and talked to people in their kitchens, living rooms, and churches about the problems they faced and why they needed to get involved to change things.
As an organizer, Obama learned the skills of motivating and mobilizing people who had little faith in their ability to make politicians, corporations, and other powerful institutions accountable. Obama taught low-income people how to analyze power relations, gain confidence in their own leadership abilities, and work together.
For example, he organized tenants in the troubled Altgelt Gardens public housing project to push the city to remove dangerous asbestos in their apartments, a campaign that he acknowledges resulted in only a partial victory. After Obama helped organize a large mass meeting of angry tenants, the city government started to test and seal asbestos in some apartments, but ran out of money to complete the task.
Obama often refers to the valuable lessons he learned working "in the streets" of Chicago. "I've won some good fights and I've also lost some fights," he said in a speech during the primary season, "because good intentions are not enough, when not fortified with political will and political power." (Recently, right wing publications, radio talk shows, and bloggers, such as the National Review and the American Thinker, have sought to discredit Obama as a "radical" by linking him to ACORN and other community organizing groups.)
The American Organizing Tradition
The roots of community organizing go back to the nation's founding, starting with the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party. Visiting the U.S. in the 1830s, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, was impressed by the outpouring of local voluntary organizations that brought Americans together to solve problems, provide a sense of community and public purpose, and tame the hyper-individualism that Tocqueville considered a threat to democracy. Every fight for social reform since then-from the abolition movement to the labor movement's fight against sweatshops in the early 1900s to the civil rights movement of the 1960s to the environment and feminist movements of the past 40 years-has reflected elements of the self-help spirit that Tocqueville observed.
Historians trace modern community organizing to Jane Addams, who founded Hull House in Chicago in the late 1800s and inspired the settlement house movement. These activists-upper-class philanthropists, middle-class reformers, and working-class radicals-organized immigrants to clean up sweatshops and tenement slums, improve sanitation and public health, and battle against child labor and crime.
In the 1930s, another Chicagoan, Saul Alinsky, took community organizing to the next level. He sought to create community-based "people's organizations" to organize residents the way unions organized workers. He drew on existing groups-particularly churches, block clubs, sports leagues, and unions-to form the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council in an effort to get the city to improve services to a working-class neighborhood adjacent to meatpacking factories. Alinsky's books, Reveille for Radicals (1945) and Rules for Radicals (1971), became the bible for several generations of activists. including the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and many other reformers.
There are currently at least 20,000 paid organizers in the United States,according to Walter Davis, executive director of the National Organizers Alliance. (Nobody knows for sure, since "organizer" is not an occupation listed by the Census Bureau). They work for unions, community groups, environmental organizations, women's and civil rights groups, tenants organizations, and school reform efforts. Unlike traditional social workers, organizers' orientation is not to "service" people as if they were clients, but to encourage people to develop their own abilities to mobilize others. They identify people with leadership potential, recruit and train them, and help them build grassroots organizations that can win victories that improve their communities and workplaces. According to organizer Ernesto Cortes, they help people turn their "hot" anger into "cold" anger-that is, disciplined and strategic action.
The past several decades has seen an explosion of community organizing in every American city. There are now thousands of local groups that mobilize people around a wide variety of problems. With the help of trained organizers, neighbors have come together to pressure local governments to install stop signs at dangerous intersections, force slumlords to fix up their properties, challenge banks to end mortgage discrimination (redlining) and predatory lending, improve conditions in local parks and playgrounds, increase funding for public schools, clean up toxic sites, stop police harassment, and open community health clinics. A key tenet of community organizing is developing face to face contact so people forge commitments to work together around shared values. (The Internet has become a useful tool to connect people in cyberspace and then bring them together in person).
For years, critics viewed community organizing as too fragmented and isolated, unable to translate local victories into a wider movement for social justice. During the past decade, however, community organizing groups forged links with labor unions, environmental organizations, immigrant rights groups, women's groups, and others to build a stronger multi-issue progressive movement. For example, the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) has created a powerful coalition of unions, environmental groups, community organizers, clergy, and immigrant rights groups to change business and development practices in the nation's second-largest city. At the national level, the Apollo Alliance - a coalition of unions, community groups, and environmental groups like the Sierra Club - is pushing for a major federal investment in "green" jobs and energy-efficient technologies.
Although most community organizing groups are rooted in local neighborhoods, often drawing on religious congregations and block clubs, there are now several national organizing networks with local affiliates, enabling groups to address problems at the local, state, and national level, sometimes even simultaneously. These groups include ACORN, the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), People in Communities Organized (PICO), the Center for Community Change, National People's Action, Direct Action Research and Training (DART), and the Gamaliel Foundation (the network affiliated with the Developing Communities Project that hired Obama). These networks as well as a growing number of training centers for community organizers-such as the Midwest Academy in Chicago, the Highlander Center in Tennessee, and a few dozen universities that offer courses in community and labor organizing-have helped recruit and train thousands of people into the organizing world and strengthened the community organizing movement's political power.
The "living wage" movement is an example of both coalition-building and linking local and national organizing campaigns. In 1994, BUILD-a partnership of a community organization and a local union-got Baltimore to enact the first local law, requiring companies that have municipal contracts and subsidies to pay its employees a "living wage" (a few dollars above the federal minimum wage). Since then, more than 200 cities have adopted similar laws, helping lift many working families out of poverty. Most of their victories grew out of coalitions between community organizing groups, labor unions, and faith-based groups. These coalitions have gotten more than 20 states to raise their minimum wages above the federal level. These efforts helped build political momentum for Congress' vote last year to raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade.
Organizing and the Obama Campaign
Although he didn't make community organizing a lifetime career-he left Chicago to attend Harvard Law School-Obama often says that his organizing experience has shaped his approach to politics. After law school, Obama returned to Chicago to practice and teach law. But in the mid-1990s, he also began contemplating running for office. In 1995, he told a Chicago newspaper, "What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer-as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them?" Since embarking on a political career, Obama hasn't forgotten the lessons that he learned on the streets of Chicago.
This is reflected in his campaign for president. Community organizers distinguish themselves from traditional political campaign operatives who approach voters as customers through direct mail, telemarketing, and canvassing. Most political campaigns immediately put volunteers to work on the "grunt" work of the campaign-making phone calls, handing out leaflets, or walking door to door. According to Temo Figueroa -- Obama's national field director and a long-time union organizer-the Obama campaign has been different. "When I came on board what attracted me was his history as an organizer," says Figueroa, who was working as AFSCME's assistant political director. "At the time I wasn't sure I was joining the winning team. Most of us thought we were jumping on the little engine that could. We were believers. We wanted something bigger than ourselves. A movement."
Obama enlisted Marshall Ganz, a Harvard professor who is one of the country's leading organizing theorists and practitioners, to help train organizers and volunteers as a key component of his presidential campaign,
Many Obama campaign volunteers went through several days of intense training sessions called "Camp Obama." The sessions were led by Ganz and other experienced organizers, including Mike Kruglik, one of Obama's organizing mentors in Chicago. Potential field organizers were given an overview of the history of grassroots organizing techniques and the key lessons of campaigns that have succeeded and failed.
"Organizing combines the language of the heart as well as the head," Ganz says, reflecting on his experiences as an organizer with SNCC in the civil rights movement and as a key architect of the United Farmworkers' early successes. Not surprisingly, compared with other political operations, Obama's campaign has embodied many of the characteristics of a social movement-a redemptive calling for a better society, coupling individual and social transformation. This is due not only to Obama's rhetorical style but also to his campaign's enlistment of hundreds of seasoned organizers from unions, community groups, churches, peace, and environmental groups. They, in turn, have mobilized thousands of volunteers-many of them neophytes in electoral politics-into tightly knit, highly motivated and efficient teams. This summer, the campaign created an "Obama Organizing Fellows" program to recruit college students to become campaign staffers.
This organizing effort has mobilized many first-time voters, including an unprecedented number of young people and African Americans during the primary season. Now that Obama is the presumed Democratic nominee, he faces pressure to resort to more traditional electoral strategies, but so far Obama and top campaign officials have continued to emphasize grassroots organizing. It is evident in Obama's speeches, his continued use of the UFW slogan, "Yes, we can/Si se puede," his emphasis on "hope" and "change," and the growing number of experienced organizers drawn into the campaign.
Obama's stump speeches typically include references to America's organizing tradition. "Nothing in this country worthwhile has ever happened except when somebody somewhere was willing to hope," Obama explained. "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."
In town forums and living-room meetings, Obama says that "real change" only comes about from the "bottom up," but that as president, he can give voice to those organizing in their workplaces, communities, and congregations around a positive vision for change. "That's leadership," he says.
Organizer-in-Chief?
If elected president, will Obama's organizing background shape his approach to governing?
Obama can certainly learn valuable lessons from President Franklin Roosevelt, who recognized that his ability to push New Deal legislation through Congress depended on the pressure generated by protestors and organizers. 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 depression conditions worsened, and as grassroots worker and community protests escalated throughout the country, Roosevelt became more vocal, using his bully pulpit-in speeches and radio addresses-to promote New Deal ideas. Labor and community organizers felt confident in proclaiming, "FDR wants you to join the union." With Roosevelt setting the tone, and with allies in Congress like Senator Robert Wagner, grassroots activists won legislation guaranteeing workers' right to organize, the minimum wage, family assistance for mothers, and the 40-hour week.
After his election in 1960, President John Kennedy encouraged baby boomers to ask what they could do for their country. At the time, JFK meant joining the Peace Corps and the VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) program. He could not have anticipated the wave of protest and activism-around civil rights, Vietnam, and later feminism and the environment-that animated the sixties and seventies.
President Lyndon Johnson was initially no ally of the civil rights movement. However, the willingness of activists to put their bodies on the line against fists and fire hoses, along with their efforts to register voters against overwhelming opposition, pricked Americans' conscience. LBJ recognized that the nation's mood was changing. The civil rights activism transformed Johnson from a reluctant advocate to a powerful ally. LBJ's "Great Society" program-although criticized as too tame by United Auto Workers leader Walter Reuther and other progressives-provided some community organizing positions with anti-poverty agencies, job training groups, and legal services organizations in urban and rural areas. Many of today's veteran activists got their first taste of grassroots organizing in the anti-poverty, civil rights, and farmworker movements.
Now comes Obama, a one-time organizer, who consistently reminds Americans of the importance of grassroots organizing. If he's elected president, he knows that he will have to find a balance between working inside the Beltway and encouraging Americans to organize and mobilize. He understands that his ability to reform health care, tackle global warming, and restore job security and decent 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.
For example, talking about the need to forge a new energy policy, 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." Another major test will be whether he can help push the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)-a significant reform of America's outdated and business-oriented labor laws-through Congress against almost unified business opposition. If passed, EFCA will help trigger a new wave of organizing that will require enlisting thousands of young organizers into the labor movement.
If Obama wins the White House, progressives within his inner circle will look for opportunities to encourage his organizing instincts to shape how he governs the nation, whom he appoints to key positions, and which policies to prioritize. Meanwhile, a new generation of volunteer activists and paid organizers will be looking to join President Obama's progressive crusade to change America. But if it appears that is veering too far to the political center, they will-inspired in part by Obama's own example, and perhaps with his covert support-mobilize to push him (and Congress) to live up to his progressive promise.
Peter Dreier is professor of politics and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy program at Occidental College, where he teaches a course on community organizing. He is coauthor of The Next Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City, Place Matters: Metropolitics for the 21st Century, and several other books.
© 2007 Foundation for Study of Independent Ideas, Inc.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
39 Comments so far
Show Allhttp://www.pr.com/article/1100
Ralph Nader Goes to Washington... Again - The PR.com Interview
By Allison Kugel, Senior Editor - May 14, 2008
Ralph Nader:
We just accept money from individuals, as long as it's legal. We don't take money from PACs (Political Action Committees). We don't take money from commercial interests, which have a quid pro quo, like the oil companies, auto companies and insurance banks. We don't do that. If people want to contribute, no matter who they are, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Green, whatever… you want to contribute? Welcome. There's no quid pro quo (a Latin term meaning "something for something"). They see where we stand and they see our issues on the table. You want to contribute? We're grateful."
...and it seems, Obama doesn't need your money, Mikey. He'll happily take it though. Obama, despite his lies to the contrary, is well-funded by the same corporate globalists who are tearing this country apart as we speak. The election process is one big orchestrated charade. Ronald Reagan wasn't the only actor elected to the presidency. Obama has been carefully groomed for the role by the very same people who groomed Bill Clinton. Hello David Rockefeller!
Will Obama Inspire a New Generation of Organizers?
Yes he will! Yes we can! Obama '08
Nannie, Ralph Nader doesn't need your money or support, as the Republican Party will be very happy to organize and raise funds for him. Every vote for Nader is a vote for McSame.
Everything Obama has done in his life has been for the single purpose of achieving his dream of being President. Obamabots, be prepared for the big letdown when your deified candidate starts to reveal the worst of his human characteristics. They're already beginning to leach out ...
Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote but desrves to be a slave of liars.
Obama is a true American poolitical leader. He's taking the hopes of our nation and burying them under the crap & garbage that we are already suffering through. How can a supposedly smart guy begin to screw up so badly. Leader indeed.
Obama will inspire a renaissance in the 3rd party movement, perhaps finally making one viable. Go Obama!
Obama's organizing has stimulated this discussion. If it gets at "real organizing," that's a blessing. I find little real organizing in the progressive movement. We need to see attention focused on successful organizing, groups that have won on issues against corporate power. These successful methods need to be taught to other groups. Examples include the Western Organization or Resource Councils (which won 7 of 10 Senators against GATT) and NPA which won victories on CRA. There is far too much empty activism, which is satisfied with symbolic victories. Here we've had people here willing to get arrested on peace issues, but not in relation to anyone who has "the power to decide," not related to asking for anything. It's mere dramatization. Likewise holding up peace signs amounts to a totally ineffective attempt to target drivers passing by, as if they would then figure out what to do and do it. There is little wonder that the war has not been stopped.
Chomsky gets asked about this all the time and I think he misunderstands it. He says just go join activist groups. but then you may just end up holding up signs to get motorists to finish the job, a total waste.
I recommend the books Beyond Machiavelli and Coping with International Conflict (basically a textbook version) by Roger Fisher et al of Harvard. (Earlier books include International Conflict for Beginners and Dear Israelis, Dear Arabs.) They tell people specifically what to do. These are the key books. Fisher et al's other negotiation books are supplements, not adequate on their own. Their shortcoming is that Fisher et al encourage individuals to go it alone, not the group method of organizing.
So add group organizing books like Shel Trapp's Basics of Organizing and Dynamics of Organizing (NTIC, NPA). They're both online. http://www.tenant.net/Organize/orgbas.html, http://www.tenant.net/Organize/orgdyn.html
The only thing Obama will inspire is yet another generation of duplicitous weasels. The young Obamamaniac true believers have been had and that is a tragedy.
Obama will inspire a new generation of cynics.
Hitler had his brown shirts. Obama will call his the green shirts or whatever.
FDR had his NRA which attempted to "organize" the U.S. economy. The NRA was run by a guy who took the Mussolini connection to heart, declaring all businesses not displaying the Blue Eagle to be "enemies of the people", and encouraging the public to boycott them, if not worse. Businessmen were jailed for breaking NRA rules, and supporter activists roamed the streets looking for violators (the story is told in Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascim.). Obamas green shirts might be enforcing reduced carbon consumption by similar tactics.
This cult following of Obama disturbs me, as does his right turn. Democrats start the big wars. Seems like we get the choice between a white old McCain and a black young energetic organizer McCain. I will take the old tired dude. He might do less damage. And read "Dreams from My Father" before you vote.
Obama is playing political Russian roulette with his new, Clintoneque triangulation. With his right wing stands on faith-based programs, as well as the death penalty and hawkish foreign policy pronouncements, he risks alienating his progressive base. He and his advisers think we have no one else for whom to vote, but we have two other choices: Nader and nobody. Many progressives and young voters might just be so disgusted they will stay home.
Will he gain votes from McCain? Unlikely, because on the two issues that matter most to them, abortion and gay rights, he's not in line with them.
In any case, the issues that matter most to the American people as a whole, the economy, the war, energy prices, health care and the environment, are the ones Obama should be discussing. He's much more in the mainstream than McCain on all of them.
Obama presents himself as the candidate of change, but the more he relies on the advice of Washington insiders and panders to the lunatic fringe, trashing important parts of the First, Fourth and Eighth Amendments, the more he alienates those who have supported him and cools our enthusiasm. It's a dangerous game for him, and for our country.
If you wonder what kind of "organizers" Obama has in mind, I present
you readers who do not speak Dutch my translation of the relevant sections of Wallis' interview with the reputable Dutch newspaper NRC-Handelsblad of last week. I am sure that the interview was conducted in English, was subsequently translated into Dutch by the paper, and then by me back into English. I have no reason to believe that the Dutch translator had any motives to misrepresent Wallis' positions
Q:Europeans think that the role of religion in politics will decrease as soon as Bush has left. Why would that not be the case under a President Obama?
A:"Because Barack Obama is the most Christian presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter. He regularly talks with religious leaders, he understands the sensitivities; he cites Jeremiah, Josiah, and Jesus without forcing himself. For a Democrat he has a unique talent to connect with evangelicals. And as a grownup he has experienced his own conversion to God which is obviously very recognizable for evangelicals."
"Obama is not the kind of candidate that wants to convert the country. However, he will certainly use his own faith as a reference for decisions. He likes to cite Lincoln: 'I do not know whether God is on my side but I certainly hope that I am on the side of God."
Q:Is it not logical to separate politics and religion more clearly after Bush?
A:"The answer to bad religion is not: no religion. The answer is: better religion. What Europeans often ignore is that faith has always played an important role in our public life. That was also the wellspring of the success of Martin Luther King."
"Every large social movement in this country had religion as its catalyst. The fight against poverty, the environment, social inequality, was here traditionally in the hands of groups with a religious background. The error of the past years had been that everyone accepted the religious right as a norm. But they were actually the deviation from the norm."
Q:You supported Bush's initiative to let churches conduct social work. Do you think that a president Obama should do the same?
A:"I agreed with the principles which Bush presented but not with their execution. I do not say that Obama must take an initiative. He can also stress the fight against poverty in alliance with religious groups. However, I expect Obama to be friendly for the community of faith."
Q:Imagine that the Republicans paint you during the campaign as yet another friend of Obama who states that he wishes to unite the country but is, in reality an extreme leftist?
A:Left and right are not religious categories. And of course Obama is not a left extremist. What is attractive about him is his pragmatism; he judges an idea by its quality and not by its source. I myself work with every part of society. When it concerns the protection of the family I am a conservative. When it concerns social justice I am not progressive-I am radical. Also on the issues of war and peace.
I am not a leftist but an independent. However, I do not make compromises for the forty million poor of this country. I hope that we will eventually succeed in this country to wed the traditions of Billy Graham and Martin Luther King. That we will organize the Crusades [NRC-Handelsblad explains this term for the Dutch readers] which Billy Graham held to bring people to Jesus to confront the government with the need for more social justice, as King did."
Wallis calls himself a friend of Obama. He is a powerful political figure and is infinitely more dangerous for Obama than Obama's hapless Chicago minister.
Wallis can make or break Obama in November, especially with black voters, hence must be kept totally happy and loyal by Obama by hook or by crook or by both. Obama does not control Wallis, it is obviously the other way around.
Wallis has also called for the adoption of a "reduce abortion" plank at the Democratic convention. Obama has no choice but to support this insane initiative (reduction of abortion is, by itself, a worthy goal, but the Democratic Party should not touch abortion with a ten foot pole this year). I predict that Obama will announce his support when "abortion" comes up during the debates with McCain. That will look "wise" but is nothing other than more insurance money paid to the evangelical mafia.
.
Inspire This...
Take the time to read the Nader Page.
See the PBS movie " An Unreasonable Man".
Check out votenader.com
...and speaking of checks... The Nader/Gonzalez could use some contributions to help fund their campaign. No Corps Allowed...LOL
If you want action against corporations taking over America, If you want to have a honest and trustworthy President with a record to follow Ralph Nader is worthy of your vote in Nov and he will not disapoint you.
You will be proud you did and so will I.
.
The Democratic Party has no democracy. It's just a tightly controlled business--and it's just none of our business. One Nation Under AIPAC.
I live in a small town near Austin, and I'm thinking that I'll go out to Main Street with poster in hand and just start talking to every person possible about 911, Iraq, Iran, World War IIII. It's something I try to do anyway, whenever I have the opportunity. I'm often surprised at the responses. People do want to talk and many people are more aware than I would think. I remember easing into a conversation about 911 and fascism with an elderly friend of my mother in my small hometown. (O.K., it's not necessarily that simple to "ease" into a conversation about 911 or fascism.) But, after a minute or so, I realized I had hit a responsive nerve as she opened up in agreement with her own doubts and fears. I felt that it was a new thing for her, an opportunity to discuss these matters openly. I could also see that it was difficult for her as tears were starting to well up in her eyes. She wasn't so up on political affairs, but like so many others on the edge of this harsh acknowledgement, it hopefully was a step forward. It's actually a lot harder to have discussions with some of my more "progressive" friends. The reactions can be quite angry. "What, 911, an inside job!! YOU'RE CRAZY!!
It's encouraging to see that that tide is gradually turning, though not nearly fast enough. Obama knows. Pelosi knows. The Clintons know. But they can't talk, not for fear of facing the horror of it all, but for the fears concerning how heavily invested they are.
But now I must go the Dollar General Store. I try to add a few cans of cheap food to my stockpile each week, just in case.
Shalom!
He'll have many followers.
Followers.
Centrist followers.
Campaign spending limits, NOW!
He knocked on doors and talked to people in their kitchens, living rooms, and churches about the problems they faced and why they needed to get involved to change things.
You've commonly heard of the metamorphosis of caterpillars into butterflies but in the case of Obama you have the unlikely event of a metamorphosis of a butterfly into a slug.
Obama might inspire them to start as an organizer, then sell out to the Chicago political machine. Live in a fancy house helpfully financed by one of their money men. Ride their PR machine to high levels of power where you can do important things like expand the death penalty and protect NAFTA and Walmart from any 'change' that might harm them.
"there has not been a candidate since Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy who has inspired so many young people to become involved in public service and grassroots activism"
And there has never been a leader who has been so quick to betray them either.
As someone who worked and continues to work in community organizations and labor unions as an organizer and in other capacities, it never ceases to amaze me how shallow and wrong-headed allegedly qualified commentators such as Drier can be about the trade/profession/calling/art/science of organizing in the U.S. context.
Organizing is nothing more and nothing less than BUILDING POWER and USING POWER by democratic organizations to put forward the interests of their members and of disempowered social groups.
I have worked for and with a number of the organizations that Drier lists above. Please show/tell me where they are developing power, using power and shifting power balances in any substantive manner -- anywhere. The same test should be applied to labor unions in the U.S. as well.
As long as we swim in such shallow analytical waters, as presented here by Drier, we are doomed to be nothing more than children playing in puddles while fascist corporate US interests roll over us and the rest of the world, pretty much destroying everything in their path.
But Drier will have classes to teach and Obama will fund the religious right to preach to those of us who survive the onslaught.
"Will Obama Inspire a New Generation of Organizers?"
No.
However, Congressman Ron Paul already has, in case this author hasn't been paying attention...
poopdeck July 1st, 2008 12:12 pm
Jesus, please NO!
Agreed! PLEASE, PLEASE NO!
So, what do we do with our lives
We leave only a mark
Will our story shine like a light
Or end in the dark
Give it all or nothing
Looking for something we can rely on
There's got to be something better out there
Love and compassion, their day is coming
All else are castles built in the air
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change it
Living under the fear till nothing else remains
All the children say
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond the thunderdome
Obama will not inspire any new activism, but disspointment with Obama may very lead to activism - just as dissapointment with Kennedy/Johnson did.
And recall the activism that was spawned by Clinton's globalcapitlaist-friendly policies.
Out of the ruins
Out from the wreckage
Can't make the same mistake this time
We are the children
The last generation
We are the ones they left behind
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change it
Living under the fear till nothing else remains
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond the thunderdome
Allow me to simplify.
"We don't need another hero. We don't need to know the way home. All we want is what's beyond the Thunderdome." -- Tina Turner
I'm so sick of people telling me that I need a leader. Truth is, I trust all of you to know what's better for you. Will you trust in each other or will you continue to elect 'leaders' to do nothing for you?
Fuck Obama or McCain! Vote for yourself!
Nathaniel Heidenheimer July 1st, 2008 12:46 pm
No I wasn't. I agree with you: "Everything Obama is saying is purposefully vague, designed to passify those with limited awareness of politics into believing that real change is possible just by pulling a lever every four years."
Obama and McCain are members of the same private interest groups, run by the likes of Rockefeller and Rothschild. The only differences between the two are aesthetic.
I agree that the difference between Obama and McCain is blurring. Significant moves by the former since he hasn't needed his enthusiastic volunteers to re-establish his beltway credentials are NOT what a lot of us were looking for in a change candidate and I for one am not going to make the same mistake twice. I voted for Kerry last time; I will not go that route again. It is very disappointing, because I really hoped that Obama meant what he was saying during the campaign. Our young people needed a leader they could be proud of. It is becoming increasingly clear that he didn't mean what he was saying, and that is very troubling.
Tailcap-- I hope you were not alluding to my JFK comment.
My point was to CONTRAST JFK with Obama. I do not agree with the conflation that the Democrats of today are the same as those of the 1960s. With some, yes.
I think they are far far far worse today, and that Chomsky et al work to conflate the two and hope that we dont notice how far right from JFK and RFK the dems have moved.
Ah, the Democratic Party supporters are at it again. Lesseroftwoevilism is too easy to refute. Their latest trick: ROOSEVELT + BOBBY KENNEDY + EUGENE McCARTHY + JFK + LBJ = OBAMA! Now we go back to circa 1985, at age 23! That was then and this now. Where is he now? Firmly in the pockets of the establichment, that's where.
Obama is helping recruit a new wave of idealistic young Americans
-Idealistic, inexperienced dupes (sorry)
Many Obama campaign volunteers went through several days of intense training sessions called "Camp Obama."
-Brain-numbing indoctrination
"Yes, we can/Si se puede," his emphasis on "hope" and "change,"
-Simple, feel-good, but effective platitudes
"I know how hard it will be to bring about change."
-Not really, he supported changing the law (FISA) to give immunity to law breakers.
-Now that's change you can believe in.
Go Iraq Occupation! Go Trampling Civil Rights! Go Democrats! Go Obama!
It suddenly occurs to me that Obama is likelier than not to choose John McCain as his running mate.
If Obama's latest stance to expand the faith-based funding is any indication, we can forget any organizing, and we can forget any improvement in our policies or actions at home and abroad. I am not quite believing what I'm seeing in Obams's abrupt conversion to the right-wing's favorite causes. But, I am happy to vote Green Party or vote Nader. Better to vote for what reflects my views and values than vote only to prevent McCain from becoming president. At this point, the difference between Obama and McCain is blurring. By election day they may be conjoined twins; by inauguration, Obama may have gone so far right to "reach across the aisle" that he'll outdo even the Bush administration. I am no longer sure about what sort of candidate he is.
Well, if Obama isn't "pressured to make any serious concessions whatsoever", it will be because people like RichM (above) spent their considerable writing talents shooting their own feet with six-shooters in both hands.
THE IDEA is for the progressives to first elect the liberal side (aka, Democrats) and then scream the entire progressive agenda from the rooftops---and actually get SOME (not all) of it enacted. Otherwise, if you spend your days planting doubts about Obama until McCain is elected, you get NONE of it. Bang, bang. (Right foot.) Bang, bang.
(Left foot.)
Everything Obama is saying is purposefully vague, designed to passify those with limited awareness of politics into believing that real change is possible just by pulling a lever every four years.
Its as if they just want to get their "Don't Blame Me I Voted for Obama T-Shirts" and then watch TV for four years while their taxes are used to kill another two million in the Middle East.
For the last time a President TRULY resisted the will of the Permanent War economy see James W. Douglass
Jfk and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It matters. It is not naive liberal, and answers Chomsky and Cockburn squarely.
"...Obama can certainly learn valuable lessons from President Franklin Roosevelt, who recognized that his ability to push New Deal legislation through Congress depended on the pressure generated by protestors and organizers...."
- As was pointed out yesterday in the discussion following the equally silly article comparing Obama to FDR, the main reason FDR did what he did was because he had to reckon with the serious potential of open rebellion. This was largely due to the existence of a militant labor movement, filled with socialists & communists, who knew exactly what they wanted, & were wise to the usual deceits of bourgeois politicians.
In contrast, today there is no militant movement of opposition whatsoever. In its place is a collection of disgruntled but pacified & mostly brainwashed consumers. All these people grew up watching television.
When you compare the forces faced by these two men, it's obvious that while the first set of forces was powerful enough to generate real pressure on FDR, the second set isn't strong enough to blow out the candles on a birthday cake. Even if Obama was made of the same stuff as FDR -- and he's very far from that, being more a slick marketing phenomenon than a serious leader -- he wouldn't be pressured to make any serious concessions whatsoever.
Jesus, please NO!