To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
When I was a boy I traveled to the Deep South. On my very first day
there I saw two water fountains side by side, one labeled "Colored" and
the other "Whites Only." Now, less than half a century later, a black
family is on its way to the White House.
When I was a boy I traveled to the Deep South. On my very first day
there I saw two water fountains side by side, one labeled "Colored" and
the other "Whites Only." Now, less than half a century later, a black
family is on its way to the White House.
No doubt the myth of white superiority is still alive and well in many
places. But today that myth, the historical foundation of American
society, has a crack as big as the crack in the Liberty Bell. The only
word to express the magnitude of the change we lived through last week
is "revolution."
Let's be honest, though. For those of us who still use that word
"revolution" to describe the economic and political as well as social
changes we'd like to see in the world, and the changes in domestic and
foreign policy we'd like to see in our government, Barack Obama seems
to be far from the president we want. He appears to be a pragmatist. He
will probably govern from slightly left of center, much like Bill
Clinton and John Kennedy. That's certainly the impression he is giving
in his first days as president-elect.
"Appears" and "probably" are the key words here. No one knows for sure
what Obama has in mind for this nation. "We will get there," he
promised in his victory speech. But, in his typically soaring yet vague
rhetoric, he never told us exactly where he intends to steer us.
That's understandable. He doesn't want to be tied to any policy agenda
before he even takes office, especially with the economy on such an
unpredictable rollercoaster. Very possibly, he does not know yet
himself where he is headed.
It's not like the good old days of Bush and Cheney, when we knew pretty
much exactly what we were up against. Now we are all sailing on
uncharted political seas.
All this uncertainty should make progressives feel optimistic. What can
give us hope is not the new president as a policymaker, but the new
president as a symbol of possibility. Barack Obama is the name of a
person. "Obama" is also the name of a new mood -- a new tone and
sensibility -- that has somehow risen up in every section of this
country. It's a sense of open-ended possibility that hasn't been felt
since the time of JFK, when those two water fountains I saw in the
south were already doomed to become dusty relics of the past. Now, as
then, the new mood is most evident among young people, who are
energized as they haven't been since the '60s to enter the political
scene and work for change.
"Obama" as a symbol is the name for a wind of change that could be
powerful enough to sweep the ship of state great distances in a
relatively short time -- though in what direction, no one can yet say.
Where we end up depends on which political forces mobilize and organize
most quickly and most effectively. We could end up almost anywhere --
even right back where we started, if we are not careful. But if we on
the left are careful, if we think strategically, we can catch the new
wind and steer the nation a bit to the left.
While resisting Obama's unacceptable compromises, we should accept the
wisdom of his strategic pragmatism. He himself can teach us the best
way to oppose his policies.
As a community organizer, he learned that politics means making
coalitions. Lefties who opposed Obama have to work together with
lefties who supported him. And all of us have to work where we can with
liberals and even centrists. How can we hope to push them leftward if
we refuse to deal with them?
That means we can no longer just yell "no, no, no" at the government
and expect anyone but ourselves to listen. It worked for the last few
years because George W. Bush was so unpopular. But now we are dealing
with a president who is as widely admired as Bush was despised. Whether
we like it or not, that's a fact a smart political movement can't
afford to ignore. So we have to appear -- and really be -- cooperative
and constructive, not obstructive.
We also have to appear unthreatening. That's why Obama is so widely
admired. He won, not by offering specific new policy ideas, but by
uniting in himself the seemingly opposite images of change and steady
predictability. He presented himself as the dynamic leader who could
"change the world" while remaining always safe and solid, poised and
unflappable, never likely to do anything rash or impulsive. The
defining moment of the contest was the second debate, when the
"maverick" McCain wandered erratically around the stage while Obama sat
or stood, serenely centered, even as the economy of the nation (and
perhaps the whole world) was collapsing around us.
It's understandable that images of steadiness now dominate. Obama knows
that you can't use the winds of change to move people who are
frightened or insecure. Whatever he may hope to accomplish, he has to
keep on reassuring the general public and the power elite that he
really is the temperate, self-controlled man they saw throughout the
campaign. That's the only way he can be free to put across any policy
agenda he comes up with.
He won't succeed if he says or does anything that might look unexpected, impulsive, or the least bit radical.
In a recent interview, the president-elect showed that he understands
this truth. He complained that his infamous remark about "bitter"
people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who
aren't like them" was totally misinterpreted. He was trying to say how
important it is to accept people as they are, with all their fears, and
recognize their longing for "a sense of continuity and stability that
is unavailable in [their] economic life. . Because Democrats haven't
met them halfway on cultural issues, we've not been able to communicate
to them effectively an economic agenda that would help broaden our
coalition."
That's even more true for progressives both within and to the left of
the Democratic party. We know that most people in this country will
never be economically secure unless there is radical change in the
economic system. But if we set out to defeat, or even ignore, the
people made insecure and bitter by the current system, we'll never get
them to accept the need for radical change. We'll only create more
fear, bitterness, and resentment. Rather than nudging the center toward
the left we'll help to drive it toward the right.
We don't have to appear as cautious and timid as Obama. We couldn't,
even if we wanted to. But we can learn how to talk to people who don't
share our values, how to take their needs and concerns into account,
even how to work together with them, without sacrificing our
principles. If we do that, we can use the new mood of change as a
window of opportunity to persuade the whole nation to continue moving
leftward.
That possibility is what the name "Obama" symbolizes. But the new
president certainly won't do it for us. We have to do it ourselves.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
When I was a boy I traveled to the Deep South. On my very first day
there I saw two water fountains side by side, one labeled "Colored" and
the other "Whites Only." Now, less than half a century later, a black
family is on its way to the White House.
No doubt the myth of white superiority is still alive and well in many
places. But today that myth, the historical foundation of American
society, has a crack as big as the crack in the Liberty Bell. The only
word to express the magnitude of the change we lived through last week
is "revolution."
Let's be honest, though. For those of us who still use that word
"revolution" to describe the economic and political as well as social
changes we'd like to see in the world, and the changes in domestic and
foreign policy we'd like to see in our government, Barack Obama seems
to be far from the president we want. He appears to be a pragmatist. He
will probably govern from slightly left of center, much like Bill
Clinton and John Kennedy. That's certainly the impression he is giving
in his first days as president-elect.
"Appears" and "probably" are the key words here. No one knows for sure
what Obama has in mind for this nation. "We will get there," he
promised in his victory speech. But, in his typically soaring yet vague
rhetoric, he never told us exactly where he intends to steer us.
That's understandable. He doesn't want to be tied to any policy agenda
before he even takes office, especially with the economy on such an
unpredictable rollercoaster. Very possibly, he does not know yet
himself where he is headed.
It's not like the good old days of Bush and Cheney, when we knew pretty
much exactly what we were up against. Now we are all sailing on
uncharted political seas.
All this uncertainty should make progressives feel optimistic. What can
give us hope is not the new president as a policymaker, but the new
president as a symbol of possibility. Barack Obama is the name of a
person. "Obama" is also the name of a new mood -- a new tone and
sensibility -- that has somehow risen up in every section of this
country. It's a sense of open-ended possibility that hasn't been felt
since the time of JFK, when those two water fountains I saw in the
south were already doomed to become dusty relics of the past. Now, as
then, the new mood is most evident among young people, who are
energized as they haven't been since the '60s to enter the political
scene and work for change.
"Obama" as a symbol is the name for a wind of change that could be
powerful enough to sweep the ship of state great distances in a
relatively short time -- though in what direction, no one can yet say.
Where we end up depends on which political forces mobilize and organize
most quickly and most effectively. We could end up almost anywhere --
even right back where we started, if we are not careful. But if we on
the left are careful, if we think strategically, we can catch the new
wind and steer the nation a bit to the left.
While resisting Obama's unacceptable compromises, we should accept the
wisdom of his strategic pragmatism. He himself can teach us the best
way to oppose his policies.
As a community organizer, he learned that politics means making
coalitions. Lefties who opposed Obama have to work together with
lefties who supported him. And all of us have to work where we can with
liberals and even centrists. How can we hope to push them leftward if
we refuse to deal with them?
That means we can no longer just yell "no, no, no" at the government
and expect anyone but ourselves to listen. It worked for the last few
years because George W. Bush was so unpopular. But now we are dealing
with a president who is as widely admired as Bush was despised. Whether
we like it or not, that's a fact a smart political movement can't
afford to ignore. So we have to appear -- and really be -- cooperative
and constructive, not obstructive.
We also have to appear unthreatening. That's why Obama is so widely
admired. He won, not by offering specific new policy ideas, but by
uniting in himself the seemingly opposite images of change and steady
predictability. He presented himself as the dynamic leader who could
"change the world" while remaining always safe and solid, poised and
unflappable, never likely to do anything rash or impulsive. The
defining moment of the contest was the second debate, when the
"maverick" McCain wandered erratically around the stage while Obama sat
or stood, serenely centered, even as the economy of the nation (and
perhaps the whole world) was collapsing around us.
It's understandable that images of steadiness now dominate. Obama knows
that you can't use the winds of change to move people who are
frightened or insecure. Whatever he may hope to accomplish, he has to
keep on reassuring the general public and the power elite that he
really is the temperate, self-controlled man they saw throughout the
campaign. That's the only way he can be free to put across any policy
agenda he comes up with.
He won't succeed if he says or does anything that might look unexpected, impulsive, or the least bit radical.
In a recent interview, the president-elect showed that he understands
this truth. He complained that his infamous remark about "bitter"
people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who
aren't like them" was totally misinterpreted. He was trying to say how
important it is to accept people as they are, with all their fears, and
recognize their longing for "a sense of continuity and stability that
is unavailable in [their] economic life. . Because Democrats haven't
met them halfway on cultural issues, we've not been able to communicate
to them effectively an economic agenda that would help broaden our
coalition."
That's even more true for progressives both within and to the left of
the Democratic party. We know that most people in this country will
never be economically secure unless there is radical change in the
economic system. But if we set out to defeat, or even ignore, the
people made insecure and bitter by the current system, we'll never get
them to accept the need for radical change. We'll only create more
fear, bitterness, and resentment. Rather than nudging the center toward
the left we'll help to drive it toward the right.
We don't have to appear as cautious and timid as Obama. We couldn't,
even if we wanted to. But we can learn how to talk to people who don't
share our values, how to take their needs and concerns into account,
even how to work together with them, without sacrificing our
principles. If we do that, we can use the new mood of change as a
window of opportunity to persuade the whole nation to continue moving
leftward.
That possibility is what the name "Obama" symbolizes. But the new
president certainly won't do it for us. We have to do it ourselves.
When I was a boy I traveled to the Deep South. On my very first day
there I saw two water fountains side by side, one labeled "Colored" and
the other "Whites Only." Now, less than half a century later, a black
family is on its way to the White House.
No doubt the myth of white superiority is still alive and well in many
places. But today that myth, the historical foundation of American
society, has a crack as big as the crack in the Liberty Bell. The only
word to express the magnitude of the change we lived through last week
is "revolution."
Let's be honest, though. For those of us who still use that word
"revolution" to describe the economic and political as well as social
changes we'd like to see in the world, and the changes in domestic and
foreign policy we'd like to see in our government, Barack Obama seems
to be far from the president we want. He appears to be a pragmatist. He
will probably govern from slightly left of center, much like Bill
Clinton and John Kennedy. That's certainly the impression he is giving
in his first days as president-elect.
"Appears" and "probably" are the key words here. No one knows for sure
what Obama has in mind for this nation. "We will get there," he
promised in his victory speech. But, in his typically soaring yet vague
rhetoric, he never told us exactly where he intends to steer us.
That's understandable. He doesn't want to be tied to any policy agenda
before he even takes office, especially with the economy on such an
unpredictable rollercoaster. Very possibly, he does not know yet
himself where he is headed.
It's not like the good old days of Bush and Cheney, when we knew pretty
much exactly what we were up against. Now we are all sailing on
uncharted political seas.
All this uncertainty should make progressives feel optimistic. What can
give us hope is not the new president as a policymaker, but the new
president as a symbol of possibility. Barack Obama is the name of a
person. "Obama" is also the name of a new mood -- a new tone and
sensibility -- that has somehow risen up in every section of this
country. It's a sense of open-ended possibility that hasn't been felt
since the time of JFK, when those two water fountains I saw in the
south were already doomed to become dusty relics of the past. Now, as
then, the new mood is most evident among young people, who are
energized as they haven't been since the '60s to enter the political
scene and work for change.
"Obama" as a symbol is the name for a wind of change that could be
powerful enough to sweep the ship of state great distances in a
relatively short time -- though in what direction, no one can yet say.
Where we end up depends on which political forces mobilize and organize
most quickly and most effectively. We could end up almost anywhere --
even right back where we started, if we are not careful. But if we on
the left are careful, if we think strategically, we can catch the new
wind and steer the nation a bit to the left.
While resisting Obama's unacceptable compromises, we should accept the
wisdom of his strategic pragmatism. He himself can teach us the best
way to oppose his policies.
As a community organizer, he learned that politics means making
coalitions. Lefties who opposed Obama have to work together with
lefties who supported him. And all of us have to work where we can with
liberals and even centrists. How can we hope to push them leftward if
we refuse to deal with them?
That means we can no longer just yell "no, no, no" at the government
and expect anyone but ourselves to listen. It worked for the last few
years because George W. Bush was so unpopular. But now we are dealing
with a president who is as widely admired as Bush was despised. Whether
we like it or not, that's a fact a smart political movement can't
afford to ignore. So we have to appear -- and really be -- cooperative
and constructive, not obstructive.
We also have to appear unthreatening. That's why Obama is so widely
admired. He won, not by offering specific new policy ideas, but by
uniting in himself the seemingly opposite images of change and steady
predictability. He presented himself as the dynamic leader who could
"change the world" while remaining always safe and solid, poised and
unflappable, never likely to do anything rash or impulsive. The
defining moment of the contest was the second debate, when the
"maverick" McCain wandered erratically around the stage while Obama sat
or stood, serenely centered, even as the economy of the nation (and
perhaps the whole world) was collapsing around us.
It's understandable that images of steadiness now dominate. Obama knows
that you can't use the winds of change to move people who are
frightened or insecure. Whatever he may hope to accomplish, he has to
keep on reassuring the general public and the power elite that he
really is the temperate, self-controlled man they saw throughout the
campaign. That's the only way he can be free to put across any policy
agenda he comes up with.
He won't succeed if he says or does anything that might look unexpected, impulsive, or the least bit radical.
In a recent interview, the president-elect showed that he understands
this truth. He complained that his infamous remark about "bitter"
people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who
aren't like them" was totally misinterpreted. He was trying to say how
important it is to accept people as they are, with all their fears, and
recognize their longing for "a sense of continuity and stability that
is unavailable in [their] economic life. . Because Democrats haven't
met them halfway on cultural issues, we've not been able to communicate
to them effectively an economic agenda that would help broaden our
coalition."
That's even more true for progressives both within and to the left of
the Democratic party. We know that most people in this country will
never be economically secure unless there is radical change in the
economic system. But if we set out to defeat, or even ignore, the
people made insecure and bitter by the current system, we'll never get
them to accept the need for radical change. We'll only create more
fear, bitterness, and resentment. Rather than nudging the center toward
the left we'll help to drive it toward the right.
We don't have to appear as cautious and timid as Obama. We couldn't,
even if we wanted to. But we can learn how to talk to people who don't
share our values, how to take their needs and concerns into account,
even how to work together with them, without sacrificing our
principles. If we do that, we can use the new mood of change as a
window of opportunity to persuade the whole nation to continue moving
leftward.
That possibility is what the name "Obama" symbolizes. But the new
president certainly won't do it for us. We have to do it ourselves.