Letting History Be Our Guide

by: Mike Lux

Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 13:59


Barack Obama's New Hampshire concession speech became one of the most important moments in this campaign. The speech was made into that powerful "yes we can" video and was downloaded and commented on a ton. What has been less commented on, but something which I think is critically important, is how in this speech and many others in his campaign, Obama builds the foundation for his candidacy on the history of progressivism in this country. Whoever you are for in this primary, I think this idea, that we stand on the shoulders of the leaders of the past, is worthy of praise.

Obama's speech, in its climatic moment, went like this:

"But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn't try, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.

Yes we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.

Yes we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights.

Yes we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

Yes we can.

It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.

Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world.

Yes we can."

This idea of building on progressive history is one that I am particularly focused on right now because I am writing a book about how progressives and conservatives have essentially been engaged in the same fight since the beginning of our country.

Conservatives argue that elites ought to be trusted to run things, that too much democracy is dangerous, that equal rights is a pipe dream, and that our economic policy should maximize the wealthy getting all the benefits that will result in prosperity  trickling down to the rest of us because of the brilliance of the market. Progressives have argued democracy and equality are essential values that should define our country, that government should be of, by and for the people, rather than governed by the elites, and that an economic system prioritizing higher wages and a large prosperous middle class is better than the trickle down system.

And when you look at our history, one pattern becomes overwhelmingly clear: when conservatives have been successful, the country has gotten truly messed up and when progressives have carried the day, we've moved forward as a nation.

The conservatives who defended slavery and Jim Crow, stopped women and poor people from voting, allowed the robber barons to run amuck, brought us the great depression, and have in our day, given us the Iraq War, unchecked global warming, massive inequity, and an economy teetering on the edge of collapse: those conservatives have hurt our country badly. The progressives who expanded the right to vote, ended slavery, broke up the big trusts, gave us the national parks system and cleaner air and water, brought us the minimum wage and social security and the GI Bill, ended Jim Crow, gave us health care for the old and poor: those progressives made our country a dramatically better place.

Building on that history is a great place for progressives to be.

Mike Lux :: Letting History Be Our Guide
One of the big questions for 2009 if Democrats win this election is if we look to the example of progressives in history and are bold in making change. Lincoln and the Radical Republicans in the 1860's not only won the civil war, but also ended slavery, passed three incredibly important and progressive constitutional amendments, gave millions of acres of farm land away to moderate income families through the Homestead Act, and started the land grant university system. The progressives of the Progressive Era in the early 1900's broke up the big trusts, gave us better food safety, started the national park system, gave us direct popular election of Senators, created the income tax and gave women their right to vote. The 1930's and 1940's ushered in a brand new financial regulatory system, ended child labor, gave us the minimum wage, gave millions of soldiers a free college education, passed labor law reform, gave electricity and good prices to farmers and desegregated the armed forces. The 1960's and early 1970's gave us the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, the war on poverty, OSHA, the EPA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Miranda rights and Roe vs. Wade.

These were eras of big, big changes that came in droves. What Democrats need to do if we win is to cast off the caution and defensiveness of recent decades, and be bold in pushing for the major changes this country needs. The country has been following a more conservative path for the last 35 years, and we are truly messed up as a result. We have very big problems to solve, and need to be bold and think big in order to solve them. Now is the time to make our own history.  


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Your book (4.00 / 4)
Sounds good.  My claim is that conservatives are in fact just aristocrats by another name.  Conservative politics is not so much fascism as it is often accused of, but feudalism.

It just got a little confused in America because the Republicans and Democrats traded places in terms of which party represented which group.


On the liberal vs conservative thing... (0.00 / 0)
Historically which were the "liberal" and which the "conservative" side on the question of stealing the continent from its native inhabitants and killing nineteen out of twenty of them in what has to be ranked as the biggest genocide in history?

Just curious.

And if both your "liberals" and your "conservatives" were, as I suspect, on the same side then doesn't that call into question the utility of those labels, maybe point toward the need for some new ones?  After all, you can be a "liberal" and pro-war, pro-NAFTA, etc.

Sometimes I think the labels "liberal" and "conservative" as we use them in the U.S. hide more of the political landscape than they explain.

As for the speech, I heard and read it too.  Nice of him to actually point at some folks who were relatively progressive in their time and place.  But all the people he talks about except some of the workers who've lately tried to organize, are dead.  And if those workers lived in Colombia, where we send billions in aid to death squads, they are dead too.  

If Obama is talking about living workers trying to organize in the U.S. one of them gets fired every few minutes, according to the folks at www.americanrightsatwork.com, and I haven't heard him use much of his copious media time to help publicize that fact.  If he really wanted to help them he would point at them more specifically and more often, don't you think?

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston


no, of course it doesn't (4.00 / 1)
Let's assume you're right and liberals of the day largely ignored or even supported policies like manifest destiny and whatnot.  Would that mean the policy and idea differences they did have with the conservatives of the era were less real?

There was a time when "an eye for an eye" was a progressive idea.  

You're highlighting the difficulties of applying contemporary mores on the actors of the past.  People grew up with racism as the norm, where the cultural and inherent superiority of europeans was unquestioned.  

Liberalism has grown and learned since then, and come to recognize those things as being wrong.  Does that mean the people then couldn't be considered "liberal"?  I reject that idea.


[ Parent ]
no sir, it's not about applying the mores of today upon the past (0.00 / 0)
it's instead about acknowledging the whole past.  
The holucaust, the genocide of Native Americans is utterly, undeniably foundational to the making of this country, and the making of what we have come to call "white people".  
It's something that openly racist demagogues, lazy followers and the peddlers of easy absolution and many others all agree to ignore, because it tells a story that contradicts the myth of the "fundamental goodness" of this nation and its character.
And when you accuse someone of applying inappropriate standards, are you not, in this case, suggesting that genocide was somehow "appropriate", not evil or despicable, not a kind of original sin that stains the very fabric of our American (north and south) civilization?

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston


[ Parent ]
I hope not (0.00 / 0)
I sometimes wonder what behaviour that is considered acceptable today, that will be looked at with abhorrence in 200 years.  Eating meat?  Zoos?  Air travel?

My point is only that even a collosal moral failure like the treatment of indigenous North Americans by Europeans doesn't mean we can simply ignore the ideological differences between the Europeans, and the moral underpinnings of them.

There were still liberals, even if they supported killing every last aboriginal.   Their moral failure to recognize these people as human doesn't mean their concern for poorer whites, and desire to increase the franchise or fix other problems was less than genuine.  Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but he felt guilty enough about it to want to free them.  Bad, perhaps inexcusable, but still better than many of his day who would never give it a second thought or a moment of regret.  

If your point is that past liberals did not live up to the tenets of liberalism as understood today, I agree.  So what we have is an evolving and (I hope) improving ideology, not one written in stone at the start of the Renaissance.


[ Parent ]
Our treatment (4.00 / 2)
of the Indians surely has to rank as the worst, or perhaps tied for the worst with slavery, thing in American history, and there were not enough folks who spoke out against it- and some of those who didn't were liberals on other issues. But there were a significant number of people who did speak out strongly against what we did to the Indians, so I'm not sure what your point is there. I believe we should honor the good things that people have done in our history, as well as be honest about the bad. Are you saying that Lincoln should get no credit for freeing the slaves because he did not do much to help Indians? That FDR should not be praised for the New Deal reforms because he should have done more re Jim Crow? If that is your point, we will just have to disagree.
Re Obama, I actually have heard him talk about the labor law abuses you refer to.  

[ Parent ]
Wright (4.00 / 1)
As a side note, did you notice in Wright's 'offensive' sermons he always brought up Native Americans before he brought up African Americans?  In the two sermons I watched he was  two for two.

[ Parent ]
mentioning the Native Americans whenever we question America's pedigree (0.00 / 0)
has always been pretty standard stuff in the circles I've come up in.  It is also a kind of insulation against the kind of easy absolution that a figure like Obama offers to white America, i.e., all you have to do to "overcome" racism is vote for me and the debt is settled.

When you mention the Native Americans too, which I notice Condoleezza Rice did not, no such easy calculus is possible.  I mean they were literally exterminated, to a degree that nobody else was, and their lands taken.  Calling it a "birth defect", is putting it rather mildly.  Birth defects are not a matter of choice.  People chose to exterminate the natives, pulling triggers, passing out blankets, etc.  I understand that for decades the state of Texas offered a bounty on Indian scalps, and during that time the only quibbling about it in the white state legislature was that some folks might be cheating, due to the difficulty of telling an Indian scalp from that of any other Mexican.

Wright's formulation is well to the left of Obama's.  He never mentions the natives.  By keeping the discussion away from that it's easier for him to maintain his appeal to white men, the center of his electoral strategy.

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston


[ Parent ]
A "drive by" reference. I have heard it too, (0.00 / 0)
but only in front of certain audiences.  It's what they call in my part of town a "drive by", like the ritual references other black politicians make to the inordinate number of our people behind prison walls.  Just referring to it, without proposing anything at all gets you a little cred.

Barack Obama is on TV and in print every, every day.  If he wanted to help empower people to solve their own problems, to stick up for themselves he would be mentioning it every day, in front of every audience, and on TV, not just at the occasional union hall stop, and as a footnote to some obscure document on his web site.  That's a drive-by

I don't remember suggesting that about Lincoln.  What I mean to suggest though, is that our historical ideas of who and what is "progressive" are often skewed, and the skew is revealed by which sins get mentioned and what does not.

And the genocide of Native Americans is one that just rarely or never gets mentioned.  Could it be that some folks are in denial?

I don't have time to look for the reference now (I am supposed to be doing the work that pays the mortgage) but weren't there a group of Indians protesting that the Native American Museum on the national mall should have the owrd "holocuast" in its name?  And weren't they summarily dismissed, cause somebody else has already trademarked that term, figuratively speaking?

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston


[ Parent ]
Can everything be fixed? (0.00 / 0)
Yup, it was genocide.  But it was also germs, as in influenza, and smallpox (the "blanket" transmission couldn't have been more than a fraction of the cases; that's biology).  

If you think Obama or any ideal candidate in the present or future will fix/heal every wound in history, or that a person could get elected making this particular wound primary in a Presidential campaign, you do not have a realistic grasp of what is possible.   You do not think like most people.  

I wish an ideal candidate would fix all of history's injustices and educated the uneducated.  But that is fantasy.


[ Parent ]
I just wish (0.00 / 0)
that a flesh and blood candidate would admit it happened, admit it was a crime, and admit that it was indeed foundational to the character of this nation.
So far, even that modest wish is a fantasy.

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston


[ Parent ]
Great take Mike (0.00 / 0)
I can't wait for your book. Is this the big project with Drew?


John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Drew (4.00 / 1)
No, Drew and I are working together on a big new message research project for the 2008 election cycle and beyond, re how do you frame progressive positioning on key issues.

[ Parent ]
I'm curious (0.00 / 0)
How does the shift from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution and the fight over ratification fit into this framework?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Mistakes of the framers. (0.00 / 0)
That is actually a big topic in the book, where I argue that Paine and Jefferson successfully created a broad progressive frame for what the new nation ought to be, but that the framers at the constitutional convention made several key mistakes because of their conservatism, that had to be corrected by future progressives.

[ Parent ]
When can we buy this? (0.00 / 0)
I'm ready to preorder when you are.

[ Parent ]
Thanks. (0.00 / 0)
I will let folks know as soon as I know.

[ Parent ]
Great project - let me offer an alternate perspective... (0.00 / 0)
I agree that we ought to elect Progressives that are unafraid to use state power to make the nation a better place.  But, we cannot unproblematically embrace the history of Progressivism - or even the New Deal - in the U.S.  

Teddy Roosevelt may have busted the trusts, but he and his Progressive heirs also allowed the biggest corporations to game the system and use new regulations to drive up the cost of operating smaller firms that led to a massive wave of corporate consolidation and created some of history's most powerful monopolies.

The Progressives may have provided for the direct election of US Senators, created food safety laws and established the basic infrastructure that we associate with modern cities (public parks, schools, running water and electricity), but they also disfranchised African Americans, imposed segregation, and passed the draconian 1924 Immigration Act in order to ensure that these new expanded benefits of citizenship remained for "white Americans only."

The New Deal may have legalized collective bargaining and established the basis for a humane economy, but the systematic exclusion of African Americans from the protections of this new safety net helped stratify citizenship along racial lines.  This allowed white Americans to advance much more quickly than African Americans - especially in terms of accumulating family wealth in the form of property that can be passed from one generation to the next.  

I don't reject any of the gains of America's progressive heritage - hell, I went to two land grant colleges - but any embrace of this heritage really has to examine its racial legacies - so we don't repeat the same mistakes.  We have to lift up all Americans and not just some.  

Let me suggest a brief reading list:

Ira Katznelson, When Affirmative Action Was White
   (about the New Deal)
George Lipsitz, The Possessive Investment in Whiteness
Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism
Michael Perman, Struggle for Mastery
   (about disfranchisement)
C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow

Good luck with the book!


The beauty of that passage (0.00 / 0)
still brings tears to my eyes.

I still think that New Hampshire concession (0.00 / 0)
speech was Obama's best to date, and by extension, the best speech I've heard in my lifetime. I actually heard it at the Obama HQ in Los Angeles, and the physical change in the mood of the room was just palpable.

I think it's a great project your working on. Good luck.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox