It's hard to overstate the transformative moment that we're in as a nation and, particularly, as progressives. In just a few years, we've gone from the high point of conservative power to a stunning rejection of conservative federal leadership and the historic election of a progressive African-American president.
But the electoral sea change is just part of the extraordinary national moment. The financial meltdown and slide toward deep recession have crystallized Americans' anger over deteriorating economic security, stagnant mobility, growing inequality, and policies of isolation instead of connection. Americans are ready for a new social compact and a transformed relationship between the people and our government. They are calling for a new era of big ideas and different values than we've seen over most of the past three decades.
The electorate has shown an unprecedented willingness to overcome racial and ethnic barriers to take on daunting shared challenges. Young people, people of color, and low-income people turned out to register and vote in unprecedented numbers that bode well for a far more participatory and egalitarian democracy going forward.
Even before this year's remarkable events, opinion research showed a historic, progressive shift in Americans' views on issues that (not coincidentally) were barely mentioned in the election. Perhaps most striking is the shift on criminal justice and problems of addiction, where the U.S. public has moved broadly to support rehabilitation and treatment over incarceration and retribution, as well as assistance and integration for people emerging from prison.
But an unprecedented opportunity for progressive values and ideas is not the same as victory for a progressive social and policy vision. The stark challenges of rising inequality, faltering security, and broken systems of health care, immigration, and criminal justice are the same on November 5 as they were on November 4. What's changed is only the chance for transformative change.
History shows that progressives could easily blow this opportunity, just as conservatives blew their transformative moments after the 1994 elections and the attacks of September 11, 2001. A few principles can help progressives move from opportunity to realization in ways that profoundly benefit our country.
The label does have its drawbacks. There are probably many progressive activists on our campuses and in our neighborhoods that would happily join an organization that fights for a variety of broadly popular social democratic causes but would think twice before joining a group with the word ’socialism’ in its name. Their skepticism is justified, given the numberofkookyoutfitsout there that fly the flag. But ironically, the fact that red-baiting is once again en vogue may vindicate the continued use of that burdensome old ’s’ word.
The McCain campaign and National Joe the Plumber Week have proven that even something as mundane as progressive taxation (which has near-universal support among bourgeois economists) can be red-baited political purposes. Proving that, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us.
Is Barack Obama a socialist? No, he isn’t even particularly liberal. Will this prevent him from being constantly red-baited by his Republican opponents and the wide-eyed anti-Dreyfusards of AM radio? Of course not.
If even timid, corporate-friendly reforms like the ‘93 Clinton health care initiative have been labeled as socialist in the past, how can anyone hope that genuinely progressive proposals will somehow escape the same charge in the future?
It’s important that there exist explicitly social democratic voices in order to put Barack Obama and other centrist politicians in proper perspective. What Obama certainly doesn’t need is our formal endorsement - we self-identified pinkos are insignificant in numbers* and influence and our support would not be welcome anyway. What Obama does need, especially if he wins the election, is vocal opposition from the left. For example, if the national debate on health care is to be between President Obama and hard right (the insurance industry and its puppets in Congress and the media), the resulting compromise will be totally unacceptable. But if the debate on health care is between Obama and an angry, vocal, recession-radicalized progressive movement, the resulting compromise might be halfway decent.
In the event of an Obama victory, the Republican noise machine will go into high gear, spinning deranged conspiracy theories about Obama, Tony Rezko and their terrorist picnics with al-Qaeda. Super sleuth Kenneth Starr can investigate! The left will be tempted to defend Obama from this bullshit, but it really won’t be worth our time. He doesn’t need us in his corner. Obama has tons of liberal groupies, particularly in the blogosphere, who will back him up. As radical social democrats, our mission should be to find constructive ways to be Obama’s enemy.
_______________ * I believe there are millions of progressive Americans who could be unconscious social democrats, and real majorities that would support no-brainers like universal health care.
From the about section of the ActBlue page I've created:
Despite the self-important screechings of the traditional media, the hurt feelings and ruffled feathers of the primary season are not insurmoutable. Hillary and Bill Clinton have worked to unite the Democratic Party with their rousing convention speeches and gracious support of Obama during the delegate voting process. Now it's time to reward Hillary for being a team player by helping pay off her campaign debt.
And while we're at it, lets give Barack Obama, who was equally gracious in victory, the funds he needs to expand the map, create coattails for down-ballot races, and end the conservative governing that thinks that all social issues are due to gays, Atheists, Hollywood, and working women, that the way to solve all economic ills are tax cuts for the super rich, and that war will solve all of America's international problems.
I am not going to be very articulate - I've been browsing all the favorite sites to see what people thought, after having my own celebration of this historic event in my own quiet way. I thought the speech itself was amazing - practical, down to earth, but with a hint of that soaring inspiration that everyone showed up to get.
Much like Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, Campaign Activists can be, uh, "interesting". Ok, some are flat out weirdos. But Obama's are a special breed and are certainly smarter and less wacky, they still have their own Culture and Language. Here are some terms you may never hear spoken in the light of Day. But an Obama staffer will testify to their existence. Well Maybe. Like AFTER the Election that is.
10. Barackoderm A converted Republican who now stands for Obama.
9. Obamatron A term that describes some O Supporters who want to talk about nothing but Obama. They also have no sense of Humor. Ahem.
8. Breaking Baracks in the Hot Sun When a new person is brought in to help the Campaign, they sometimes get their mettle tested by being sent to walk a, Uh, NOT nice neighborhood. Like where Zeke lives. Scary scary. If they come back, the rookie gets promoted.
7. StreetBaracker Term to describe some people who come from "Out of State" to help. Usually on the Greyhound. Some are doing it, Zeke thinks, just to get some free food and a place to sleep. They never bring a suitcase.
6. Obamabud Comes from Hawaii. Maui, in fact. Very fresh, brah.
5. BarackStar™, Energy Drink Instead of Coffee or even Latte's, Obama Activists drink a strange fluid made up of Kool Aide, crushed Berries and "Something else". I don't wanna know...
4. Wrong Side of the Railroad Baracks Some times Party Activists who are "Not as enthusiastic as they should be", don't get called anymore. To return to "Barackstar" Status they may have to go "Break Baracks in the Hot Sun".
3. Obamazombies After being hung up on and yelled at on hundreds of "ID calls", some Obama Supporters become desensitized and actually try and eat the brains of the living. Scary stuff. Beware.
2. Barackitis Sometimes people who had once been an avid supporters suddenly "find a reason" that they can't help anymore. This rare disease, is similar to Hillarytosis and Paulobia.
1. Obamormon Yep. Believe it or not, many conservative Evangelicals and Mormons have started working for Obama. These mainly young volunteers often "leave out" their religios leanings as they feel they are "weird" for opposing their hardcore parents leanings.
It seems that beltway media insiders have decided that, with the nomination basically locked up, it is time to scare the hell out of Democratic superdelegates and create electoral problems for Barack Obama in the general. These people have seen Democrats lose before (and helped make it happen), and think that apparent elitism has been a big part of the problem. They cannot escape the prism of the last few campaigns to examine the electorate. They are the ones who condescend and degrade the electorate when they repeatedly tell us one dumb quote by Obama will taint him, as if these blue collar folks cannot size people up except via the single sound bite.
Consider the discussions tonight on Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN about Obama's problems. Pundits say:
-The substance of this "bitter" quote does not matter because the American people have chosen good 'ol boys over "elitists" like John Kerry and Al Gore before. Hmm, I wonder who made these men so elitist and out of touch? Oh, right, beltway writers in love with the romanticism of cowboy George W. Bush. And who made the economy worse for working people? Oh, right, George Bush.
Obama is an Ivyleague educated man who is not a blabbering fool but can actually form coherent sentences. Never mind that he is the only candidate not to take lobbyist money--he just SEEMS so elite and well-spoken, why not write stories about it?
As Rachel Maddow trenchantly pointed out, John McCain does not get scrutinized for making extremely important factual mistakes about Muslims and who is and is not in al Qaeda because such mistakes do not fit into the beltway narrative about him. Meantime, the flowery, dazzling Obama says something that is probably factually accurate (if poorly worded) and it becomes a huge scandal. Not because it is problematic with voters, but because MSM writers have decided it will be. So they report the hell out of it and distort it and make him seem elitist, so when voters start to think he is elitist (because of their reporting), these same writers will look to have been correct all along.
The best way to condescend is to think for others, to predict their thoughts, and to essentialize them based on one or two events (in this case, elections). It is revolting, and, unfortunately, it is going on in the midst of a campaign to determine our country's future. Obama tends to bounce back from this kind of thing. Let us see if he does so this time.
STATE BLOGS
