The progressive organization True Majority sent out an email today (October 9th) via its listserv. It highlighted True Majority’s support for the award. Here are their reasons as to why Obama deserves it:

1) Obama de-escalated the conflict with Russia by ending Bush’s needless missile defense programs;

2) After years of bluster and military threats from Bush, Obama successfully re-reopened dialogue with Iran, including their nuclear program;

3) In Egypt and Eastern Europe, where Bush’s government was a symbol of tyranny and empire, Obama electrified young people and reformers while pointing the way to a nuclear-free future;

4) And where Bush wanted to begin a new arms race, Obama has begun to bring sanity to the military budget by ending programs like the F-22 and missile defense.

The majority of these reasons are more about disagreeing with George W. Bush’s hawkish, imperialist policies rather than applauding any concrete, peaceful, or anti-imperialist policies of Barack Obama. I also don’t see how “electrifying” populations is a legitimate criteria for the prize. Obamania was months ago; the honeymoon is over. In terms of nuclear de-escalation, that’s great. But many political leaders have paid such lip service while few if any have delivered. And the last reason just doesn’t hold up. The United States of America continues to have the largest military budget in the entire world. It’s not even close: the U.S. accounts for 48% of the world’s total military spending and spends more than the next 45 countries combined.¹ The Obama administration has not come close to denting these figures.

I admit that the election of Obama has definitely shifted the political discourse in the country. It’s now okay to discuss left-of-center ideas and policies without worrying about right-wing “anti-American” sneers. That accounts for the “breath of fresh air” vibe since last November. But other than that, no real change has yet occurred. People’s immediate, everyday lives are not all that different from the Bush years. And that’s just in the U.S. let alone the rest of the world.

I also recognize and appreciate that Obama has engaged in multilateral diplomacy. But isn’t such diplomacy to be expected in our age of democratic governance? I didn’t know that multilateral talk was something extraordinary. If it is, then most elected leaders of the free world deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

In analyzing the evidence, it seems that Obama was given the award for some type of disingenuous reason. At best, I see it as an attempt on the part of the Nobel committee to push Obama toward more peacemaking and to once again comment on the Bush years. Both intentions may seem fine. But I believe that one possible negative consequence of this award is that people will say, Oh, see, Obama is perfect and we (the people) don’t have to push him… he’ll take care of it all on his own. That type of thinking just doesn’t work given the fact that every special interest group pushes every president in a million different ways, and the real wants and needs of everyday people are left out of the discussion. We need to stop patting Obama on the back for something he has not yet accomplished and start directly pressuring his entire administration toward more peaceful ways. That’s the whole point of democracy.

1. The Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.

I have taught college courses in public communication for over ten years. This includes, among other things, public speaking, professional speaking, argumentation and debate, persuasion, performance, rhetorical theory and analysis, and public advocacy. The current candidates would not fair well in my classes. They would no doubt earn points for basic oration, body language, delivery, style, and charisma. But their arguments for and against particular public policies are seriously lacking. How exactly does your tax policy work? Who specifically is affected by your economic vision? What are the concrete details of your health care plan? How can you be sure that congress, corporations, and various industries will endorse and actually pass your legislation? These questions ask the candidates to substantiate their statements and to provide verifiable evidence. Both Obama and McCain have rarely done so. Any decent public communication instructor would address these deficiencies and then provides suggestions for improvement. But let’s be honest. These candidates are no longer students. They are powerful political leaders representing tens and even hundreds of millions of constituencies. They are seeking the most powerful office in the country. As such, they must be held to the highest standard in the land, period.

The candidates are not solely to blame for this crisis of debate. Mass media in general and twenty-hour news channels in particular provide perpetual commentary before and after each debate, placing considerable constraints on what the candidates can and cannot say. A missed cue or simple gaffe can ruin a presidential run. Candidates thus feel obligated to navigate these media landmines rather than sincerely and honestly address the issues. Debate moderators also play a role by rarely pressing for hard, definitive answers. That’s partly due to the ninety-minute time length of the debates, which demands and perpetuates sound-bite syndrome. And long, drawn out primary seasons contribute to the repetitiveness-slogans and talking points are timeworn even before the debates arrive.

We, the American people, must also take some responsibility. This begins with establishing proper criteria for assessing the presidential debates. We all see past the glitz and glam of these Hollywood debates and most of us are tired of it. But what do we actually say when we wage our critiques? How do we actually evaluate and judge the candidates’ performances? What criteria do we use to declare a winner and a loser?

Creating criteria and assessing debates is not as easy as it sounds. In the past weeks I have surveyed pre- and post-debate commentaries from all ends of the political spectrum-left, right, and mainstream sources. All have their own agenda, and that’s fine; every person is biased to some degree and absolute objectivity is a myth died long ago. But the debates are often reduced to issues of presidential temperament, delivery, proper eye contact, candidates’ attractiveness and brand value, one-liners to swing the undecideds, winning by not losing, and simply meeting or even surpassing expectations. Such criteria are fine when joking about halftime Super Bowl commercials, beauty pageants, popularity contests, and reality television shows. But these same criteria do not help us choose the best person for the presidency. Pop-culture entertainment and presidential politics involve different rules of assessment. Below are five criteria I believe worthy of consideration.

First, candidates must directly answer the questions that are asked. An inability or unwillingness to do that means they are either unqualified for or uncommitted to the job. A candidate that does not answer the question should be automatically disqualified from the debate and asked to leave the stage. That would put a stop to the elusive non-answers.

Second, candidates must specify the nature as well as the beneficial and detrimental consequences of each policy. What are the pros and cons of each policy? The candidates must also detail the necessary steps for passing each policy. What is the policy, who does it help and harm, and how will is get passed? And they cannot tell us that it helps everyone and harms no one. That’s simply not true and it’s virtually impossible.

Third, candidates must explain how and why their policies differ from one another, and they must be specific and to the point. What is the exact difference and what is the degree of that difference? If certain policies do not differ, then they must clearly state that and explain why they agree on that particular issue.

Fourth, candidates must refrain from attacking one another’s personal character during the debates. Character assessment is definitely important, but voters must decide for themselves who is more or less credible, likeable, intelligent, trustworthy, and moral. Voters will decide if candidates’ backgrounds qualify or disqualify them from the presidency. It is the job of the voters–and not the candidates–to decide who has the best political and moral judgment.

Fifth, and last, candidates must openly and honestly acknowledge their own political biases at the beginning of each debate. They must describe and explain the political lens by which they approach the issues, the presidency, and the purpose of federal governance. They must explain why they are running as Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, etc.; and they must explain why they consider themselves to be liberal, conservative, or even moderate. They must also explain which sectors of the population will be helped and harmed by their political bias. They cannot claim that everyone will benefit. As of now, every candidate vies for the holy middle ground, as if s/he alone represents the true America. That’s impossible and deceitful. State who you are, clarify your stance, and justify your political worldview while being open and honest. Voters will then choose which political worldview is most suited for addressing the issues of today and the next four years.

Other criteria are both possible and necessary, but these establish a starting point for a sensible and rigorous bar of judgment. We can now confidently determine who won and lost and why. If both candidates happen to pass the test, then great; we can begin discussing why we as individuals side with a particular candidate. If both candidates happen to fail, then so be it. We should not apologize for failing efforts. Acknowledge your candidate’s inadequacy and then pressure the individual to step up and do better. If s/he is unwilling or unable, then it’s time to drop that candidate and choose someone else. But recognize the necessity of honesty. We must stick to the criteria, look in the mirror, and be honest with ourselves and each other. Did my candidate pass the test? If not, then have the courage to say so. Dishonesty on your end enables and even emboldens the dishonesty of the candidates. We want to avoid rather contribute to that problem.

Such issues as delivery, temperament, style, and charisma are absent from the above criteria. That’s because such qualities should be a given at the presidential level. The current fanfare with Barack Obama’s oratorical skills serves as an example. No one can deny that he is a great speaker, but so what? Obama’s eloquence should be the standard, not the exception. Finding powerful, eloquent, and articulate speakers who are politically informed and well-versed in the nuances of public policy should not be difficult in a nation of three-hundred million people. Impassioned, elegant oration is not a bonus; it’s part of the presidential job description.

Establishing these types of criteria is an empowering move-it enables us to demand more from the candidates. Too many of us resign ourselves to some kind of uncontrollable political fate, as if the debates and our democracy must be dismal and deficient. The whole thing is a mess, so why bother, right? No, wrong. We must challenge the candidates to meet rigorous expectations each and every time they speak, argue, defend, explain, and debate. They are seeking our votes. We are electing them to office. We are choosing them, not vice versa. Establish what you feel to be the most proper criteria. Be prepared to explain and defend those criteria to others. Then hold the candidates accountable. That’s a small but powerful strategy for improving the debates, the presidency, and United States democracy.

Many critics frame Wright’s Black Liberation Theology as reverse racism, Black supremacy, anti-Americanism, class resentment, and hatefulness. These remarks grossly distort the Reverend’s views and, more importantly, ignore the hermeneutical principles of his theology. These hermeneutical principles were clarified by Wright during his PBS interview with Bill Moyers (April 25, 2008), his NAACP presentation in Detroit (April 27, 2008), and his National Press Club presentation (April 28, 2008). Hermeneutics, as the study of interpretation, argues that every human being has a different interpretation of the world. This is not to say that everything is relative and thus meaningless. Instead, our individual standpoints affect our worldviews. Each of us is uniquely positioned — but never determined — by our social, cultural, political, economic, religious, racial, sexual, and even physical standpoints. My positioning in the world affects my interpretation of the world. While I can potentially change my standpoint, I can never forgo a standpoint. I forever stand in relationship to the world. This relationship produces an interpretation that is then shared with, and perhaps explained to and even defended before, other human beings. This interpretive principle is addressed by Reverend Wright when he discusses his religious tradition, the tradition of the Black Church, the Black Liberation Theology tradition, the differences among people’s social positions, and the fact that different people see the world through different lenses.

These hermeneutical principles actually align with the American experience of democratic governance: Because each of us sees the world differently, we are called to critically debate policies, structures, institutions, and ways of life. Democratic discussion is about laying our interpretations on the table and deciding which views are most appropriate for today’s purposes. Reverend Wright laid his interpretation on the table and invited dialogue and even ferocious debate. Most people balked at the challenge and chose, instead, to yell, shout, misrepresent, name call, and smear. These responses are not democratic, dialogical, or even argumentative. These responses are examples of emotionally charged mob think.

Wright’s Black Liberation Theology is an interpretation of the world grounded in his experience of being a Black pastor in America. His interpretation is further fleshed out by decades of research, reading, thinking, debate, discussion, and reflection upon himself and his society. We should also acknowledge that Wright holds two master’s degrees, a doctoral degree, and speaks five different languages. Thus, to say that his interpretation is ignorant is simply foolish. Wright is a smart man who has consciously sought to widen, deepen, and most of all justify his interpretation of both the world and America. Reverend Wright’s interpretation thus deserves honest discussion, debate, and analysis. Yes, Wright has made some controversial and potentially offensive statements. But just about any statement can be deemed controversial or offensive when divorced from the larger context. In this case, that larger context is Wright’s overall worldview. That worldview must be considered when addressing Wright’s statements about the events of 9/11, U.S. power structures, social inequalities, and the possibility of the government’s social engineering of Black communities. Our worldviews inform our reasoning processes and thus precede and exceed our isolated comments. Ignoring this fact allows people to render Wright’s statements unreasonable and dismissible. However, when contextualized within his worldview, his statements are very reasonable and worthy of debate. He’s basically saying that American history is filled with unsavory acts and because of that we must hold accountable our politicians, our government, our media, and most of all ourselves and each other.

The majority of Americans are ignoring all of this, focusing, instead, upon decontextualized sound bites. What began as an inquiry into the Wright-Obama relationship has turned into mass avoidance: People are shying from the possibility that Reverend Wright might actually be raising important points about America. But why this avoidance? Why are we ignoring the possibility that Wright’s comments are worthy of debate?

This avoidance plays out on at least three levels — the mass media, Barack Obama, and the American people. At the first level, the media have pretty much created and undoubtedly exacerbated this situation. There’s no doubt that the media have systematically avoided any true engagement with Wright’s ideas. Perhaps media pundits and guest commentators are simply unfamiliar with hermeneutical principles and the importance of contextualizing comments within an individual’s overall worldview. That’s possible, but it’s hard to believe. As mentioned above, Reverend Wright has already addressed the relationship between Black Liberation Theology and interpretation. The media ignored his explanation, period. And generally speaking, media pundits and commentators are intelligent, well trained, and quite familiar with the complexities of statements and contexts. For instance, Bill O’Reilly of FOX News, Lou Dobbs of CNN, and Chris Matthews of MSNBC, combine for three bachelor’s degrees, three master’s degrees, twelve books, numerous awards, in-depth Whitehouse experience, and decades of journalistic knowledge. There’s little chance that they are incapable of understanding—or are unfamiliar with — the hermeneutical principles addressed in this essay. Instead, they ignore and thus delegitimize Wright’s wider interpretation of America.

At the second level, Barack Obama addressed the nation on April 29th, one day after Wright’s National Press Club presentation. Obama unequivocally denounced Reverend Wright, pointing out that Wright’s comments about U.S. involvement with AIDS, about Minister Louis Farrakhan being one of the great voices of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and about U.S. wartime efforts being the same as terrorism are ridiculous and saddening. In one sense, Obama had to make such comments. His campaign would effectively end if he did not. But, taking him for his word, Obama may very well be offended by Wright’s views. That’s fine. But even Obama misrepresented Wright’s words and like above, ignored Wright’s overall worldview. A more accurate account would acknowledge and contextualize what Wright actually said. The following three paragraphs attempt to do that.

For example, Wright said that the U.S. government is capable of injecting AIDS into the Black community. That capability is not just about technological know-how, but about motivation and intent. This statement seems ridiculous at first, but it becomes more possible once we acknowledge, for instance, the history of the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” This study was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932-1972. The government basically tracked the health digression of poor black men infected with syphilis, never informing the men of the nature of their disease and even preventing them from getting alternative and perhaps life saving treatment. The government wanted to see what would happen when syphilis when unchecked. Such an “altruistic” intention brought undo suffering upon completely innocent people. This study is a well-documented historical fact that lends a layer of credibility to the idea that the government is capable of injecting AIDS into the Black community. Yes, it’s a crazy idea, but it is possible.

Likewise, Wright said that Louis Farrakhan is one of the great voices because he is influential within the Black community. When Farrakhan speaks, people listen. Farrakhan is thus important and influential regardless if we agree with him or not. Wright never said that he likes Farrakhan or that he agrees with the Minister’s views. Wright did say, though, that “Farrakhan is not my enemy.” This strategically worded statement suggests that Wright and Farrakhan are political associates for the purpose of advancing the Black community. That’s very different than being personal friends.

Lastly, Wright said that we cannot do terrorism onto others and not expect it to come back onto us. Here, Wright is referring to America’s history of foreign policy, which includes the nuclear bombing of Japan, the embittered Vietnam War, the two-sidedness of the Iran-Contra scandal, the Reagan Administration’s backing of the El Salvadorian government’s atrocities, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Wright’s references are not equating the U.S. government and the likes of al Qaeda. He’s simply stating a basic truism that others treat you the way you treat them. U.S. foreign policy has been quite brutal in many cases. That brutality is bound to come back on us, and it unfortunately did with the events of 9/11. This in no way blames the 9/11 victims, but rather, acknowledges the possible consequences of America’s past (and present) policies. The C.I.A. even has an official term for this: it’s called blowback.

At the last level of this three-tiered analysis, we get the American people. Generally speaking, average Americans are taking their cues from the two sources above (the media and Obama) and repeating the sound bites: that Reverend Wright is a racist; that he’s stuck in the 1960s; that he’s hateful; and that he has nothing important to say. Such comments are problematic since many people have not even seen the entirety of Wright’s interview with Bill Moyers or his NAACP or National Press Club presentations. But of course many people did, and even these folks concentrate on isolated comments while ignoring the wider context of Wright’s ideas. This suggests that people want to focus on the sensationalized and condemnable sound bites. But why would we want to do this? Because it allows us to delegitimize, dismiss, and basically avoid the implications of Wright’s worldview.

This process of avoidance is somewhat sensible since Wright’s worldview directly challenges commonly held American presumptions. For example, many Americans believe that America has always been and will always be inherently benevolent; that capitalism is an honest competition occurring upon an equal playing field; that race and class are minor speed bumps to an individual’s social mobility; that racism is a personal rather than social, cultural, and historical problem; that U.S. governments occasionally falter but are generally altruistic; and that religion is about personal salvation rather than social and political liberation. These presumptions formulate a worldview common to the average America citizen. Reverend Wright’s presumptions formulate a different worldview. We thus have a clash of interpretations. But this clash is going unacknowledged as if there is only one correct or at least one legitimate interpretation of “America.” Reverend Wright is then easily labeled an out of touch, unpatriotic fanatic. This simply spotlights the problem: America is evading any clash of interpretations.

A truly democratic nation seeking to improve itself would invite debate and discussion between these and other competing worldviews, allowing the best interpretation to shine through. The “best interpretation” would be accurate, well-grounded, justified, explained in detail, capable of withstanding intellectual interrogation, and capable of accounting for as many issues as possible. I believe that Reverend Wright’s interpretation meets these criteria. I say this as a White, male, non-theistic heterosexual who is 33 years younger than Wright. I am not Black, Christian, or from the “older generation.” But I do believe America needs changing and I do believe in true democratic debate. Such issues are absent from the national scene. The criteria for evaluating the “best interpretation” are rarely if ever seen within our nation: not within the corporate media’s profit-seeking infotainment glitz and glam; not within the branding of presidential campaigns; and not within everyday conversations, radio call-ins, heated email exchanges, online arguments, or blog posts. It’s almost as if present day America must ignore these criteria, debates, and hermeneutical principles. Acknowledging let alone applying such principles could threaten the very foundation of American society. If people start questioning their interpretation of America, they may just realize that America is due for some serious change. That realization often creates cognitive dissonance, political confusion, and existential anxiety. It is thus easier to evade meaningful debate and to linger within superficial and misplaced shouting matches. Reverend Wright has become the poster child for (misplaced) anti-Americanism when in fact he should be the center piece of self-reflection, democratic discussion, and critical exchange. Embracing these principles is the unspoken call of any true democracy.

The slogan, “Another World is Possible!” probably seems cliché by now. We are all too familiar with this ear-popping phrase and its evocation of local-and-global justice. But is another world really possible? Does this phrase really point to something different? Are we really capable of creating something new, fresh, and exciting? After attending the US Social Forum, I say yes, yes, and yes.

It was on the third day of the Forum when it hit me: this Forum points to something different. But in that moment I also realized something else — that changing the entire world is probably not possible. The world seems too big, too complex, and too far away to change entirely. But creating an alternative world within the already existing world does seem possible. My realization is not really new or original. Plenty of people have made similar arguments throughout the ages: We are capable of creating our own separate world, of creating a fully functioning alternative society, of creating an autonomous community within a larger community. The US Social Forum affirms this possibility and that’s why it was so powerful for me personally. It allowed me to sense the future, to see the alternative, to touch the intangible.

In the span of a few days, thousands of people from across the country came together under a common goal — to discuss the state of the world and strategize for change. But this common goal did not erase or negate our diversity. While we talked, shared, and communicated with one another, we also argued and debated. Forum operations were often criticized, workshops got heated, and one prominent organizer was even cream-pied (for something she allegedly did eight years ago). All this unity/and/friction highlights our individual and collective ties. We are individuals with particular biases, concerns, needs, wants, and visions. But we are also part of a collective, bound together by an inter-communal vision of a better day: a day when the world is no longer controlled by war, profit, competition, occupation, exploitation, narrow minded “isms,” top-down paternalisms, and deeply ingrained fears of a truly open, planetary existence.

The US Social Forum stands in contradistinction to such unpleasantries. We seek to usurp this empire of empires and implant new realities. Sure, we all have our own agendas and our own ideas about the best approach. But there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it seems natural to the human species. Our personal experiences cultivate our personal concerns. But our individual views do not have to compete with one another. We can stand side by side and co-exist peacefully … even as we argue. We can have dialogue and debate. And we can even help one another achieve our goals and dreams. There is political space for all of us.

That’s the message of the US Social Forum: we are capable of creating mutually shared space even as we disagree over the specifics of our politics. Rather than having one world, we can have many worlds. And these many worlds can link up, crisscross, and create networks of people, places, ideas, and ways of life. In doing so, we give birth to a twenty-first century, global alternative. Does this change the whole world entirely? No, not necessarily. But does it create an active, self-creating world of participatory values and agendas? Yes, and this new world can exist (antagonistically) within the already existing world.

The US Social Forum occurred in Atlanta amongst all the capitalism, consumerism, apathy, indifference, and personal and cultural tensions of any major city. But it occurred nonetheless, and successfully so. We came together amidst the world we are against and still affirmed not only our vision but also our ability to create an alternative reality. For five days we systematically practiced our values of open, inclusive, participatory democracy. The Forum was far from perfect. But such imperfection is part of the twenty-first century alternative. We no longer look for a perfect world. Instead, we actively move toward a better world, one in which each individual is given the opportunity to contribute to our collective creation. That was achieved (however imperfectly) in Atlanta.

I realize that my description may suffer from romanticization. But a vision without romance is lifeless, hopeless, and boring. I also realize that my description is not very instructive. What else needs to be done? What more must we do? What’s the next step? Such questions are far too complicated for this brief essay. But I can say this: I know what I experienced and I know that I’m hopeful about the future. In the days and years to come we will understand the US Social Forum as another episode of liberation — Zapatismo, Bolivarianism, the Battle of Seattle, Genoa, the other Forums, etc. We will then understand these brief and fleeting moments as the building blocks of our newly created world of interconnected participatory democracies. We will then realize that the future was already created and it only took time for it to become reality.

At the most basic level, the Summer of Love has been reduced to a corporate brand experience. That wasn’t always the case. The real Summer of Love was a time of profound self-exploration and serious political upheaval. We don’t get that nowadays. Instead, we get patchworks of long hair, tie-dyes, and flowers; loose comedic references to promiscuous sex and pot use; and cheap renditions of Hendrix tunes. Such decontextualized distortions don’t really jive with the historicity of that era. Long hair was a visible and defiant commitment to political change. Tie dies (as well as self-made bell bottoms, beads, and moccasins) were a withdrawal from mass produced fashion industries. Flower power was a direct response to the American war machine. And sex, drugs, and Rock n’ Roll were all out assaults on the cultural infrastructure. Simply put, the Hippies were revolutionaries and the Summer of Love was about existential politicalization. This didn’t apply to everyone of the “60’s Generation,” of course. Many people—both young and old—hated the Hippies. And many self-acclaimed Hippies simply followed a catchy trend. But however heterogeneous the times and motivations were, the Summer of Love is not reducible to beer advertisements, bad cover bands, and watered-down versions of the musical, “Hair.”

While all of this is problematic by itself, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Our hyper-consumerist society suffers from commodity equivalence—everything is commodified, with all commodities sitting along a horizontal plane of equality. A commodity is a commodity is a commodity. All products, brands, objects, and gadgets are the same, period. This applies to the Summer of Love, too. Our famed Summer of ‘67 has become one more product among others. It is no better and no worse than Coca-Cola or Evian or the latest episode of America’s Top Model. Such commodification not only contradicts the ethos of that era, but converts the Age of Aquarius into an Age of Alienation. (Long live Flower Power . . . for only $19.95!)

While the Summer of Love may suffer from commodity equivalence, it is still “valuable” to some degree. That’s because each commodity is imbued with a different value status: a Saturn is not a Hummer, a Walkman is not an I-Pod, a Dunkin’ Donuts is not a Starbucks, a Natty Light is not a Coors Light, Fruit of the Loom is not Abercrombie and Fitch, and faucet water is not All Natural Artesian Fiji Water. This logic of differentiation is most applicable to the Summer of Love: this year’s reunions and festivals are not exactly trips to Paris or the Bahamas, but they’re better than our annual town folk festivals and boring summer parades.

But this whole commodity value is quite peculiar. The Summer of Love’s value (as nostalgia, as remembrance, as festival) is dependent upon its non-revolutionary aspect. In other words, we must extract its revolutionary content for it to be valuable. Celebrating the true revolutionary spirit of the Summer of Love would not only diminish its socially perceived value but also undercut the whole commodity-exchange infrastructure. This is quite interesting since the Summer of Love’s historical importance originates with its revolutionary aspect. No one remembers the Winter of ‘65 or the Spring of ‘51 or the Fall of ‘78. Why? Because nothing happened during those time periods. But we do remember the Summer of ‘67 and that’s because it was a revolutionary moment. But its commodification renders that a moot point, allowing us to forget its revolutionary origin. These are strange days indeed, but so goes our contemporary consumerism.

All this circles back around to our current times. Reducing the Summer of Love to a family vacation branding experience hinders our collective ability to conceive of and execute political action today. Look at our contemporary landscape: same-sex marriage, immigration rights, climate change, ever-increasing oil prices, evolution vs. intelligent design, global inequalities, Bill O’Reilly as the no spin guy, torture by the U.S. military, woeful Katrina neglect, soaring health care costs, under-funded education, the demonization of Rosie O’Donnell and the Dixie Chicks, rightwing witch hunts for liberal professors, ever-so forgetful attorney generals, the outing of C.I.A. agents, liberals then defending C.I.A. agents, hard-headed Republicans, squeamish Democrats, and of course a multi-billion dollar illegitimate war propagated as a necessary effect of 9/11. These are major issues worth fighting over. Lines can and should be drawn; rebellions can and should be occurring. A revolution—of some sorts, of any sorts—would not be out of line. But what are we witnessing instead? Not much. Calls to action are commonly received with “let’s wait until the next election” or “everyone’s entitled to their own opinion” or “what should I do, march in the streets?” Now some of us—particularly many readers of this piece—do actively engage our world. But that’s the exception rather than the rule. We’re quite a long way off from the Hippies, Yippies, Panthers, and Weather Underground!

But we shouldn’t be wallowing in the rebellious days of yesteryear. Instead, let’s recognize what’s going on: We have fallen into a drastic age of ambivalence. We feel damned if we do and damned if we don’t, so what’s the point? This dominant logic of the day renders us indifferent, removing us from our own will to political action. To be fair, neither mass commodification nor the Summer of Love is solely to blame for our days of indifference. Complex factors are abound—the unchallenged rise of global capital, severe media consolidation, advanced marketing strategies, sophisticated information technologies, the equivocation of electoral politics with big money fundraising and cults of personality, diminishment of civil outlets, and a comfortable compliance with hyper-consumerism are only a few of the many factors. But we must be fair on the other end too, and realize that the Summer of Love is not an innocent bystander; it too inscribes and re-inscribes our age of ambivalence. It’s not that we have simply forgotten the “true meaning” of that revolutionary summer; instead, it’s that we have not forgotten it enough. It has remained around and hung on like the overly drunk guy at the holiday party. Just be gone already! Leave us alone! You’re annoying, damn it! There’s no redemption for the clingy drunk guy or the Summer of Love. Rather than trying to recover that famed Summer we must forget it, completely. We must let it die and fade away, having it never return again, ever. And in its place we can hopefully remember something else, something more useful and contemporary: the Summer of Revolution, 2007.